Talk:Wedge strategy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV tag

It seems my concerns remain about this, despite attempts to shut down discussion. I think an RFC is appropriate and so will call for one. MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Hrafn and others, I too think your concerns are misplaced; but if you really want an RfC ... bobrayner (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, given that they've raised no substantive NPOV issue, neither WP:NPOVN (which normally would be the first resort) nor an RFC is appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's the word "religious" that's at issue, I have already suggested that they should take it to WP:ORN, if they seriously think they have an issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I appear to be, perhaps mistakenly, a lone voice arguing that this article does not satisfy WP:NPOV. I have requested input from others to comment as a way of either shifting the article toward a more neutral tone or as a means for me to better understand what I am missing in thinking it is not NPOV. MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to POV tag on Wedge Straegy article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps as is evident from the shambles above, even this WP:RFC is in dispute! I would encourage editors unfamiliar with the article to contrast the impression conveyed by this article and that of the organisation at the centre of the issue: http://www.discovery.org/about.php - not to say that these should necessarily match, but in my assessment there is very little airplay given to 'the other side'. It is, I think, worth pointing out that this is an article about society, politics, and maybe religion/philosophy, but it strikes me as a considerable stretch to be considered part of the WP maths, science & technology project. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• What is "evident" is that (i) you have raised no specific NPOV issue for discussion & (ii) you are woefully ill-informed as to WP:WEIGHT, WP:GEVAL & WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused... why was the RFC called? Is it because of the "Intelligent design is the religious belief..." bit? -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently. No substatial and substantiated reason has ever been given. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• RfC issue needs to be restated - The purpose of an RfC is to get uninvolved editors to contribute their thoughts. The first statement after the RfC notice should be a brief, neutral statement of the issue. Ideally, it should be phrased as a yes/no question, but it doesn't have to be. As the RfC is written now, it seems to be aimed at those already involved in the discussion, the insiders. Please re-word the RfC issue (above) so uninvolved editors can respond. --Noleander (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

... also: if this is primarily a POV dispute, a better way to get input may be a notice at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, because the editors there tend to be experienced in POV policies, vs RfCs which are more aimed at content (sourcing, etc) disputes. --Noleander (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the first half of the article and skimmed the second half, and I didn't see any glaring POV problems...what specifically is the problem? -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Given that MissionNPOVible (i) has raised no substantive NPOV issue, (ii) has edit-warred to to insert a spurious {{POV}} tag on this article & (iii) has disrupted this talkpage by creating numerous spurious threads, I would like to formally propose that MissionNPOVible be WP:TOPICBANned from this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well at least that would save you reverting all my edits and hiding my discussions on the talk page! :-) However, joking aside, I think it best to keep this RFC focussed on the NPOV issue Hrafn. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that said reverted edits & "discussions" are simply your complaints (which are themselves a violation of WP:TALK) about the fact that others are attempting to put a stop to your endless WP:DEADHORSEing, I don't think we'll miss them. Given that you've raised no substantive NPOV issue, there seems in all seeriousness nothing left to discuss except your topic ban. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but I doubt this is the best forum to discuss that. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC's

As an uninvolved editor (but not an admin), I have taken the liberty to close the requests for comment without prejudice to any of the parties involved: the exact nature of the comment wanted from RfC participants has not been described, and nothing productive looks like it will come from the RfC process in this case. Instead, I'd suggest that NPOV issues be raised on the NPOV noticeboard. Please report any user conduct issues to WP:ANI. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, good call. Thanks for the suggestion. MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

use of corrected quote vs uncorrected

It seems quite unnecessary to use an uncorrected version of a quote in a WP article instead of the corrected one for the trivial thrill of using (sic). There are surely enough POV issues without having to scrape the bottom of the barrel. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"It seems quite" inaccurate to claim that you "fixed innaccurate quote", when the original was accurate. It likewise seems unnecessary to butcher the quote: "Conspiracy theorists in the media...recycl[ing] the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document", when it is perfectly simple to mold language to accommodate the unbutchered version. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What you seem to think is butchery was my attempt at removing POV expose-style writing. Nevertheless, I appreciate you adjusting the quote and removing (sic). MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How does unnecessarily removing "continue to", and changing the tense, 'remove POV expose-style writing'? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is still clunky. I've tried to highlight the issue below: the verb portraying must belong to the subject, "the institute" but comes across as if the subject were "Conspiracy theorists in the media". In other words, the institute is both saying and portraying, while the conspiracy theorists only continue to recycle. Who is doing what here is not extremely clear:

“ Though Discovery Institute co-founder and CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer eventually acknowledged the institute is the source of the document, the institute still seeks to downplay its significance, saying "Conspiracy theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document" and portraying the scientific community's reaction to the Wedge document as driven by "Darwinist Paranoia." ”

Perhaps we could break this up into two sentences:

“ Though Discovery Institute co-founder and CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer eventually acknowledged the institute is the source of the document, the institute still seeks to downplay its significance, saying "Conspiracy theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document." and> The institute additionally portrays the scientific community's reaction to the Wedge document as driven by "Darwinist Paranoia." ”

Anyway, just some thoughts. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just break it into three independent sentences:

"Discovery Institute co-founder and CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer eventually acknowledged the Institute is the source of the document. The Institute still seeks to downplay its significance, saying "Conspiracy theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document." The Institute also portrays the scientific community's reaction to the Wedge document as driven by "Darwinist Paranoia." Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What neutral contribution does the phrase "eventually acknowledged" make compared to just "acknowledged"? What neutral contribution does "still seeks to downplay" make compared to "characterise it as"? What neutral contribution does "portrays" make compared to "describes"? MissionNPOVible (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A factual contribution -- that it was only 4 years later that they acknowledged it ("In fall 2002, DI belatedly admitted owning the document—a year after publication of an article by one of us citing identical wording on an early DI website." -- Creationism's Trojan Horse, p26). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If timing is an important point it should be explained, not used in a partisan way. What about the others?MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

They are in accord with what the reliable secondary sources report. I suggest you read up on the topic using the reliable secondary sources cited in the article instead of relying on your imagination.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Familiarity with sources is no excuse for violating WP:NPOV. Reporting sources accurately is not the same thing as stating one side of a disagreement as fact. WP articles should be written as an independent report, not as if WP is a mouthpiece that parrots the conclusions or contentions of participants. I suggest you worry less about my imagination and more about making this article neutral. MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Odd quotes and one odd sentence in the lede

Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a redefining of science and how it is conducted.

This is a loaded one... :/ I might have left at Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a reworking of some parts of science. but that would not convey much useful information. The quoted single words give the lede a slightly sarcastic tone (I have never seen them used for anything else.) I hope no one is offended by either of these modifications. (Also, I noticed this article site sources from both sides of the debate, always a good thing when neutral sources (apparently) don't exist.) PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S., If someone can source that sentence please add it back.

This material is supported by the claims that Johnson (and other ID advocates) makes about theistic science/theistic realism (and secondary source analysis thereof), which he states is "the defining concept" of the IDM. It is proposing science be changed to allow it to be informed by supernatural revelation and/or to include the occasional supernatural explanation -- "a redefining of science and how it is conducted" by any reasonable definition. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I see you have made a link to the relevant article, which certainly clears things up quite a bit. I have also noticed that lots of quotations seems to be more or less typical of this type of article, but not single quoted words like in this one. I may decide to be bold again and remove the quotes around single words if nobody responds to this for a couple days. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Johnson uses words to mean what he wants them to mean, not the standard meaning, or uses them in a narrow philosophical sense in a way that obscures his intent. Thus he objects to Naturalism (philosophy) including the Naturalism (philosophy)#Methodological naturalism inherent in science. He conflates it with atheism, which he calls Materialism, in order to promote his own belief that science should acknowledge and accept supernatural explanations. Removing the "quotes" would be incorrect and misleading, rephrasing the lead to avoid them could be possible; more links could also help. . . dave souza, talk 08:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I made a bunch of edits, here is an overview of them. I found a source to a quote in the overview section that was minorly different from the article text so I modified the quote to match. I removed quotes around social consequences as it seams to be a well defined phrase in scholarly circles and the usage seams correct. The usage of the word reformation in the overview is standard so I removed the quotes. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reformation I also did some rewording and made lots of minor edits.

This section requires further prose cleanup. I'll do that after I get some feedback on this. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here[1] is a useful resource on using quotes, I strongly suggest you read over it when you get the time. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Unduly self-serving"

WP:ABOUTSELF specifically requires that material based upon self-published sources must not be "unduly self-serving". Can anybody claim that the following is not completely self-serving:

Not since the 1960's, when the Council on Foreign Relations was called a communist front by the John Birch Society, has a think tank inspired such obsessive interest in its unreasonable foes.

It states that the original document was only a fundraising proposal, and criticizes its opponents for what it believes are baseless accusations.

We think the materialist world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the 19th century is false and we want to refute it.

This material also violates the prohibition against comments about third-parties based upon self-published sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the Discovery Institute's Wedge strategy, so presenting their side is not "unduly self serving". I looked at the text addition you deleted, and I think it could be shortened, but I think it's ok to include the substance of it. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The material is out of context and its date is not shown: the citation was to this page which doesn't contain the quoted text, but links to this download for a pdf including at least some of the text, and says "All originally published in July 2005". That should be shown in the context of the run-up to the Kitzmiller trial, the discussion of the Wedge Strategy during the trial, and the trial decision. Thus both the "Future" section and this "Defense" section should be incorporated into "Movement and strategy", possibly as subsections, coming before the "Kitzmiller" paragraph which itself could usefully be expanded as a section or subsection. . . dave souza, talk 07:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dave: the links you provide gives a document created and last modified in 2004 (according to its 'document properties'), by John West. I can find no mention of 2005 in it. I therefore have a hard time seeing the Dover connection. 07:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the "All originally published in July 2005" is a note on the webpage, not in the pdf itself. I would tend to trust the latter, YMMV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This is particularly true as the other part of the linked-to "all" explicitly states its date to be "February 3, 2006". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My error, the web page actually links to that particular document with "Click here to read the Discovery Institute response to charges regarding the "Wedge" document, as well as seeing the exact original document in question. (Originally published in 2003)" which also conflicts with the "document properties", see below... dave souza, talk 09:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The fact that it is a "defense" of their own Wedge Strategy does not prevent it from being "unduly self-serving" -- many individuals and groups, when forced to defend their own words or actions, come up with "self-serving" defences of them.
2. The fact that their claims appear to be simply unsubstantiated rhetoric reinforces the perception that they are self-serving.
3. Also the fact that this 'defense' is actually largely defense-by-attacking-everybody else (and thus runs afoul of 'it does not involve claims about third parties' & 'it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source'), rather than simply describing their own actions, needs to be addressed.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Dave may have a good point about some problems with the source material. Again, however, I disagree with you on the "unduly self-serving" rationale about not including the material. Of course the Discovery Institute is going to be self-serving when they defend their ideas, projects, and initiatives. Why wouldn't they be? It's their strategy, isn't it? All we need to do to prevent it from being "unduly" so is to make sure the weight we give it in the article isn't undue. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the self-servingness of argumentation that is based upon empty rhetoric, as opposed to an argument based upon facts, is 'undue'. Also, you have failed to account for the fact that their commentary goes well beyond "events ... directly related to the source" to comparing their "foes" to the John Birch Society and offering partisan commentary on the entirety of "Western intellectual life since the 19th century". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, this "defense" document was raised in cross-examination of Barbara Forrest during Kitzmiller,[2] in an attempt to claim that her statement to the court, based on her book on the Wedge Strategy, did not cite this defense document. Evidently this was a response to her book, which we should show as context, and it may well have been discussed in further testimony and cross-examination. Something to examine. . dave souza, talk 07:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Page number? This is a 150-page transcript. Incidentally, the So What document (2004) also appears to predate CTH (2005), so I find it hard to believe that it's "a response to her book". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Page 42, it would seem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

P. 42 Barbara Forrest answers questions from Muise "Q. Now, in your report you rely heavily on this so-called Wedge Document. Yet you do not rely on Discover Institute's statement in a document that they drafted called The Wedge Document: So What?, which explain the genesis and the nature of the purpose of the Wedge Document, is that accurate? A. That document was drawn up after my book was published." The CTH press release says "Publication Date: January 9, 2004" so it's plausible. Perhaps the Disco claim of 2003 relates to an earlier version responding to her essay The Wedge at Work in the 2001 Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, or perhaps they're misrepresenting the date, as the doc properties info suggests. . dave souza, talk 09:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
More charitably, the press release includes reviews, presumably based on pre-publication review copies of the book: possibly the DI heard about it and prepared a rebuttal at the end of 2003. . dave souza, talk 09:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all quite simple really, an untrustworthy self published source is fine for the publisher's own opinion, but it is not fine for anything else (e.g., past actions of itself or another entity, or another entity's opinions). Bottom line: there is no source so disreputable that it cannot be trusted for its own opinions, imho. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. The DI has a long-standing tradition of misrepresenting itself, its motives and its activities. I don't think it can be considered a reliable source about anything at all besides non-controversial mundane matters like organizational structure, conference dates, and the like. I don't see anything of encyclopedic value in the "Defense" section that Hrafn deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"an untrustworthy self published source is fine for the publisher's own opinion"

I have made this point before, but as PatheticCopyEditor seems to have missed it, I will make this point in its own sub-thread. Per WP:ABOUTSELF:

• A WP:SPS is NOT "fine for the publisher's own opinion" on "third parties"
• A WP:SPS is NOT "fine for the publisher's own opinion" on "events not directly related to the source{{citation}}"

Much of the material in the 'Defense' section fell under these prohibitions. (This is on top of agreeing with DV on the DI's general penchant for misrepresentation, to which I would also add artful equivocation and contextomy.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's fine; it just needs appropriate framing and a citation. Something like: according to its web site, the XYZ believes that dinosaurs were removed from the Earth by flying saucers."[cite] -- 202.124.74.81 (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither the dinosaurs nor the flying saucers are third parties in relation to BLP requirements: allegations about living persons need a much better source. There's also the question of significance and showing the majority view of these third party claims, both of which require third party sources per WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. . . dave souza, talk 11:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please point to where in WP:ABOUTSELF this 'opinion' exception is contained -- because it's a mile-wide exception -- 'according to journalist Phoaming Lune of the WND (as stated on their website), he believes that Barack Obama sacrifices babies in satanic orgies'. Simply saying that this is what the self-published source believes does not get you around WP:ABOUTSELF (because if it did, it would completely gut that policy). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Read this carefully:

• the material is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Does it have the word opinion in it? It mentions claims but not opinions. My previous statement does not "gut" the policy of anything but the meaning your are attempting to read into it.

This quote sums up the difference between claims and opinion that I am trying to get across: "In other words, making a negative statement about another person is not defamation unless the statement is false and represents something as a fact (for example, 'Vladik cheats on his taxes') rather than a personal opinion (for example, 'Vladik is a jerk')." (See ref 1 in defamation, an article you should read.)

Anyhow, my previous assertion stands, supported by common sense and Wikipedia policy. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My point was that your 'opinions are fine' comment has no basis in WP:ABOUT. The problem is just as much for positive/non-libelous statements as negative ones -- 'according to journalist Phoaming Lune of the WND (as stated on their website), he believes that Rick Santorum is a hero who saved several babies from burning buildings' would likewise be accepted by your comment, but rejected by WP:ABOUT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is, firstly, that there is a huge difference between an article stating that: "Foaming Lunatic has said that: 'Rick Santorum is a hero who saved several babies from burning buildings'" and that: "Rick Santorum has saved several babies from burning buildings." The first would be perfectly fine for the Foaming Lunatic article (the fact that it is false does not inherently detract from its importance), the second would be totally unacceptable for anything. And, secondly, that WP:ABOUTSELF does not contradict me (in fact, it does not even mention what we are talking about.) I do not really understand what you object to about this. The fact that you can come up with a situation in which (potentially) unneeded quotes can be thrown out by assuming WP:ABOUTSELF applies to quotes of the publisher's* does not seem to make any difference.

Maybe this will make my point clearer; imagine that one was editing the Michael Savage article and could find a self published source of his stating that: "Rick Santorum has saved several babies from burning buildings", I cannot imagine any objection that could be made to the quote's inclusion as a quote. The fact that Savage may not be the most reliable source in the world for other information is beside the point, if you want to know what someone thinks ask them, not a third party.

And finally about WP:SELFPUB. The SELFPUB policy says nothing about this because nothing need be said, it's obvious. WP:SELFPUB is instead concerned with information that there might be some reason for someone to lie about, "themselves or their activities", it would take an extremely clever devil to find a reason to lie about their own opinion! PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

*The authenticity bit obviously still applies to anything.

PatheticCopyEditor, you seem to be promoting your own views of a primary source which needs to be put in the context of majority expert views, verified from reliable secondary sources. It isn't significant that the DI has once again made claims and arguments, and the fact that these arguments are spurious and very deceptive for the unwary emphasises the need for due weight. To show their significance, if any, we need a reliable third party source which analyses and comments on these specific arguments. As for telling lies about their own opinions, they've done that since the first cdesign proponentsists . dave souza, talk 20:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, we were discussing verifiability as it applied to some quotes, the relevancy of the quotes was not even in question. I was arguing that the quotes were verifiable under Wikipedia policy as quotes. I was "promoting" no views on the source other than its origin, which I hope we all agree on. Your arguments about the quotes notability/due weight are valid however; unless some reliable third party comment was made on the arguments contained in The "Wedge document": "So what?" it is probably only deserving of a sentence like: "The Discovery Institute published a rebuttal of some of the claims regarding the Wedge Document entitled: The "Wedge Document": "So what?"." (The thing is obviously a rebuttal, but let's not argue about that!) Saying that the Discovery Institute people rebranding their views as "Intelligent Design" constitutes lying about their own opinions makes only limited sense, as the example you referenced clearly illustrates. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Here is an excerpt from the Of Pandas and People article:

Mark Perakh has written that he believes Dembski and his associates at the Discovery Institute are deceitfully manipulating the Amazon.com review system to promote their own work and denigrate the work of their adversaries.

This seams to be exactly the sort of thing Hrafn objects to. I think it is fine, the fact that it was published by a somewhat obscure source with a self admitted POV on the matter is totaly irrelevant as long as its authenticity is not in doubt because it is presented as a hunch of the author's! PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

PatheticCopyEditor: it is you who needs to read WP:ABOUTSELF more carefully. For example:

• "it does not involve claims about third parties;" Please note:
  • This does not state "it does not involve claims made in Wikipedia's voice about third parties;" Therefore this restriction applies whether the claim is made in Wikipedia's voice or the claimant's.
  • This does not state "it does not involve claims, except where the claim is expressed as an opinion, about third parties;" Therefore this restriction applies to claims expressed as an opinion -- and (almost without exception) opinions are claims.

The policy therefore applies regardless of whose voice the claim is made in, and whether the claim is expressed as an opinion.

• Additionally, I would point out that WP:SELFPUB is not just to rule out lying -- it is also there to rule out non-expert and extremist claims (including opinions) except where they have a degree of personal expertise (i.e. about themselves and their own activities).
• As to Mark Perakh, he is both an experienced academic scientist and a published author on creationism (Perakh, Mark (2004). Unintelligent design. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1591020840.), which probably makes him a "self-published expert source" on this topic per WP:SPS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Remeber that we were discussing verifiability? When a quote is included in an article, you must verify that it was said by the person you are attributing it to, what they said does not have to be true, it does not have to be supported by a reliable third party source, it does not even have to be verifiable at all, but it should be relevant! The quote I mentioned is a good example of this. Mark Perakh is not an expert in anything directly related to subverting the Amazon book ranking system (so out with self published expert source), his quote is self-serving[3], it involves claims about third parties, it is not directly related to him, and it is self published. I do not see how this example can be reconciled to your interpretation of WP:QS.

I will try to explain verifiability:

• A quote is verifiable if can be verified to have been said by the person it is attributed too. (This is a tautology, btw.) In other words, the attributee saying x must be verifiable, the content of x does not need to be (I can provided an almost endless stream of quotes whose content is not verifiable from other articles if you haven't yet noticed this).
• Information is verifiable if it is supported by a reliable third party source, the necessary degree of reliability is determined by the nature of the claim OR if it is supported by a self published source directly related to the information that has no good reason to lie. (Note that the attribution of a quote must be verified in this manner.)

This is all obvious, I have explained it several times now with varying degrees of clarity. If you still don't see why merely verifying that someone said something is sufficient to verify that they said it, we need to get the opinion of other editors on this topic. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Read this:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for cting contentious claims about third parties.

Note that it says that: "Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves," a quote from a WP:QS falls under this category. The policy is very clear on this matter. (Also note that this is applicable to the Perakh article, it is fine for the Wikipedia article to mention his opinion and cite it with the Talk Reason article, but it would be unacceptable to use the Talk Reason article as a citation for such a claim in Wikipedia.) PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The source can't be used because it is self-published, unduly self-serving promotional material. Using it here is essentially spamming. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

See citerion 1 of WP:ABOUTSELF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I just explained with painful care why it isn't violating any requirement of verifiability. Looking over the last section would probably be helpful. I think this subject needs a third opinion from a disinterested editor. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion applies only when there are only two editors involved in a dispute. It doesn't apply because you already have three opinions from other editors, Hrafn, Dave and I. I'm reverting because you've reverted against clear consensus. In spite of your claim to have "explained with painful care why it isn't violating any requirement of verifiability", you did not address the key issue here: that it is unduly self-serving promotional material, devoid of any relaible information. All the more so as the source has a long-standing reputation for deception, including blatant lying about themselves and their motives. Anything published by the DI should be treated with extreme prejudice. "Guilty until proven innocent" applies in spades, especially when they are defending themselves after being exposed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, a disinterested editor, since there are more than two of us. Please read over the past discussion and, to reiterate, if you still don't see why merely verifying that someone said something is sufficient to verify that they said it, we need to get the opinion of other editors on this topic. (Note that this discussion is purely to determine the verifiability of the information in question, due weight would probably be a sentence mentioning that it exists and perhaps an overview, if one could be found.) "Guilty until proven innocent" is a bad way to put it, already proven guilty is probably what you want. Extreme prejudice is not in order, just due caution since DI's reliability is quite dubious. But bear in mind that NO ONE has questioned the SOURCE of The "Wedge Document": "So What?", it definitely cam from DI, so when you say: "DI says: 'Not since the 1960's, when the Council on Foreign Relations was called a communist front by the John Birch Society, has a think tank inspired such obsessive interest in its unreasonable foes.' " what you said is verifiable! it came from DI and you said it came from DI! blast due weight and everything else! we are talking about verfiability! PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Bear in mind that consensus can change, and that Hrafn had been inactive for the better part of a month and that dave had not responded for longer. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether we can prove that these statement come from the DI is completely immaterial here, and has nothing to do with whether we can use them or not. What is important is that they are self-published, patently self-serving, and pertain to third parties. WP is not a forum in which the DI is allowed to "defend themselves". If you want other opinions, try WP:POVN or WP:FTN. If you want Hrafn's or Dave's input, you can contact them on their talk pages. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note, CopyEd, that the consensus WP is concerned with right now not the one it will change into, but the one that is currently the consensus (assuming there is one). Wekn reven 13:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I can't find either quote in the source cited. Am I missing something? Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance of this issue, but is the questionable part of this attempted change only the first quotation ("Not since the 1960s, ...")? I agree that this quotation is unduly self-serving and irrelevant, but I don't see a problem with the other two quotations, as they seem obvious and pertinent to an article on the Wedge Strategy. In fact, the last quotation appears to be redundant due to its inclusion in other parts of the article (see the lead and "Overview" sections for two immediate examples). I see no problem with reporting that the DI claims the Wedge Strategy was merely a fundraising proposal, but most of the other text ought to be removed/reworked. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, I'm saying that: "DI says: 'X, Y, and Z' " is verifiable and that: "X, Y, and Z (DI pub, pg. W)" is almost certainly not (Assuming that "X, Y, and Z" is taken from some publication of DI's). Don't you see the distinction?

For example:

DI says: "Not since the 1960's..."

Not since the 1960's...

The first is obviously verifiable, DI definitely said that, and the second is obviously not by basically all the points of WP:QS.

Wekn, when I said consensus can change I was referring to the state of the discussion as of February 18, at which point both dave and Hrafn had ceased discussing the issue for the better part of a month, I made a final statement and re-added the material hoping that I had convinced them that the material was indeed verifiable, or at least that it would get them to address the point of are disagreement, how verifiability applies to quotes in an article.

Just for the record, this material was added on April 18, 2005 by VanishedUser314159, not by me.

Guettarda, the quote is taken from the third paragraph. My browser messes up searching the PDF, maybe you are having similar issues (I can't copy from it either).

And finally, if we can't sort out the verifiability disagreement soon we may want to bring this to the policy Village Pump. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And what about reworking the text entirely, addressing the problems I mentioned earlier? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that verifiability is the threshold for inclusion and is necessary but not sufficient. We can verify that someone said X, sure, but that per se is not sufficient reason for inclusion. Also, while WP:SILENCE can sometimes be interpreted as consensus forming, sometimes people just get bored with talking about the same points over and over and I believe that is what has happened here. N^oformation ^Talk 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

MisterDub, go ahead and do what you think is best, my opinion has not changed: "due weight would probably be a sentence mentioning that it exists and perhaps an overview, if one could be found." (The third paragraph would probably do nicely.) I have been accused of renewing the material against consensus and I intend to proceed with caution.

Noformation, we are in violent agreement! _{(Also, I took the liberty of indenting your post.)}

PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

PatheticCopyEditor, if I was a more stand-up fellow, I would do that; however, I am honestly not interested enough in the inclusion of this material to draft a new version. I was merely trying to find common ground so we didn't go back and forth with an all-or-nothing mentality. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on this revision:

The wedge strategy received attention from groups opposed to the intelligent design movement, as the document advocates a wide-ranging strategy for promoting politically conservative ideas not directly pertaining to intelligent design. In response, the Discovery Institute published a document entitled The "Wedge Document: So What?" to defuse many of the claims stating:

It states that the original document was a fundraising proposal, and criticizes its opponents for what it believes are baseless accusations. It claims the wedge strategy is in opposition to the dominant a priori philosophy and supports 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. As our not-so-secret document put it, "without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."

The last quote from the previous version is overly redundant as MisterDub mentioned.

Those who have objected to this material so far have stated that it is not verifiable. I mentioned before that I was not attempting to discuss the material's due weight. However, I am assuming that the verifiability discussion is concluded. If any one objects to this conclusion please say so. (I really hope we have finished hashing over WP:QS.) PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, I think it's pretty good. I have some ideas to remove some possibly POV language and correct grammar:

“ The wedge strategy received attention from groups opposed to the intelligent design movement a lot of criticism, as the document advocates a wide-ranging strategy for promoting politically conservative ideas not directly pertaining to intelligent design. In response, the Discovery Institute published a document entitled The "Wedge Document": "So What?" to defuse many of the claims. It states that the original document was a fundraising proposal, and criticizes its opponents for what it believes are baseless accusations. It claims the wedge strategy is in opposition to the dominant a priori philosophy and supports 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." As our not-so-secret document put it The document also states that "without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade." ”

I'm still not sure about that last sentence or two. The grammar just bugs me because, in the original, we have a clause ending with a colon, a quotation spanning two sentences, and the second sentence beginning with the DI's voice ("As our not-so-secret document..."). I'd suggest ending the quote after the first sentence, then introducing the second one without the DI's voice. Perhaps something like, "It continues..." or "The document also states that..." (which I added above)? What are your thoughts? And thanks for your work! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the more I read it, I don't see a reason to include that first sentence at all. We could simply start the paragraph with, "The Discovery Institute published a document... to defuse many of the criticisms directed toward the Wedge Strategy." Any thoughts on this? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That last one was rather quick:

...defuse many of the claims stating:

It states that...

Hopefully this is a bit more thorough:

The wedge strategy was heavily (widely?) criticized for its wide-ranging strategy for promoting politically conservative ideas not directly pertaining to intelligent design. The Discovery Institute responded by publishing The "Wedge Document: So What?" to defuse many of the claims.

It states that the original document was a fundraising proposal. It also states that the wedge strategy opposes the dominant a priori philosophy and supports the interpretive freedom of scientists. It describes the goal of the strategy as: "influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate." Citing that the wedge document had said: "without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."

I have split the last quote, which gets rid of the not-so-secret bit. I really don't care about the first sentence.

I am still a bit apprehensive about the current state of consensus on this material's verifiability. Dominus, dave, and hrafn have not stated their agreement. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. That sounds like pure apologetics from the DI point of view. And no, "Wedge Document: So What?" is not a reliable source because it's the pathetic wheedling and weaseling of a bunch of direputable frauds who had been caught red-handed lying to the public about themselves and their own motives. If we describe it at all, we describe it based on what reliable independent sources have to say about it, not what the DI says about it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A good point. If this response is significant enough to be given any weight at all, it will have been discussed in reliable third party sources giving majority expert views on the topic. Repeating these DI claims out of mainstream context gives undue weight to a very questionable source. . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's also original research based solely on a primary source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine to use the source to give the DI's side in the interest of NPOV. By the way, Dominus, describing the document's authors as "a bunch of direputable frauds who had been caught red-handed lying to the public" is likely a violation of WP's BLP policy and also isn't very helpful for this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPGROUP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem: the text sounds incredibly benign to me. I understand there is the issue that the DI is a disingenuous entity, but there aren't any extraordinary claims needing citation here. It is well known through secondary sources that the DI wishes to challenge what it sees as the dominant, materialistic philosophy in science, and their statements regarding scholarship are rather ironic considering they haven't had a research program subjected to scientific scrutiny. We could certainly add this fact if it would resolve any due weight issues. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 02:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Benign or not, it is still OR based on a highly unreliable primary source. There is no way to assign weight to the document as a whole or its individual arguments without reliable independent secondary sources. WP is not here to provide the DI with a platform from which it can defend itself in its own words. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If I understand right, Dominus, you're saying that, although this article addresses what is considered to be a strategy or idea from the Discovery Institute (DI), "Wikipedia" cannot present DI's side on the issue in their own words. Do I understand that right? Cla68 (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. We present any debate as it is presented in reliable independent sources. We do not construct our own version of the debate based on our interpretation of primary sources. That would be OR and SYNTH. If we discuss the "Wedge Document, So what?" source at all, we describe it as it is described in reliable independent sources, using the document itself to supplement that description, at best. Read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, the Intelligent Design article, which is featured, uses the Discovery Institute as a source in the very first citation. Cla68 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it's used correctly and in accordance with the policies. That has nothing to do with the situation here, though. Per WP:FRINGE: "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse." Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing fairness and NPOV with giving equal validity. See [WP:GEVAL]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does not support not using this source. The guideline (not a policy) says, "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." This article isn't about a mainstream idea, it is about DI's purported "Wedge strategy". So, giving DI's view on their own supposed strategy is not taking a contrary approach to established scholarship. If this was an article about evolution, then giving DI's view could be, perhaps, interpreted as unduly introducing a fringe opinion into the article. Also, is Intelligent Design and its components a science topic, public policy/political topic, religious topic, or cultural topic? Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No. You're still misunderstanding the policies. We don't have "ghetto" articles. And your last question shows that you do not understand this very point. The policies apply to all types of articles. In ALL articles, regardless of topic, reliable sources are needed for scientific, medical and historical content. Indeed for ALL content. Also, you're falling prey to a categorical error. This is not a "science article", but a science-related article. Same for public policy topic, religious topic, and cultural. Furthermore, these categories are not mutually exclusive. Also, I did not say that we can't present the DI's view on their own strategy. We just can't do it using primary documents, especially ones that are unduly self-serving, as this document is. We have to present the DI's view as it appears in reliable independent sources. Unnfortunately, the DI is not a reliable source for its own views because of it long and well-documented history of prevarication and misrepresentation, and using any source published by them has to be done with extreme caution, and only as supported by reliable independent sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

All of your concerns are resolved simply by saying, "According to the Discovery Institute..." then giving their side in their words. Then, the reader knows what the source is and can decide on their own on its validity and credibility. WP:FRINGE clearly relates to the amount of weight we give to minority views on mainstream topics. This isn't a mainstream topic, it's about the Wedge strategy. So, the only real question we have here is whether the source is "unduly self-serving". I don't believe it is. Also, remember, we don't make judgements on the trutfulness of sources. Remember, the policy, is that we go by verifiability, not truth. This source is verifiable, whether or not it is true we leave up to the reader to decide. I think we should allow another day or two for more comments, then take this to a content RfC if we're still deadlocked. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything you just written is completely at odds with all of the core policies. We absolutely cannot introduce material from unrelaible sources cover our asses merely by saying "According to the Discovery Institute...". Wherever did you get that idea? All of our policies say that any material that is not covered in relaible independent sources simply does not have a place on WP. At all. That's what WP:NOR is all about. We do make judgements about the reliability of sources, and this source does not qualify by a longshot per WP:V and WP:RS. Furthermore, it's a primary source, and a self-published one at that. Spin-doctoring, PR and self-promotion are essentially self-serving. And no, we absolutely don't "present both sides and let the reader decide". We present the debate as it appears in relaible independent sources, which are the keysone of WP:V. The only thing you are right about is that it is the readers responsibility to determine truth, not ours. Truthfulness, though, is another matter. We do take into account the reputation and trustworthiness of sources in evaluating whether they are reliable or not, and the DI has an awful reputation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

To summarize:

• The DI is socio-political pseudo-scientific pond scum (Fair enough)
• It is a WP:QS (Of course)
• It cannot be used to cite any sort of claim made by Wikipedia (Ditto)

and to wrap things up nicely...

• It cannot be used to cite itself (!)

Gentlemen, if we do not trust the DI to tell us in its own documents what its own documents say, then why do we trust third parties (who presumably work from the same primary sources as us) to tell us what they say? Of course, they are tricky devils and nobody knows what they think. Anyhow, their thoughts and words are manifestly not appropriate for this article. Let us consider expunging all quotes originating from the DI. This should leave nothing but criticism (if done properly). At this point the article may be moved to "Criticism of the Wedge strategy", or not, as you see fit. It would make a very decent criticism article though.

I am serious as death. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We trust reliable third party sources because they are written by recognized experts who have demonstrable qualifications and experience in interpreting and presenting primary sources in the overall context of scholarly discourse. We don't (or should act as though we don't), because that would be OR and SYNTH. Makes sense now? In the scholarly community (and even the religious community, for that matter), the overwhelming consensus is that the DI has consisently been deceptive even about itself and its motives. In fact, that is its raison d'etre. The DI was founded specifically for the purpose of deceiving the public, public officials and courts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

<ec> PCE, while accepting that you're deadly serious, the DI has a history of misleading statements and if we show these they should be put in expert context. Using our own original research isn't on, and if this document is significant to the topic it will have been commented on by secondary sources. As noted above, it was produced in response to Forrest's book. If this response was so important, surely it will have been analysed by a third party. What we should not be doing is reiterating misleading comments from an unduly self-serving self published source as though they should have weight without majority view analysis of these comments. . . dave souza, talk 07:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dave and Dominus, If I understand right, you just said that you personally don't trust the Discovery Institute? In fact, your distrust is so profound that you don't even think they can be used as a source for their own ideas and motivations? Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The DI have a track record of deceit and misleading statements – as was well demonstrated at Kitzmiller. Which is why a reliable seoncary source is needed for evaluating any of their statements. If this document is significant, it will have been discussed by reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 15:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, the objections to the proposed content are because the DI is not a RS, correct? I ask because I don't see any OR, just the reporting from a primary source known to be deceptive even about their own motives/intentions. In most cases, the primary source will be enough to represent their ideas on Wikipedia, which is why I stated earlier that this paragraph is benign: the claims made within are corroborated elsewhere (such as the DI's dislike of "materialist philosophy") or are laughably ironic (such as when they say their goal will be reached through research and debate). I understand that the DI is a QS and if you folks are adamant about not letting their content in, I'll back off; however, I think it's within the spirit of WP policies to present this information, assuming due weight is considered. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem, we'd need a reliable secondary source to comment on the DI's playing around with "materialist philosophy" and their failure to do any research (debate is more arguable, in that even Gish does a sort of lopsided "debate") but if we show it without such commentary it's likely to give undue weight to non-significant fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 16:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A sentence on the "So What?" web page

Thanks, dave. I've found a secondary source for the claim that the DI seeks to destroy methodological naturalism: "It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept." (Kitzmiller p. 67). There's also the finding of no peer-reviewed research later in the Kitzmiller ruling:

“ The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)) ”

(Kitzmiller pp. 87-88) Do you think these secondary sources would resolve the issue of WP:V with the DI's So What? document?

Honestly, I'm a little confused by this section. It's a "Defense" section which would presumably defend against criticisms of The Wedge Strategy, but I don't see any actual defense claims other than the claim that "it was a fundraising proposal" and the constant repetition of the DI's position on methodological naturalism ("scientific materialism"), which has been made clear by The Wedge Strategy and other sources. In my opinion, this section ought to consist of a single sentence: "The DI published a document entitled The 'Wedge Document': 'So What?' that states they are neither attacking science nor pushing a religious agenda, but challenging what they view as the dominant, a priori philosophy of scientific materialism." Okay, maybe two... we ought to follow that up with the Kitzmiller ruling that allowing supernatural phenomena in science is "... correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept." Would something along these lines be an acceptable compromise? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, these are good sources for the topics, but of course unless they specifically mention the Wedge they're drifting off topic for this article.
There is a sentence about the "So What?" claims in the article already: "The Institute still seeks to downplay its significance, saying "Conspiracy theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document".[26]" is cited to it.
The "So What?" page was mentioned in Barbara Forrest's expert report as a footnote to her statement "Known informally as the “Wedge Document” since it was posted on the Internet in February 1999, the Discovery Institute did not acknowledge ownership of it for three years." – in the footnote she cited the "So What?" page in relation to authenticating the Wedge as coming from the DI. The "So What?" page was also brought up when the defense was trying to object to her as an expert witness, rather inconclusively. It's also mentioned in one of the documents of the failed bid of DI and FTE to join the action (too late in the day) as "amicus".
Of these, only the point that the "So What?" page authenticated the "Wedge" is of any significance, among all the other documents mentioned. I've not so far found it being discussed in cross examination, but perhaps it's in there somewhere. . dave souza, talk 19:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. Because the So What? document basically repeats itself (and other sources) about challenging scientific materialism, this material is already known throughout the article from other sources, and a response to criticism is already included ("The Institute still seeks to downplay its significance... " and "The Institute also portrays the scientific community's reaction to the Wedge document as driven by 'Darwinist Paranoia.'"), I see no purpose this section would serve other than to unnecessary lengthen the article. Unless anyone can come up with some awfully compelling reason(s) to reintroduce this section, I see no reason for it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We are going in circles. Awhile back I said: "...due weight would probably be a sentence mentioning that it exists and perhaps an overview, if one could be found." Apparently an overview can't be found, that's fine. The fact that we can't agree on the material's verifiability is disturbing, but in this case irrelevant. I am still of the opinion that any quote taken from either of the documents is perfectly verifiable, the arguments to the contrary have never tackled the distinction between "The DI says X" and "X[The DI]". (i.e., the DI's and Wikipedia's voice.) If the documents are not verifiably the DI's (the DI has *claimed* that it originated them, but the DI cannot be trusted) why does this article claim that they are? PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You have a strange concept of verifiability, and have been fixated on that concept. Nobody questioned that the document originated from the DI, or that the quotes used were in the document. What was questioned was whether they were noteworthy and suitable for inclusion in this article because they had not been discussed in reliable independent sources. We therefore cannot assign any weight to the document itself or to any portion of its content. Whether you write "The DI says X" and "X[The DI]" is immaterial, because the decision to include X in the article was based on your own criteria (original research), and not on the basis of the coverage X received in reliable independent sources. Like I said, we describe the debate as it is decribed in reliable independent sources, not on the basis our own reconstruction of the debate based on our analysis of primary sources from the DI. For interpretation, analysis and synthesis, we have to rely on what recognized experts write in reliable independent sources. If the experts have had nothing to say about the document, this indicates that they do not consider it noteworthy. If they don't consider it noteworthy, that neither can we (this is what assigning weight is all about). As far as WP is concerned, the document doesn't exist. If the experts mention only certain passages from the document, we can only mention those passages, and not others in the document. Whatever we write has to be backed up with reliable independent sources. In some cases, we can use self-published sources, but only if they fulfill certain criteria, which this document doesn't (self-serving and history of deception). You really have to spend some time studying the core policies and guidlines, especially WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOTE and WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain refs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 26, etc, in light of what you just said. (especially 26, namely, The "Wedge Document": "So What?") You may object that this article is terrible (I would agree with that) and all such sources should be removed. In which case I would regretfully inform you that this is common throughout the Wiki and such rampant removal of content is totally unreasonable without explicit (actual) support from WP:V. The question is, why, if you are not allowed to source quotes with their original source, does WP:V not explicitly state this and everyone totally ignore it? To put it bluntly, because it does not make a lick of sense. Citing third parties to source excerpts from a book or document is silly. If you want to know what a book says, read the book, if you want to cite an excerpt from a book, cite the book. No third parties are needed here and this should be manifestly obvious.

Moving right along, you regard the uncorroborated oral testimony of a single critic of intelligent design in general and the DI in particular as sufficient to source the claim of Wikipedia's that Meyer said that the wedge document had been stolen. I, personally, strongly suspect that Forrest was not making things up, however, her claim is not a sufficient source for Wikipedia to claim it. But the court transcript is sufficient to source a claim of Wikipedia's that Forrest stated that Meyer had said that the wedge document was stolen. Phew, to much attribution, this is thew house that jack built... This article has plenty of real issues, but sourcing things with, literally, their source is not among them.

Let's keep due weight till after we finish with verifiability. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We are finished. There is no point in further discussion or explanation unless you take the time to read and understand the policies and guidelines. You have gross fundamental flaws in your conception of what WP is and how it operates. You also have a major case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your comments and questions above are either irrelevant, or miss the point, and betray the fact that you did not take the time to read and understand the posts of the other editors in this discussion in light of the policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is valued but by no means authoritative, you have yet to address the second paragraph of my previous post. Also, you have provided no explanation as to why the majority of this article's sources fail your interpretation of WP:V. I hear you very well and know what the policy says, I strongly suspect that makes two of us.

However, if you stick to your guns, I am willing to go through and ax the unverifiable content, in the manner that I mentioned before. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S., I think we should keep discussion purely on the matter at hand, refraining from needless digression on to the editors involved. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

PatheticCopyEditor, the fact that the DI authored The "Wedge Document": "So What?" is supported by a secondary source: "[I]f I was going to use that document as a reference point in my research I needed to authenticate it, and I wanted to find authentication of the document independently of what the people at the Discovery Institute might actually say to me if I had interviewed them. So I found independent verification of its authenticity on their own web site." (Barbara Forrest examined at Kitzmiller). My question is, what sort of information do you want included in this article from that document? From my understanding, it doesn't say anything we can't get from other sources or that's not already in the article. Ignoring WP:V for a bit, what information would you want to include? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"What was questioned was whether they were noteworthy and suitable for inclusion in this article because they had not been discussed in reliable independent sources", then don't call it verifiability. (If you think that the previous criterion apply to the verifiability of quotes, see here)

For now, I am in favor of just mentioning that the document exists as per MisterDub's arguments about redundancy. I don't care what material gets axed as long there is some decent reason for it. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ecyclopædic Wording, Please

While the article as a whole seems to have a wealth of style issues, the following section is pretty hopeless. Each sentence seems to have at least one example of editorialising, puffery, weasel-words or emotionally-loaded catch-phrases. Even if this entire statement could sourced, this needs serious help to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Laid bare? Thwarted? Really? I am not an expert on the subject and don't have access to the resources quoted, but could someone knowledgeable rewrite this, please?

"The Discovery Institute has been a significant player in many of these cases, providing a range of support from material assistance to federal, state and regional elected representatives in the drafting of bills to supporting and advising individual parents confronting their school boards. In some state battles, the ties of intelligent design proponents to the Discovery Institute's political and social agenda and its strategy and the Institute's role in the debate have been laid bare to the public and lawmakers, resulting in their efforts being temporarily thwarted. The Discovery Institute takes the simplistic view that all publicity is good and that no defeat is real. "Kevin/Last1in (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the text you are highlighting was largely added in these edits by FeloniousMonk, back in July 2005. --Nigelj (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Starting with the premise that I have absolutely NO expertise in this subject - that's why I came to the article - here is a stab at rewording to get emotionally charged rhetoric out. Please do NOT assume that I am making any value judgment here; I am attempting to take value judgments out. Items in {braces} are questions are editorial comments.

• The Discovery Institute has provided material support and assisted federal, state and regional elected representatives {the US does not have regional elections. Is this controversy present in other Anglophonic nations? If not, this should read, 'elected officials at the local, state and federal levels'} in the drafting of legislation. The DI have also supported and advised individual parents and local groups who raise the subject with local school boards. During debates on changes to the teaching of evolution in Kansas , Ohio and Texas {still looking for an unbiased source - everyone is polarized in Texas sources - there's plenty of chaff but no wheat}, the ties of intelligent design proponents to the Discovery Institute, especially in light of their published political and social agenda, has called the arguments themselves into question.

It's a lot shorter, but polemics do tend to bulk up paragraphs. Take this for what it is - an amateur and impartial observer's swipe at separating the emotion from the encyclopædic facts. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested changes appear to me to be an improvement. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Good start. May I suggest a revision:

“ The Discovery Institute has provided material support and assisted federal, state and regional elected representatives in the drafting of antievolution legislation. The DI has also supported and advised individual parents and local groups who raise the subject with local school boards. During school board meetings regarding science education and evolution in Kansas, Ohio, and Texas, the ties of intelligent design proponents to the Discovery Institute's political and social agenda has called their arguments into question. ”

That last sentence still sounds magnificently bad. Any ideas on cleaning it up further? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I had toyed with the idea of, "...the ties of intelligent design proponents to the Discovery Institute's political and social agenda has been used as an ad hominem argument against their positions." Frankly, I thought it went so far the OTHER way as to give undue weight to the idea that their positions had any merit in the first place. Maybe something along the lines of, "...the political and social agenda of the Discovery Institute weakened the position of the intelligent design proponents who relied on their research and support." It's better, but still not NPOV.

Rereading the article, I wonder if the whole thing wouldn't benefit from this type of review.Kevin/Last1in (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's better but could still use some polishing. The whole article could probably use a good once-over; I'm fairly new to this page so I haven't reviewed it much yet. How's the following for the final sentence? It could probably still use some work, but I think it captures the message well.

“ During school board meetings regarding science education and evolution in Kansas, Ohio, and Texas, the political and social agendas of the Discovery Institute weakened the position of the intelligent design proponents called into question the motives of the intelligent design proponents who relied on their research and support, and their position suffered for it. ”

I removed "and evolution" because, with the paragraph for context, it should be obvious that evolution is involved. I think "their position suffered for it" could be written better, but nothing comes to mind at the moment. Thoughts? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me take another stab at this (changed in bold):

“ The Discovery Institute has provided material support and assisted federal, state and regional local elected representatives in the drafting of antievolution legislation legislation that would deemphasize or refute evolution in science curricula. The DI has also supported and advised individual parents and local groups who raise the subject with local school boards. During school board meetings regarding science education and evolution in Kansas, Ohio, and Texas, the political and social agendas of the Discovery Institute called into question the motives of the intelligent design proponents who relied on their research and support, and their position suffered for it.were used to call into question both the motives of the intelligent design proponents and the validity of their position. ”

Reasoning for each change: • 'regional' doesn't really exist in the US so I swapped in 'local'. • '...in the drafting of legislation' is unnecessarily wordy (one of my weak points) when '...drafting legislation' is both shorter and easier to read. • 'antievolution' (anti-anything, really) sounds NPOV, even when used correctly and justifiably as you did in your original version. • 'agena' is already plural. While I know that everyone is starting to use agendas, it's still wrong. If it reads better in American English with the 's', please just slip it in when I'm not looking. • '...regarding science and evolution education' is redundant with the rewording of the prior sentence. • The next 'local' is used twice within a few words of each other. Using it to qualify 'groups' sounds great, and most School Boards are local by definition so we can lose that one without damage. • '...their position suffered for it' just didn't sound right, and I think putting an ad hominem link in there helps; whether they're right or wrong, it IS ad hominem to tar parents with the DI-radical brush. Obviously, I have no emotional attachment to any of this word, but I think it's clearly better than what was there. I am going to replace the original now and we can continue to work on it (and maybe the rest of the article). Kevin/Last1in (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a minor change to article regarding this latest revision: "The Discovery Institute has provided material support and assisted federal, state and local elected representatives in drafting...". I feel it's more specific that the DI helped draft the legislation, instead of more generally helping those doing the drafting. Other than that, I think it looks good. I'm leery about placing the Wikilink to ad hominem in there, but I think it's accurate enough that I'm not going to remove it. LOL @ slipping in agendas! I wasn't exactly sure about that when I made the change, so I'm glad you corrected me. My modern American lingo has been exposed! lol -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch and THANK YOU! Frankly, I'm a bit concerned about the ad hominem thing, too, but it's fair from their POV, at least in the "I don't have to be paranoid for people to be following me" train of thought. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

References

References

Reference 6, sub-link, "See for example: From an Open Letter published in the Dallas Morning News" (pdf) cited as link http://smu.edu/dedman/viewpoint.pdf goes only the http://www.smu.edu/dedman page. I searched the SMU site for "viewpoint wedge intelligent" and got 14 results, so I'm not sure which if any are the appropriate link; none of the summaries mention the Dallas Morning news. Bobespirit2112 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)