Talk:Discovery Institute/Archive 2

The lead
The lead of this article is by no means awful, but it's a bit short and low in content, and the lead sentence, indeed, even the second sentence, say very little of importance. I don't want to make unilateral changes, but what if we started off something like "The Discovery Institute is a think tank best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to get anti-evolution sentiments taught in schools." Adam Cuerden talk 11:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea, Adam. Mr Christopher 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope it does not start some sort of war like at Intelligent design. But I like Adam's suggestion.  Orangemarlin 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy bits

 * "working with Douglas Axe, author of a number of pro-intelligent design articles"

Axe has published several papers that can be read as criticisms of the capabilities of evolution, but I don't know of any articles by Axe that can be described as "pro-intelligent design". I notice that this doesn't come with a reference.


 * Let me make that explicit: the claim that Axe has published even one "pro-intelligent design article" is unverifiable and doesn't belong in the article until such time as a verifiable source is given. --Wesley R. Elsberry 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "3. Bill Dembski's grant was not for the book 'No Free Lunch.' Dembski was given funds to write another book on Orthodox Theology, which was not on ID, however he has never written the book."

Dembski produced documentation that Templeton's funding was for a book on topics discussed within "No Free Lunch". I think that Templeton is too eager to distance themselves from the rotting corpse of "intelligent design" creationism, and is overlooking their former support for IDC advocates and projects. There should be some notice of this in the article rather than leaving the Templeton quote as the final word on the topic; it is apparent that Templeton's criticism of the DI is not wholly accurate, apparently due to Templeton wishing to appear less entangled with the DI and the IDC movement than was actually the case.


 * "A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of a text comparison program approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science with the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed."

There are several numbers that I've produced in analysis, and the sentence above confuses a couple of them. The Discovery Institute's number of 90.9% concerned only a single section of Judge Jones's decision, so the 35% number and the 90.9% number are not directly comparable, as the sentence in the article implies. The DI claims that 90.9% is the proportion of Judge Jones's text in the section about whether ID is science that is due to the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact; the relevant number to compare to that from what I've done is 66%: I found that 66% of that section in Judge Jones decision was taken from the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact. That is a substantially different number from what the DI says, though it isn't as different as the 35% mentioned in the current sentence.

There's another relevant number that I found that annoys the DI mightily. You see, one can also pose a different question: How much of the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact concerning the section on whether ID is science did Judge Jones use in his decision? It turns out that Judge Jones only used 48% of the text produced by the plaintiffs's on that topic, meaning that Judge Jones rejected about half of what the plaintiffs proposed in that particular section (as opposed to the 65% overall rejection proportion). This is fundamentally at odds with the DI characterization of Judge Jones as having expended no effort of his own and credulously adopting the plaintiffs's text wholesale; it is apparent that while Judge Jones obviously thought the plaintiffs generally had good arguments, he did make significant decisions about which parts of their argumentation to adopt and which to reject.

I have some notes about my analyses here, along with the text files I used and the full set of matches found. Anyone can, with a bit of effort, check my work for accuracy; everything needed to do so is provided. Now, obviously, what I have done is original research. On the other hand, the numbers I've presented are verifiable. How the editors want to handle the result I will leave up to them. I'll suggest a revision of the current sentence:


 * "A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of a text comparison program approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science with the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section."

I think that clarifies what was there. I think it would be useful to include somehow the information about how picky Judge Jones was in adopting the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact in the section on whether ID is science, too. --Wesley R. Elsberry 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wes, since you're better versed on the specifics here I for one will defer to you and I suggest you make the changes yourself since they are rather complex yet nuanced. Odd nature 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that you want the DI ranting about how they can't touch their article, but I can? I think that it may be better for me to convince the regular editors here concerning points and have them make the changes as they see fit. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wesley is right - there are a number of problems that need to be addressed, but it's better if he isn't the one to fix them. In addition to the claim that Axe has published pro-ID papers (which, obviously, he has not), there is the assertion that the Biologics Institute is conducting ID research. I am unaware of any such research - either published or presented as a talk - so to say that they are conducting research is like all the other claims over the past 20 years that there is research going on into ID. If someone figured out how to do research into ID, it would make a great publication - it would be the first ID-related science. Guettarda 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could somebody please change at least the bit about the text analysis? As it stands, the article is comparing two not-completely-comparable numbers. --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that the numbers were updated. Thanks. --Wesley R. Elsberry 11:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

intro sentence
It seems obvious to me that there should be some discussion about the proper lead sentence of the article. The recent reversions back and forth, with no justification save for brief edit summary, doesn't cut it.

For example, the latest reversion to "get creationist beliefs taught" claims that a "new citation supports" the reversion. I checked all the footnoted citations, and found nothing of the sort. This is not the sort of discussion to be had by reversions and edit summary's.

Please discuss this edit and justify the change. Nothing from the Discovery Institute claims that they want to get creationism taught, quite to the contrary, they expressly deny that. Obviously, the Discovery Institute doesn't get be the final arbiter, but when the citations are far from clear, this edit needs to be justified. This post is to start a real wiki discussion.Veritasjohn 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't see a need for it. All of the sources provided show that the DI claims it does not promote the teaching of creationism while doing just that. The current intro is accurate and supported. BTW, wasn't it found here that you were affiliate with the DI in some way? Odd nature 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. There's no need for ad hominem attacks, please.  Regardless of Veritasjohn's affiliation, he isn't engaging in a revert-war.  He is posing a simple question on the talk page.  BTW: I didn't find any evidence that he is affiliated with the DI, although there is Requests for checkuser/Case/Truthologist this allegation implicating him in a group of DI shills who joined Wikipedia at around the same time. Silly rabbit 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * VeritasJohn comment There was a chekcuser run, and some implications that I was somehow involved with DI. However, I rather forcefully challenged those acusations, and as I remember the main editor making the inquiry backed down, and to the best of my Wiki memory, has never directly claimed that I am somehow affiliated. Veritasjohn 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply. The first reference makes a strong case that this is precisely what the DI is doing.  Many of the quotes cited in this reference are drawn from statements various prominent institute members have made over the years, and are quite unambiguously creationist.  As Odd nature says, although the DI claims not to be creationist, it is.  The historical genesis, legal actions, and political leanings of this organization reveal it to be the "new face" of creationism: If it walks like a duck... Silly rabbit 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the reverted-to version of "get creationist beliefs taught" is more accurate and more substantiatable than the reverted-from "raise awareness of problems in evolutionary theory." That ID is Creationism is supported both by legal opinions and scholarly research. DI members (including DI VP Stephen Meyer) are on record as having explicitly advocated teaching ID. On the other hand there is no evidence that the DI has genuinely ""raise[d] awareness of problems in evolutionary theory" -- or that there are any genuine "problems" to raise. Hrafn42 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To state it as creationist as fact in the lead when there is a different POV (as stated by silly rabbit) without attributing the statement is violation of WP:NPOV Wikipedia policy. It should be reworded.  Morphh   (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Morphh: Read WP:Undue Weight. The article is not obligated to give any weight to the DI's claims. Given that ID was crafted to avoid constitutional problems of teaching Creationism after Edwards v. Aguillard, of course the DI will deny that it is Creationism. This denial is meaningless.
 * I would also direct you to WP:SOURCE -- the DI's claim that ID is not Creationism is both contentious and self-serving. Hrafn42 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of open dispute about whether Intelligent Design is creationism. This is precisely the type of continuous issue that lends itself to a lot of WP:NPOV assertions. I started this discussion precisely because, as a descriptive matter of verifiable fact, I think the current lead can be improved on. I am not advocated a reversion to the previous version, which also has problems.


 * A big problem here is the attempt to totally discredit DI as a source for the verifiable statement that the intelligent design advocated by DI is not creationism. One could likewise argue that Barbara Forrest's work is a POV motivated work, and should not be taken as credible. Simple reality is that many parties in this discussion disagree about the proposition that "DI advocates creationism." Look, self-admitted creationists like the Institute for Creation Research literally attack "intelligent design" and deny that creationism = intelligent design. Some leading intelligent design advocates, in their personal capacity, argue extensively that intelligent design is not creationism. Who knows who is "right" in this dispute. However, I think there is a much more serious dispute then that acknowleded by merely sting citing five sources and claiming as "verifiable" that DI advocates creationism. That is quite odd, considering the extensive sources from Discovery and other people from their view that they do not advocate creationism.


 * The way this is going down now, it looks a lot like political opponents of an organization are allowed to define their opponent in unflattering light, and that will go down as verifiable wiki fact? Surely Wikipedia should be more accurate and objective than this. In a political setting, if someone accuses Bill Clinton of being a draft dodger, and he denies, are you saying that his denial is "self serving" and we should simply ignore it and allow the POV label to stick in his lead sentence( this is a though experiment, I've not looked at the Wiki for Clinton)


 * Furthermore, As far as I am aware, Wiki is about verifiable articles, not merely counting "sources." minority viewpoints will always have numerically less sources.


 * There are many serious sources that explain the religious nature of creationism. While people dispute the details, it should not be declared by fiat in a lead sentence. Veritasjohn 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Too late, that cat has been out of the bag for a very long time now and you'll never get it back in. The facts are that it's well documented that the Discovery Institute promotes the false claim that a lot of dispute about whether Intelligent Design is creationism, but in fact there isn't. Not since Dover. This is a dead issue, and no amount of spin from the Discovery Institute will change that. Here's some homework for you: Odd nature 21:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also point out that historian of science Ronald Numbers, who is generally not considered to be partisan, included a chapter on ID in the latest edition of his book The Creationists. Additionally, Judge Jones was unequivocal on the subject: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." This sort of scholarly and legal opinion is why the Creationism article has ID listed among the "types of creationism" -- to try to pretend otherwise here would be an illegitimate POV-fork. Hrafn42 03:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This thread is similar to the one ongoing at Intelligent design and covers about the same thing, so I'm not going to repeat arguments. "creationist beliefs" used here seems to differ greatly from traditional creationist beliefs.  It would seem clearer and more accurate to say religous beliefs, belief in God, or just God.  Morphh   (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble is Morphh that you seem to have little understanding of the range of "creationist beliefs." ID is very similar to its immediate antecedent, Progressive creationism. Hrafn42 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Berlinski
$20 says is DI Fellow David Berlinski. Odd nature 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. IP tracks to France. He still there? Adam Cuerden talk 18:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Casey Luskin
I guess Luskin went to law school. I am not sure he graduated or was admitted to the bar anywhere to practice law. I have scanned his "rebuttal". Most of it is just attacking bloggers of one sort or another. I guess it might have value, but not introduced as a naked sentence hanging out at the end of a paragraph. I note that it is contrary to many other expert lawyer opinions I have read. This business about copying the text provided to the judge by the lawyers on both sides is standard pratice, I understand, and is quite commonplace. Where is the evidence to the contrary? Unless we have some balancing material, I start to wonder if the Luskin rebuttal inclusion is not only bad English, but violates POV as well. Comments?--Filll 13:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He has a law degree from the University of San Diego, and calls himself an attorney, though I've yet to see any evidence that he's passed the bar or practised as an attorney anywhere. As far as I can tell, he went straight from university to "Program Officer in Public Policy & Legal Affairs" at the DI, a job that seems to entirely consist of putting out very badly-constructed spin. I don't see how his viewpoint, which is rejected by both the academic legal community and what little of the popular press even noticed their 'study', can pass muster under WP:UNDUE. Hrafn42 14:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering the Timothy Sandefur and Ed Brayton links in this section (footnote 81, 85), I fail to see why citing Luskin's article is improper. This is a contentious issue, much like politics, and just as one could say that Luskin has a "viewpiont" so too do Brayton and Sandefur.


 * As to Hrafn42 - your comment just brandishes WP:UNDUE without really analyzing the citation. Your assertion that Luskin hasn't passed the bar is easily belied by looking at his legal work at DI, including filing amicus briefs with his attorney license #. Also - Brayton is not a lawyer. I think he has an interesting viewpoint, but nobody is requiring that only lawyers be cited here. You say his viewpoint has been rejected by "academic legal community" but that is unfounded (on this particular issue). Look, citing Luskin on many issues of this page would seem to be questionable, but his paper responding to criticism of the Kitzmiller study is a valid viewpoint, and adds to the informative quality of the article. It is verifiable, not just blog chatter. As far as I can tell, there is no "academic legal community" commentary on this point. citation?


 * I think that one link to Luskin does not give undue influence, especially considering the amount of space given to criticizing the original DI study. Unlike the critics of the study, the current wiki only mentions that Luskin has a response, it does not explain (repeat) his arguments. If anything, the undue influence would go the other way (note: I'm not claiming the section violates WP).Veritasjohn 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Describing his nonsense as a "rebuttal" certainly violates undue weight. If we're to include it, in order to satisfy npov we will have to make it clear that outside of the ID movement, it is not regarded as anything approaching a sound response. ornis ( t ) 14:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello DB. You seem to be missing the point of undue weight. It calls for opinions to be presented in the proportion to which they are held. And Luskin's, yours, and the rest of your crew at the DI are in a tiny minority on the topic of the scientific explanation for the origin of life, and any sub-arguments there of. Odd nature 17:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is DB? If the "your crew at DI" refers to me then this comment is just mistaken name-calling. Every time I try to start discussion that is anything but criticism of DI I am immediately impugned as being part of the DI. This is false, there is no evidence and I do not appreciate being constantly categorized and discounted. I am not a single-page editor, and I always take care to discuss my ideas of improving the DI Wiki article. When I edit the article, it is only after discussion. If I am mistaken and Odd Nature's comment doesn't refer to me, then advance apologies.Veritasjohn 18:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

{{quotation|It seems to me the height of hypocrisy for the Discovery Institute to accuse Judge Jones of copying 90 percent of one section of his opinion (just 16 percent of its total length) from the proposed findings of fact by the plaintiff's lawyers, when the DI itself tried to palm off as 'original' work a law review article [submitted to Montana Law Review] that was copied 95 percent from the authors' own book {Traipsing Into Evolution]. Concealing this fact from the law review editors, until I discovered and documented this effort, seriously undercuts the credibility of the DI on this or any other issue.}} -- Peter H. Irons

I have seen no evidence that he has done legitimate "legal work at DI", nor could I (after a quick search) find any evidence that he's submitted amicus curiae briefs. Can anybody provide links? Hrafn42 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is apparently not the only Luskin "rebuttal". I found at least one other as well. If we are going to include this, I am not sure it belongs in this article, but maybe as a separate section in the Kitzmiller v. Dover article, with some link here to that article or section of that article. If we want to avoid WP:UNDUE, this has to be done carefully, with links and cites from a variety of sources, not just blogs. Having looked at Luskin's document, it is not particularly scholarly and does not look much like a formal legal opinion to me, but more like an attack piece by a PR person. If we do this, we will do this right, and not just as a dangling naked sentence. --Filll 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * response to Fill As some others in this discussion indicate, I think there is no problem citing Luskin's rebuttal article, especially given the nature of the Brayton and Sandefur blog criticism. WP:UNDUE does not call for a double-standard. This whole criticism of the ID study section is a bunch of non-scholarly published works. Nobody's writing a book or law review article about the dispute. Thus, the section quotes many different blogs. I just want to point out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Your personal opinion about Luskin's rebuttal is a valid viewpoint, and one that is amply represented in the many cited criticism of the study. I agree in part, I would prefer, as I think Wiki-policy supports, that no blog articles be cited, but for much of this article, blogs are the only verifiable source available. Veritasjohn 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just mention that the DI has responded to the debunking of their smear campaign and offer one or two summary quotes from their response and be done with it. That Luskin wrote it is a non-issue since he's not particularly notable. Odd nature 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea, and I hope could gain consensus and be implemented. Luskin is a non-issue, and the response does deserve mention. I'll see if I can figure out a good summary quote and make a suggestion.Veritasjohn 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The general principle makes sense. Now just need to find an acceptable way of reporting report of what was said.  Guettarda 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following sentence to be added at the end of the section:

This addition would provide information that (1) DI has a response to criticism (2) a summary quote of the rebuttal. Just as the authors of the criticism (Sandefur, Brayton, etc.) are not specifically named in the text, the DI rebuttal author, Luskin, is not named. Are there problems with this proposal? Veritasjohn 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that proposed addition. The problem is, if we really investigate this and write a proper description (possibly in a more appropriate article like the article about the court decision and lawsuit Kitzmiller v. Dover), I suspect it will reflect VERY negatively on the Discovery Institute. I know that Discovery Institute and intelligent design supporters want to spin it a certain way, but pursuing this avenue will likely backfire.--Filll 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 FeloniousMonk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm optimistic that we can come to consensus on a brief summary of Luskin's rebuttal. There are evidently agreeable summaries of the three cited criticism blogs. If, after more discussion, this proves impossible perhaps we could try a different tact. However, when there is fairly extensive discussion and summation of the critics, I fail to see how one sentence, as I proposed, clutters things. Veritasjohn 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already too much on this topic in this article, in my opinion. I would cut it back. And I would place an expanded section on this topic, if it is of such interest, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover article. I have found about 10 or more Discovery Institute and intelligent design supporters that have published similar kinds of attacks on the Jones decision. And there are some other articles that describe why these attacks are ill-founded. And then numerous DI and ID responses rebutting these articles. And then there are neutral articles that describe the situation from a neutral outside viewpoint. To really investigate this carefully would take much more space than is appropriate in this article. This article is about the DI, after all, and not about the trial, and not about Judge Jones etc. And not about common Judicial practice. This is just ludicrous to consider for this article, frankly. --Filll 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FrillYour objection to my proposed language is a bit unclear. You make comments about how this would need to be done properly, would reflect badly on DI, etc, which I simply fail to follow. What specifically was objectionable about my proposal? Second, you seem to suggest cutting back the whole criticism section. Perhaps that would be a good idea; however, right now, everyone seems intent on keeping the paragraph in as criticism of DI (not for the relevance to Kitzmiller). If we are going to leave the article & criticism, then a simple citation to the DI rebuttal seems necessary.


 * Guettarda and Odd nature what are you thoughts about the proposal? I tried to provide a simply one sentence notice of the rebuttal with a summary quote.


 * The proposal seems to follow the style and treatment of the criticism of the original DI article. Quotes and explanation were used. When there is a lengthy paragraph explaining criticism of the original article from at least three sources I fail to see how my suggestion is "ludicrous" -- so long as the criticism paragraph remains as is. Veritasjohn 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that this section is a bit out of place in the Discovery Institute article. I would restructute ir slighlty, after writing a longer section and putting it in another article. I would include MUCH more information about this. On all sides. And then I would rewrite this little section here to make it just an introduction to the much longer and more complete article elsewhere. And veritasjohn, you are giving yourself away by your edits. Don't think I don't know who you are.--Filll 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * response to continued personal harassment: "And veritasjohn, you are giving yourself away by your edits. Don't think I don't know who you are." (Filll). I continue to take offense to this type of unfounded personal attack. I act as an honest, diligent member of the Wiki community. (check my user contrib) Filll - I have no idea who you are, and your insinuation about me is frankly offensive. Multiple times in the past, people have accused me of somehow being an employee of DI. I have repeatedly denied this accusation, and even FeloniousMonk's check-user on my account yielded nothing. (despite his coy WP:Beans position). Filll - if you have a real problem with my comment or editing, then deal with it according to Wiki policy, if this form of unfounded personal attack continues, I will pursue my own remedy according to Wiki policy. I don't mean to belabor the point, but I'm tired of the constant harassment that is based on nothing other than my differing editing preferences for the DI article. On this new discussion page alone there are now three separate harassing comments made against me. Veritasjohn 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * response to disagreement with proposed language: I do not believe this single-DI "study" and the resulting back-and-forth really needs a longer section anywhere on wikipedia. If you think so, feel free to write a longer-version and place it appropriately. Right now, the criticism is (I gather) relevant to the Discovery Institute Wiki because it reflects on the Discovery Institutes's actions in the intelligent design policy area. The "study" criticism is roughly 1/5 of the "Criticism" section.


 * I suggest you create a re-write to shorten the whole Judge Judge "study" criticism, and propose it to be considered along side my own proposed sentence. Veritasjohn 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You have very low standards for "personal offense" and "personal attack". You stepped over the line and you know darn well why and how, and now you are being careful. If you want to get engaged in another administrative action, then you can continue down the path you are on right now. But I think it would be best for you to try to stick to the straight and narrow.--Filll 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll - your comment makes no sense to me. How did I step over the line? Point to anything. How am I being careful? I've always taken wiki editing seriously. "another administrative action" what are you talking about? I have not accused anybody here of "stepping over the line" or anything of the sort. Please point to any of my comments or suggestions and show me what has been objectionable. Veritasjohn 04:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think VJ here has crossed the line into a disruptive pattern on this talk page with his tendentiousness. I think we should follow the steps layed out at WP:DE before he wastes anymore of our time with non-neutral suggestions and fruitless gripes. Odd nature 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This editor shows a pattern that is clear. And you are not reading the text above carefully, obviously.--Filll 23:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 FeloniousMonk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that the DI made that argument. It is also a fact that the argument remains unsupported; even the citation given by the DI shows that what a court found objectionable (but not so objectionable as to overturn the finding) was the complete verbatim adoption of a party's finding of facts and conclusions of law as the decision.


 * AFAIK, Casey Luskin successfully passed the California bar examination in 2005, and shortly thereafter was hired by the Discovery Institute. I think that means that Luskin was admitted to practice law in the state of California. I don't know if he has sought admission to the bar in other states. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't know if he has sought admission to the bar in other states"?  How is that relevant?    The Wikipedia article on the State Bar of California says,  "California administers what is widely considered the nation's most difficult bar examination twice each year",  and Casey Luskin passed.


 * This section of the article cites the legal opinions of you and Ed Brayton, who are not even attorneys.    Ed Brayton by his own admission is not even a college graduate (though I don't hold that against him).   So if we are going to talk about credentials,  then let's talk about them.




 * I stated what I knew about Luskin's credentials not as a slur or slam, but to correct earlier statements that did not recognize that he had, indeed, passed the California bar. Whether he has been admitted to the bar elsewhere is an issue that Veritasjohn raised with his statement,


 * "Your assertion that Luskin hasn't passed the bar is easily belied by looking at his legal work at DI, including filing amicus briefs with his attorney license #."


 * The DI is not based in California. Unless Luskin is admitted to the bar or specifically granted recognition in particular venues, it may not be to his benefit to insist that what he is doing for the DI is practicing law.


 * As for legal opinions, it's obvious that you can get the gamut of opinions on pretty much any topic out of credentialed lawyers. What matters, though, is who is right, and it is just as obvious that not every credentialed lawyer is automatically right and every non-lawyer wrong for any particular issue. As I mentioned when the KvD decision came out,


 * Back in 2004, Casey Luskin and I had lunch. One of the topics of conversation was the legal status of “intelligent design” and how a court case might turn out. Casey argued that since ID had no explicit mention of the identity of the “designer” as God and no explicit use of scripture, it would have no trouble in court. I argued that the history of commonality with creationism and the identity of the arguments between the two would be found to put ID in violation of the establishment clause. I’m happy to report that Judge Jones concurs with me and not Casey.


 * But it is a for matter of fact and not legal opinion, as my critic erroneously claimed, that the article currently cites me. How much text was copied from a source to a derived text? That isn't a legal opinion. It is a matter of fact.


 * I find truth and accuracy satisfying. That is what I'm aiming for. --Wesley R. Elsberry 11:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that we have no competent evidence that there was in fact a "verbatim or near verbatim adoption of a party's findings of facts", I would consider Veritasjohn's proposed wording to be misleading, and cannot support it. Hrafn42 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hrafn42. "no competent evidence" is not the right wiki standard, the quotation comes directly from the DI rebuttal. No doubt may people do not believe there is competent evidence for the quoted critics as well as the quoted rebuttal. The rebuttal is a WP:V source. However, I'm willing to come up with a new suggestion. Do you have a proposal for better wording. I don't see the direct quote as "misleading," any more than the DI study or rebuttal are disagreeable. Wiki does not seek truth from your perspective, but it must be verifiable which this is. I will come up with a new suggestion since nobody else seems to have a suggestion at the moment. Veritasjohn 04:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Competent evidence" or "reliable source", either way, there's none to back up your assertion, and as such it won't fly, indeed I'd be surprised if it even developed weight bearing wrists and shoulders and managed to drag itself up on shore. ornis ( t ) 04:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But not even the DI argue that the courts disfavour mere "substantial adoption of a party's proposed findings of facts", so this wording is no better than the last. The main problem is that what the DI accuse Jones of (even if you take their accusation at face value) was never what the courts were disfavouring. 90% of one section of the finding of fact is not "verbatim or near verbatim adoption of a party's findings of facts", unless that finding of facts only has one section. Hrafn42 05:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This comment expresses views that are already represented in the criticism of the DI study. For what it's worth, I prefer directly quoting the rebuttal thing. You have a nice POV about the issue, and one which is counter to what the Discovery Institute argues. That's fine, everyone is entitled to have a point of view. However, for purposes of the wiki article, we're not seeking truth, only verifiable NPOV. The criticism of the DI position on Judge Jones copying of some text is clearly represented in the current paragraph. The rebuttal piece disagrees with your view of what the courts "disfavor" and there are simply POVs on that issue. It is evident that you disagree with the DI argument, and that is fine, but it should not preclude a summary mention of their rebuttal link. Veritasjohn 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem appears to be that you cannot come up with a description of the rebuttal that does not misrepresent either what the DI said, or what Jones did. This conflict may well be inherent due to internal contradictions in the DI rebuttal, which would argue in favour of not giving it undue weight. Hrafn42 07:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We dont' have to "get around" it, because the DI isn't entitled to anything here, let alone a "defense"[sic]. Inclusion of material is governed by policy, not fair play or entitlement, and so far no-one in favour of including this response has come up with a formulation for it that is both accurate, and satisfies WP:UNDUE. ornis <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 07:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC


 * The trouble is that the court opinions that Luskin cited are not even purported to have said anything whatsoever about "distinct section", "most important part of the opinion" or similar. The "bottom line" is that the DI has no such entitlement. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. Hrafn42 08:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to say that much of this discussion seems to be getting off track. (particularly some unsigned comments). I want to simply reach consensus on inserted the disputed rebuttal reference and text. Hrafn42 charges that I cannot propose language that does not either misrepresent what DI said, or what Judge Jones did. First, my initial proposed text quoting DI has absolutely no misrepresentation of what DI said. You then stated that your POV finds their statement misleading (and I suspect you find much of what DI says "misleading"), and thus you criticized that it was in error in relation to what Judge Jones did. This is not a question of fact, but is one of opinion, and your criticism really is POV. I tried to accommodate your view, and offered a summary without quotation. You make the same criticism, and now argue that it is impossible to mention the DI rebuttal.


 * verbatim: "in the exact words : word for word" (thus near verbatim: in nearly the exact words : nearly word for word). This is not an opinion, this is a matter of simple definition. If you have any evidence that the commonality between Jones' findings of fact and the plaintiff's proposed findings of fact (in their entirety,  not just a single section of either) meet this definition then please present it. Otherwise stop making unsubstantiated accusations that my "criticism really is POV." Hrafn42 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As to undue weight, there are currently multiple criticism blogs cited in the wiki - with quotes. This is not some outside source blogger saying "I agree with DI, Judge Jones was improper" or some other such irrelevant viewpoint: this is a rebuttal from the organization charged with impropriety for releasing the study. maybe the critics are right, maybe not. On a political debated issue such as this, a Wiki cannot exclude viewpoints because a majority of the editors share some POV. The rebuttal is a highly relevant viewpoint, a direct on point rebuttal from the source accused of lying. Again, an encyclopedia is not supposed to be someone deciding which POV is "True"; instead it should provide encyclopedic information for the readers. Readers are entitled to read the material and decide from themselves. A short sentence saying "The Discovery Institute has issued a rebuttal to the criticism" cannot seriously be considered "undue weight." Perhaps if one were to advocate for extensive quotation from the DI rebuttal, or characterize the DI rebuttal as being true, that would be undue weight.


 * We have criticism of this study from a legal scholar and the president of the local bar association, amond others. The rebuttal comes from a newly graduated lawyer who has apparently never practiced law, and who has a vested interest in the matter. WP:UNDUE clearly indicates that we should give the latter opinion little weight, if any. Hrafn42 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As to your view of Luskin's use of case citations, your argument is just a POV on whether the cases really apply. I've read the rebuttal, and he is pretty clear about how the facts are different, and in his deriving an allegedly legal policy from those cases. This is not a matter of fact, legal arguments of this type are frequently made (some successfully, some unsuccessfully).

As I indicated above, other editors agreed that DI's rebuttal should be linked, and one asked for a summary. I'm willing to drop the summary and just end the sentence at "issued a rebuttal." I don't think this is ideal, but for the sake of consensus, I would agree to that. Does that satisfy your concerns? Simply put, it is a verifiable fact that DI has issued a rebuttal. Veritasjohn 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The section as it now stands is a reasonable summary of the situation. At most I would state that the DI issued several articles instead of just their one "study". And the claims of this study were disputed by others, as is done in the current article. If we are going to include minutae like the Casey Luskin "rebuttal" then I think that this entire issue should be exhaustively studied. All 20 or so of the DI articles attacking the Jones decision should be listed. Articles by those on the other side disputing these claims, including those in the legal literature, should cited. And this undertaking would be sufficiently long that it does not belong in this article. It is not about the DI particularly. It is about the Jones court decision and it is about attacks on Jones. How was the decision recieved? How was it analyzed? Are these analyses correct? Do the claims and counter claims hold water? --Filll 14:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Discovery Institute has a well documented long and shabby history of misrepresenting itself, others and the general state of affairs. The press is literally filled with examples. Any accurate and complete article on the topic by necessity is going to cover that. The topic at hand is but one example, would you prefer we found others? If so, which ones? Odd nature 22:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In case this still matters, here is a link that proves Casey Luskin is a licensed attorney. As I've said before, given the other critics quoted, and named (Brayton particularly) who are not attorneys, I don't think this is really a valid reason for excluding a link to the rebuttal. In case it bothered some, here it is. Veritasjohn 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't. And the 'critics' include a notable legal scholar and the president of the York Bar Association, next to whom a recent law graduate who has never practiced law looks completely insignificant. The reason that every man and his dog jumped on Luskin was that his arguments were so shoddy that even a layman can see through them. Hrafn42 16:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Text comparison
Someone objected to the words,


 * "approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court"

in the article, and I thought I would expand on what that was about. For the Kitzmiller v. DASD case, NCSE was consulting with the plaintiffs' legal team. One thing that had to be done was to trace the history of arguments in the book Of Pandas and People, and we eventually had access to six complete drafts of the book dating back to 1983. I wrote a script in Perl to compare two source texts, compile all the matching bits of text found, and produce some statistics about the matching. I provided the complete set of text matches found via the program to expert witness Dr. Barbara Forrest, and those were included as an appendix to her expert report. It was with respect to this material and particular analyses based on it that the decision in the case referred:


 * As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post [141]Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in [142]Edwards.

So the program itself never had direct scrutiny by the court, but its output was referred to in positive terms. The "approval for use" would be by implication, as the results from it were entered into evidence in the case, and it formed part of the basis for the testimony of an expert witness in the case. Since the output was essentially self-checking (both source and derived match were delivered in their entirety), "authoritative" does seem like a legitimate way to describe it. It was, in fact, in some part responsible for the decision in that federal court case.

I'll take a look sometime soon and see whether the appendices to Forrest's expert report were ever made public. I seem to recall that they were, but I'd want to make absolutely sure of that. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The appendices to Forrest's report can be found at this location ... Kenosis 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a bit difficult to take this editor seriously, since they are anonymous and do not seem to know how to sign their posts. And then using assorted Wikiterms incorrectly in a desperate attempt to Wikilawyer and attack another good faith Wikipedian, just starts to smell like a troll to me.--Filll 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I never described my own work with the words in question, I fail to see how this discussion violates WP:COI. Nor am I the person who put those words into the article here. Whether the article continues to use them or not is not my call. I can, however, provide the background information for the people who do make that decision.


 * Nor is the criticism of my program itself well-informed. The fact that my program does not rely on subjective judgment calls is to me a plus, not a minus. My program finds runs of words with possible insertions, possible deletions, and possible substitutions. The particular parameters I have used for comparing the Meyer essays, the OPAP drafts, and the KvD documents is that a match consists of ten words or more where a total of up to four words may not match, which means that substituting synonyms or phrases of length four or less can be detected. Note the objection, "particularly when the program shows a low correlation", is specifically not applicable to the three separate applications I've made concerning copying between versions of an essay by Stephen C. Meyer (copying ranged from 13% to 72% between versions), Of Pandas and People (copying ranged from a low of 6% up to 90%), and the KvD PPFOF and decision "ID is not science" section (66% of the decision section due to PPFOF section; 48% of the PPFOF section copied to the decision section). These are not in any sense "low correlation". (Low correlation would be the 0% match my program found between the Meyer essay variants and the full text of Moby Dick that I ran as a control.) One can argue that my program is too conservative in its matching, but then one would have to argue that the actual amount of copying in the other two applications (the Meyer essay variants and the OPAP drafts) similarly underestimated the true extent of identity between versions compared. I'm cool with that.


 * Since I have in every case provided the complete set of matches found, anyone viewing those can be a neutral authority in checking how well or poorly the matches are made, and how complete the analysis is when compared to the original.


 * The "side-by-side" comparison issue is a wash, since both the DI and my program provide those views. I have gone further than the DI, though, in also providing views where the entire source text is shown, and the matches with the derived text and its context are displayed. --Wesley R. Elsberry 12:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps leaving out the disputed phrasing and changing


 * author of a text comparison program


 * to


 * author of the text comparison program used to determine the content and extent of copying between drafts of the "intelligent design" textbook Of Pandas and People for the Kitzmiller v. DASD case


 * would be acceptable to most. --Wesley R. Elsberry 12:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wesley - I agree with your proposed text, and I actually think it is more descriptive and accurate than the older version. I think many of the objections miss the boat here - the program was used in the Kitzmiller case after all! This proposal is an improvement (regardless of the objections and edits of the unsigned) - as it is more verifiable and descriptive. The old summary made it read, almost, as if federal courts writ large use the program, and as far as I know, the program has been used in the the Kitzmiller case, but not other federal courts. I will insert the new text. Veritasjohn 14:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Elsberry here is not FeloniousMonk. Odd nature 16:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is because legal precedent is that judicious copying isn't improper. You would not after all spend time producing a proposed findings of fact (a common practice), if you did not have some hope that the judge might make use of it. Hrafn42 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A brief note, in a legal context, "authoritative" implies some sort of legal judgement that "thou shalt do it this way" (which I don't think Jones meant). A better adjective, at least in my opinion, is "reliable" which has the implication of "this is an acceptable way to do it". I've taken the liberty of making the substitution. Hrafn42 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Elsberry's program does considerably more than "simple word finding and counting", it was used for comparing "different texts" (namely, different versions of Of Pandas and People). A "standard commercial word-processing program" does not have this functionality. Hrafn42 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will attempt to propose some reasonable compromise here. With all due respect to Dr. Elsberry (who's comments are actually helpful in this discussion!), as far as I know, and as far as the sources support, his program has only been used in this single case. That's no knock on his program, it is just fact. Thus, the old wording, and the wording which was used to replace Elsberry's suggested wording, is misleading. Calling something "authoritative in federal court" makes it sound as if it has been approved for general use: such as depositions are authoritative in federal court. Courts employ various tools, including expert witness's and reports frequently. It's simply misleading to take some given expert witness, who testified in only a single case, and say that he is "considered authoritative in federal court."


 * This was the advantage of Elsberry's suggested wording; it more accurately described the use of his program and didn't make any POV description.


 * All the discussion about how the Kitzmiller decision used the program seems a bit misplaced to me. So long as the program was used, (which there is not much verifiable source for right now), then the description I edited (which was reverted) is supported.


 * Now, the alternative to describe is being "partly responsible for" the decision - is even less accurate, and would certianly need a source. Now, as far as I can tell, this clause up for debate is there simply to support Elsberry's credibility with regard to critiquing the DI study. Isn't it good enough to note that the program was used in the Kitzmiller case, without opining that it is considered authoritative in federal court? It's not relevant to the purpose of this wiki, and furthermore, there is no source or ruling that supports that other federal courts would accept the program.


 * Perhaps Elsberry can provide some source that could be used to verify how the program was used? The current two sources say nothing about how it was used. Was there a Daubert motion on the program, or expert testimony? (I'm not aware of any.) I support the wording that is specific to the program being used in Kitzmiller but which does not overstate its place in federal courts. Veritasjohn 20:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree. As Wesley pointed out above, his text comparison program contributed a central part of the analysis that showed the FTE simply replaced variants of "creation" with "intelligent design" thereby showing that it was a creationist book dressed up as science. You are simply trying to downplay the role Wesley's text comparison program played. The undenialable fact is that by the crux of the Discovery Institute's own claim against Judge Jones is that not only did he accept the plaintiff's reasoning and arguments, but he relied upon them to a large extent when he wrote his ruling, and the plaintiff's reasoning and arguments in regards to Pandas was based on the analysis built upon the output of Wesley's text comparison program. In other words, the output of Wesley's text comparison program was accepted by the court and incorporated in its ruling. The fact that same program that was used in the trial was later used to debunk the DI's attacks on the judge after having lost makes it relevent. Now let's talk about your repeated use of the DI's rhetoric here as if it were fact. FeloniousMonk 05:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok - I'm glad to talk. I have no position on "who is rigth" in this particular DI v. critics spat. FeloniousMonk's claim: " Now let's talk about your repeated use of the DI's rhetoric here as if it were fact." My discussion has been focused on the relevance of mentioning the study for the article, as well as discussing whether it should be black-listed for being "misleading." I have never stated agreement with the DI study, or rebuttal. You don't know my position, because I don't think editors POV matters. Veritasjohn 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Appeals court opinion
In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia I would note a number of points that distinguish this case from Kitzmiller: It is clear from this that Luskin was using the phrase "verbatim or near verbatim" out of context. The Appeals Court only discussed "near verbatim" in a very narrow context: that of a proposed order. It is also clear that it was a pervasive pattern of behaviour that the court was criticising, not mere "near verbatim" copying of a single section of a document. Hrafn42 15:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Nobody has accused Jones of not giving "the [case] and its unique characteristics the careful and comprehensive scrutiny required under the circumstances."
 * 2) Nobody is claiming that Jones' order was "a verbatim or near verbatim copy of a proposed order offered by the [] parties."
 * 3) Nobody is claiming that Jones made a "verbatim adoption of the [a party's] proposed Findings of Fact..."
 * 4) Nobody is claiming that Jones made a "verbatim adoption of the [a party's] proposed ... Conclusions of Law"
 * 5) Nobody is claiming that Jones made a "verbatim adoption of the [a party's] proposed ... Final Order"
 * 6) Nobody is claiming that Jones "entrusted [one party's] counsel to prepare these findings in an ex parte closed door session held before the settlement hearing, when counsel for [the other party] were not present."
 * 7) Nobody is claiming that Jones "pre-determined [his] approval of the [decision] before hearing the arguments of [the losing side]."

Under these circumstances, I think it is reasonable to request that any mention of Luskin's "verbatim or near verbatim" claims be matched against this decision that he is misrepresenting. I would also suggest that this provides further justification for "find[ing] much of what DI says 'misleading'". Hrafn42 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hrafn42 - after re-reading Luskin's rebuttal, it does not appear that the phrase is taken out of context. The whole purpose of his rebuttal, including the title was to show that the cases which disapprove copying of nearly an entire opinion apply "analogically" to the copying of an entire important section. It would be deceptive, perhaps, if Luskin cited these cases and then never discussed how they are different and made it sound as simple as 'Judge Jones did X, this case says never do x.' That's not what his article says. People disagree with Luskin, but one can hardly use this as an example of "deception" -- he repeatedly admits the factual differences of the cases in the rebuttal and goes on to quote leagal reasoning texts to support his argument that the cases still apply, analogically, to show a general policy disfavoring copying. Finally, just because you are not persuaded by Luskin's use of case-law does not disqualify his viewpoint from the wiki. There are losing legal arguments in, literally, every litigated case. The rebuttal is relevant as DI's response to criticism. If it's really that un-persuasive, then readers won't be duped with Sandefur, Brayton and Elsberry's specifically mentioned and quoted criticism. Veritasjohn 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Luskin states:

As a citation he gives a link to his earlier blog entry which sources the claim to In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia.

As I have already demonstrated above, In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia does not use the phrase "verbatim or near verbatim" in connection to "findings of fact", it uses it only in connection to "a proposed order". Thus, the phrase is taken out of context. You can "re-read" Luskin's rebuttal to your heart's content, it will not change this fact.

What Luskin is doing here is not an "analogy", but a gross and illegitimate extrapolation: that because the appeals court disapproved of pervasive copying of very nearly everything in the entire decision, that they would also disapprove of a far lower level of judicious copying.

The reason that Jones relied more heavily on the plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact in this "important section" (which was not copied in its entirety -- stop misrepresenting), is that this section drew heavily on matters of Science and Philosophy of Science. Jones in not an expert in either, nor does he have direct access to experts in either. The plaintiffs' counsel did (through its expert witnesses and consultants). It is therefore not unreasonable that Jones would draw more heavily on this expertise for his wording than in other parts of the decision (which are more purely matters of law or of fact, and thus within his own expertise). Hrafn42 04:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok - I should clarify my purpose in discussing this bit of the article. I am not trying to have a debate and prove who is right, Luskin or you. That's not my goal, and nor do I think it should be for the wiki page. I am trying to discuss the role of the rebuttal as a bare bones mention in the wiki page. NPOV, I am arguing, dictates at least a mention of the DI rebuttal. Perhaps you are right, and Luskin's critics (perhaps you included) are right. That doesn't change the point that DI's rebuttal is a verifiable viewpoint - in fact the viewpoint of the party being criticized.


 * If we want to have a viewpoint versus viewpoint debate, then we're not going to be doing the article much good. As just one example, all the unsigned comments points above that seem to criticize Elsberry's program. That's just a viewpoint, and I don't think it should ultimately decide what is included in the article.


 * Your points about the DI study are beside the point. DI has issued a rebuttal to their critics. You don't think it is persuasive -- fine. That does not mean it should be banned from the wiki article. Under that logic, why even mention the original DI study, since so many critics point out flaws? It is there because it created "controversy" (the section of the article, BTW) and it is certianly not undue weight to add a single line linking a sole rebuttal piece (now without any quotation, since you object to even directly quoting the rebuttal). Veritasjohn 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE dictates that we should not mention this piece of shoddy, partisan, dishonest scholarship, from an individual with no standing in legal scholarship and a clear axe to grind. Further, given your repeated attempts to deny Luskin's blatant malfeasance, I think I am not being unreasonable in viewing your viewpoint with a healthy dose of skepticism. Hrafn42 05:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an accurate summary of both WP:UNDUE and the subject matter being considered here. It's already more than sufficiently covered, it's not going to get anymore coverage than it does now, and perhaps substantially less: Wikipedia articles are not compendium's of tit-for-tat claims, but overviews of facts and events based on their significance. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. How much material do we need to shove in this article on this off-topic bit of minutae? This is not what this article is about. As I have said about 10 times, if we do this (which I am not sure I want to be bothered with), it should be done properly, in a scholarly manner, without quoting sloppy pieces like this Luskin note. It should be done carefully, with dozens of references and citations on all sides. And it would be too extensive at that point to put it in this article; it would be too long and off-topic.--Filll 05:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Veritasjohn ( 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC) ) said,

''Your points about the DI study are beside the point. DI has issued a rebuttal to their critics. You don't think it is persuasive -- fine. That does not mean it should be banned from the wiki article. Under that logic, why even mention the original DI study, since so many critics point out flaws? It is there because it created "controversy". . . . and it is certianly not undue weight to add a single line linking a sole rebuttal piece ''

I entirely agree,  Veritasjohn. The "Undue Weight" rule (WP:UNDUE) says, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source,  and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A single sentence and a link certainly do not give undue weight to Casey Luskin's rebuttal. Right now the Wikipedia article contains no rebuttal at all of the criticisms of the original DI study. If Luskin's critics do not want to add his rebuttal, then what rebuttal do they propose adding in its place?

These Wikipedia bans of significant viewpoints are a major reason for Wikipedia's bad reputation. We have been wasting several days arguing over something that should not even be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.119 (talk) 13:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * Isnt it fun to agree with yourself? Just look at the time stamps, over and over ! It does not appear to me that the one (or two?) editors here have built much consensus.--Filll 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to this is quite simply that Luskin's viewpoint isn't significant, in terms of either scholarly merit, or even media exposure. His opinions are given exactly as much prominence here as they have in the wider world: none at all. The fact that the criticism of the DI study has no rebuttal simply reflects the fact that there has been no significant or prominent rebuttal of that criticism. I suspect the main claimants' of wikipedia's "bad reputation" would be those whose insignificant viewpoints wikipedia has ignored. But if we attempted to cover each and every one of these viewpoints, wikipedia would be even more incoherent and even more of a mess than it already often is. Hrafn42 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have dug through the definitive peer-reviewed legal analyses of the Jones decision published in the Montana Law review:, authored by individuals from the DI itself, including Luskin. If this complaint that the copying was outside the bounds of reasonable and appropriate behavior was truly valid and something other than just pure puffery and spurious nonsense, surely it would have been discussed or at least mentioned in the 52 page article. I was not able to find a single mention of it in the published article. Not one, even though the DI wrote it themselves. This certainly demonstrates to me that this purported issue is really a nonissue, and just something meant for public consumption, and not a serious issue at variance with standard judicial practice. So I strongly think we should not waste time and effort on it. It is given the appropriate treatment in this article, and probably way more space than it even deserves in this article.--Filll 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will also note, that as a citizen paying for Jones' salary and time, if he wants to copy the relevant parts of the material he is given to save time and money, then I am all for it. It is ridiculous to complain about this. And the DI should be ashamed for trying repeatedly to beat this dead horse.--Filll 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The gripe about Judge Jones's decision is completely irrelevant. Sometimes judges just take the entire proposed decision of the prevailing party in a case and just sign it as written. In this case, obviously the judge disagreed with 10% or thought it unnecessary, and agreed with 90% of the ACLU's (plaintiff's) proposed order. ... Kenosis 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kenosis, Jones disagreed with more than that. At best (using the DI study), Jones only kept about 70% of the original PPFoF for this section (while making significant copy-edits to the portion he kept). This portion that he kept made up 90% of the final document - the remaining 10% is stuff Jones added, not deleted. About half of that 10% was tying the section to the rest of the endorsement test analysis, and the other half dealt with post-trial claims raised by the defense not otherwise dealt with in the PPFoF. (PS: filll - the anonymous commenter is not VeritasJohn, he is an indefinitely banned commenter's sockpuppet. FeloniousMonk knows who he is) --W. Kevin Vicklund —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.58.5 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care. As far as I am concerned, all DI POV warriors might as well be socks and meat puppets. And as I said above, if it was important, it would have been in the formal peer-reviewed paper. Since it wasn't, even a document writen by the DI, this clearly is complete spurious nonsense and does not even deserve this much space in the article. --Filll 18:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the above argument that the Judge Jones copying issue did not appear in the DI Montana Law Review paper - you are mistaken. You may still think it is a bad argument, but it was in the peer-review article (in addition to the rebuttal article being debated).


 * "By contrast, “90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’s 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.”41


 * From David K. DeWolf, John G. West, Casey Luskin, "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover," 68 Montana Law Review 7, 14 (Spring, 2007) at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1372 Veritasjohn 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is to text to that effect there. And if it is such an egregious breach of judicial protocol, why is that not mentioned in the associated text?--Filll 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll, this was a minor and unexceptional point that the DI later, when they found they weren't getting any traction, decided to 'manufacture' into some grand scandal. Also, the phrase "90.9% ... was taken virtually verbatim" is meaningless drivel. You can have X% taken verbatim, or refer to the section as having been taken "virtually verbatim", but "virtually verbatim" is too ambiguous a concept to be measurable (with a percentage). Hrafn42 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert war? Why?
I see no agenda in the changes. In fact it makes the text more clearer and accurate.

This is one long sentance BTW: "A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case and 'thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section"

Playing dumb: what decision? and what case? was it accepted purely because it was partly responsible for a previous decision? (sounds like circular reasoning, no something I'd think would be part of a judicial process)

Compared with "A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program used to determine the content and extent of copying between drafts of the 'intelligent design' textbook 'Of Pandas and People' for the Kitzmiller case, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section."

This specifies what program exactly we are talking about - the comparsion program designed to detect copying. What case - the Kitzmiller. And doesn't assert that it was accepted purely on the basis of previous use.

It's more accurate and easier to read.--ZayZayEM 08:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * also what was so bad about me breaking that big slab of text into three paragraphs into three separate responses - that's what proposed findings are for | ACLU and MS Word | Elsberry study?--ZayZayEM 08:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the more precise version is more accurate, easier to read, and avoids POV concerns. There is some deep irony when the author of the program suggests some text, it is proposed, and the editors insist on reverting it away. It's not like a critic of Elsberry is trying to undermine him: he himself suggests this as an accurate way to describe (in a parenthetical clause) the role of the program. Veritasjohn 16:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Rosalind Picard
She is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

The RFC concerns whether it is appropriate or not to include a disclaimer noting that Picard is outside of her speciality, and that the petition was an absolute failure of an appeal to authority.

There have been no supplied WP:RS that utilize this argument. So it has been argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:NOR--ZayZayEM 09:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as proper sources
In light of the revert war today (of which I have no involvement) and some past discussions on this page, I thought it would be a good time to discuss which, and when, blogs can be proper sources for the DI article.

Perhaps a general policy cannot be agreed upon, but at least a discussion would move the ball forward more than deleting some references and re-inserting them without discussion. Veritasjohn (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is well established WP policy on the use of blogs as sources at WP:RS and other places. Why not go look for it? --Filll (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, take a look at WP:SPS. And a person who is a sufficiently notable expert to have an entry on Wikipedia probably meets some sort of criteria for notability of their statements in a blog. Some blogs are actually peer-reviewed. Science blogs such as Panda's Thumb weblog are quite highly respected and ranked highly in Nature magazine studies of blogs. So yes, blogs can be WP:RS sources in some cases.--Filll (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is PT peer-reviewed? No. Is respect from readers and popularity a measure of reliability/verifiability? No. From WP:V: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5] That footnote reads: "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. More from WP:V: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. PT doesn't seem to be providing anything new. Like most blogs, it's simply commenting on material from other sources. 67.135.49.177 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your selective reading of the rules fools no one. Do you think we are stupid? You think you can trick us? My goodness. You really want to have your access to Wikipedia blocked? And PT is produced by a group of scientists who check each other's work and contributions. It is not exactly peer-review, but it is approaching peer-review. PT is the top rated science blog in a study by Nature magazine, and one does not get much more of a seal of approval than that. The people chosen to have blogs on Scienceblogs are carefully chosen, and the people allowed to post to Panda's Thumb weblog are even more carefully chosen. These are notable people in their own right, and by the rules of WP, all over the place, therefore what they write can be used as a WP:RS.--Filll 20:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I think you're stupid? No.  In fact, I think you're very clever.  It takes a lot cleverness to skirt around and/or blatantly violate or ignore Wiki policies and get away with it.  It also takes a lot of cleverness to portray Nature's perusal of Technocrati rankings as "a study."  There are a lot of other high ranking blogs which cannot be used as reliable sources.  As for PT "approaching peer-review," I'll simply say, "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades."  Jinxmchue 04:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It also usually helps when the bloggers are commenting on their own articles in prestigious journals much of the time. Adam Cuerden talk 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then maybe the articles in the "prestigious journals" are the sources that need to be cited. Jinxmchue 04:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nick Matzke is definitely notable, has his own wikipedia page, and therefore his blog is suitable as a source in my opinion. WLU 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Michelle Malkin is definitely notable and has her own WP page, too, but I don't see any of you defending her blog as a reliable source now or at any point in the future. Jinxmchue 04:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am curious how the relationship between Seed (magazine) and Scienceblogs differs from the relationship envisaged under WP:V footnote 5, specifically the section "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." I would also point out that Scienceblogs tend to be more knowledgeable (and thus more reliable) sources for science news (and analysis thereof) than the mainstream press, who often allow reporters without a strong science background to cover this beat. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is the overriding policy, WP:RS is only a guideline, and does not supersede WP:V. The source in question looks self-published to me, and is legitimately disputed. Since it is only one of several sources cited for the statement, it should be removed as redundant and of disputed reliability. It's also disturbing how these five footnotes are being used to pack in an incredible amount of text to "source" a quite simple opening sentence. This technique is quite common to get information into an article that would otherwise not be appropriate. - Crockspot 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On further analysis, and irregardless of whether or not PT is a reliable source, it is being used inappropriately here. The statement that the source is cited for is "The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses." but the source, and it's footnoted text, introduces a new concept, which should be worked into the article as a new statement. If editors wish to take that angle, we can argue about that, but in this context, the source is inappropriate, and I am removing it. - Crockspot 06:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot: given you are dismissing PT as "legitimately disputed" on the basis of WP:V, perhaps you can answer my question above on:

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am saying that it is legitimate to dispute it, because it is a self-published source. That is not why I removed it though. Whether or not it is, in the end, deemed reliable, it was being used inappropriately in the context that it was cited, because rather than supporting the statement, it added further concepts/criticism. That's the main issue, as far as I am concerned. So the reliability of it is moot. If you want to propose a new statement using that source, it can be discussed further. - Crockspot 07:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Scienceblogs are no more "a self-published source" than sources sanctioned by WP:V Footnote 5, so you have failed to differentiate the two relationships. I am not just interested in the specific citation under discussion, but also in the use of Scienceblogs as sources generally -- which has come up before, is currently also under discussion on Talk:Of Pandas and People‎, and will inevitably come up again. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no editorial oversight, then yes, it is a self-published source. Jinxmchue 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Define "editorial oversight". What is the formula for establishing editorial oversight?  By whom must this oversight be undertaken?  Answer these questions without descending into obfuscatory verba sine ratione.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow - leave Wiki for a long weekend and look what happens! Craziness, I apparently need to catch up on all this discussion.Veritasjohn 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the lead paragraph
Now that I have gotten past the problems in the first sentence, I am finding that the rest of the lead paragraph is criticism. While the criticism is legitimate, it seems inappropriate to pack it all into the lead paragraph. This is not how we write articles on Wikipedia. That information should be moved into the body of the article. - Crockspot 07:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the massive reaction to the Discovery Institute by virtually all mainstream science bodies in the world, and their total lack of anything but a public relations strategy, I'm of the opinion that the article, and thus the lead, should be mostly criticism. The DI promotes Intelligent Design and therefore creationism, and does so at a political and public level.  This is their purpose, and all of their actions have been towards this.  I don't really know what else you could say about them.  A huge, well-referenced book (Creationism's Trojan Horse) was written with this in mind, doing nothing but document that the DI is a creationist propaganda tank.  Controversy is the discovery institute.  WLU 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, your complaints appear to be baseless. However, even if there was some substance to them, we are allowed to have footnotes in articles. So not all of those numbered links have to be citations; some can be footnotes. So what?--Filll 14:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What I am seeing in the above replies is a) a fundamental misunderstanding of what ID is, as opposed to creationism, and b) a hostile attitude of POV. Admittedly, I have paid little attention to the ID articles up to now, because it is not really an issue I care all that much about. ID is a new concept that I personally am not attracted to. Creationism is as old as the Bible. What I do care greatly about is NPOV. From my thus-far limited contact with this group of articles, my impression is that they are owned by a group of anti-ID editors who lack a fundamental understanding of what ID actually is, and will gang up on any editor who comes along and attempts to correct this misunderstanding or remove POV from the articles. Calling my complaints baseless is both incorrect, and decidedly uncivil. I would suggest that all editors conduct themselves strictly in accordance with Wikipedia's core content and behavior policies, and spend some time in self reflection in regards to the motivations behind the edits they make. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. - Crockspot 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A stream of consciousness reply does not really help your case. You have no consensus. I could go through your post point by point and demonstrate it is pure nonsense, but we both know that it is nonsense. So please go to Conservapedia or some other wiki to promote your religion.--Filll 01:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you question my good faith? FYI, I am not religious at all, and the last two times I have seen the inside of any religious institutions were to bury each of my parents. Keep it up. You're digging your own hole here. - Crockspot 03:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You do have consensus then? How do you have consensus? Your edits are not supporting a religious POV? Please show me how, given all the references that connect ID to religion. I must be incredibly stupid. --Filll 03:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? - Crockspot 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you:
 * How do you have consensus?
 * How is ID not associated with a religion? Please provide NPOV references, since I provided you several of how ID is creationism. We can also provide quite a few NPOV references that demonstrate its connection with a religion.
 * How is saying "appear to be baseless" uncivil? Which part of the incivility rules of Wikipedia does it violate? Please show me. I am just stupid compared to you, obviously, since I do not see it.--Filll 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Crockspot, you're talking crap, we know you're talking crap, you know you're talking crap, you know we know you're talking crap, we know you know you're talking crap, and we know you know we know you're talking crap. What we don't know is why you're talking crap when you know we know you're talking crap. Why are you talking crap? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Point by point
Actually, we are just reflecting what is in the mainstream, as we are required to do by NPOV etc. Here is what is written in the intelligent design article itself on this issue: "The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;   and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".   "
 * What I am seeing in the above replies is a) a fundamental misunderstanding of what ID is, as opposed to creationism,


 * and b) a hostile attitude of POV. Huh? I and the other editors support science, and follow mainstream science. This is a "hostile attitude of POV"? Aside from being bad English, our edits have been completely inline with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE etc


 * Admittedly, I have paid little attention to the ID articles up to now, because it is not really an issue I care all that much about. So why are you here engaging in bullying tactics?


 * ID is a new concept that I personally am not attracted to. I see. However, not really.


 * Creationism is as old as the Bible. If you believe this, I think you do not understand creationism. I might suggest you read some of Ronald L. Numbers books and other publications on creationism if you do not understand. Creationism is really at most 100 years old, and in its current incarnation is really only about 45 years old.


 * What I do care greatly about is NPOV. So do we. So why do you object when we are following NPOV?


 * From my thus-far limited contact with this group of articles, my impression is that they are owned by a group of anti-ID editors who lack a fundamental understanding of what ID actually is, and will gang up on any editor who comes along and attempts to correct this misunderstanding or remove POV from the articles. I have not seen where this is true. Editing out the reference to a blog which is explained to be a WP:RS by several editors above does not really strike me as doing something about NPOV.


 * Calling my complaints baseless is both incorrect, and decidedly uncivil. I do not think this rises to meet the standards of incivility. Please show me where it does.


 * I would suggest that all editors conduct themselves strictly in accordance with Wikipedia's core content and behavior policies, and spend some time in self reflection in regards to the motivations behind the edits they make. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Physician, heel thyself. --Filll 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, you did not read my actual rationale for removing the source that I removed, because that rationale has yet to be addressed in any way. Please explain to me how that citation sources the statement that it is actually attached to. It introduces new criticism, which should be worked in to the article in another place, not in the lead sentence that simply says what the subject is. My removal had nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of the source. Telling me to "get a dictionary" in your last edit summary to the article is both uncivil, and a personal attack. Please address the content, not the contributor. Expressing skepticism about my personal feelings on ID, as you did above, is not addressing content, it is addressing the contributor. - Crockspot 02:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first show me how the word "baseless" is uncivil. Is it a curse word? Is it a racial slur of some kind? Is it sexist? Does it impugn your heritage or perspicacity? Does it cast terrible aspersions over your character? Does it constitute an attack on your personally?

Perhaps I am just dense, because I do not see it. Please educate me on how the word "baseless" is uncivil. Is the word "groundless" also uncivil? How about the phrase "without merit"? Are you really saying that anyone who disagrees with you and your agenda in any way shape or form whatsoever is to be condemned as uncivil and vilified? Please do enlighten us as to what you really mean and why you said it. This is quite interesting. I honestly had no idea that the word "baseless" was a form of invective or an expletive. I have never seen it listed as such, however, I could be mistaken. Please direct me to reference works where the word "baseless" is so listed.

Drawing from the American Heritage Dictionary, I see that uncivil is the same as discourteous or rude. So it was discourteous to use the word baseless? It was rude? I can assume that if I use the word baseless on network television that word would be bleeped out? Is it on the list of forbidden words of network television and radio censors? Is it on the list of deprecated words and expressions compiled by the Federal Communications Commission? Please provide references for this, if you claim it since I have never heard of it before. Has anyone ever been sued for the use of the word "baseless"?

I see from the article on WP:CIVIL that "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. " So saying your remarks and complaints were baseless caused you stress? It encouraged conflict? So I should have just let you do whatever you wanted, since otherwise there would be conflict? Any opposition causes conflict and therefore is uncivil? Is that the definition of uncivil in this context? Are you sure you want to press this further?

Here is what the Wikipedia article on civility says:

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:


 * Rudeness

So is the word "baseless" rude? Please explain to me how it is rude.


 * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap")

Did I do this? I do not believe I did. If you think the comment about a dictionary was in this category, I assure you it was not intended as such. It was mildly sarcastic since I cannot believe you are charging me with incivility for use of the word "baseless". Frankly, I think your charges of incivility are "baseless". And I challenge you to file an RfC on this issue if you want to see what others think.


 * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA)

Is this what use of the word "baseless" is? If so, I do not see it. Please explain how this could be true.
 * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."

I did not do this, did I?


 * Lies

Did I say you were lying when I used the word "baseless"? I do not think so, but maybe I missed something. Please show me where I am wrong.


 * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

Does the use of the word "baseless" fall in this category? I do not think so, but maybe I am wrong. Please show me how.

More serious examples include:


 * Taunting

Is the word "baseless" used as a common taunt? Maybe some schoolyard bullies use this word to taunt others? I never heard of kids chanting "baseless" repeatedly but maybe I had a sheltered upbringing.


 * Personal attacks

How is the word "baseless" a personal attack?


 * Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs

Is the word "baseless" a racial, ethnic, sexual or religious slur? If so, please explain how.


 * Profanity directed at another contributor

Is the word "baseless" a profanity?


 * Defacing user pages

Did I deface your use page?


 * Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove vandalism

Did I do this?


 * Indecent suggestions

Does the use of the word "baseless" constitute an indecent suggestion? Please show how this is true.

I am at a loss here. My goodness...--Filll 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Stating that my complaints are baseless, as a fact, without qualification, is uncivil. You are not the arbiter of what is baseless and what has merit. That is only your opinion. The civil way would have been to say "I disagree strongly with your complaints". Is that simple enough? - Crockspot 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that is not particularly convincing or compelling, as well as being inaccurate. You have not responded to almost any point raised above, and have misquoted me. (Is misquoting me being uncivil towards ME? Is inaccurately accusing me of being uncivil being uncivil? Hmm....definitely seems like it might be.)

After all, I wrote;

So I did not actually say your complaints are baseless but that they appear to be baseless'''. Do you see the difference? Maybe you missed the subtle difference before.

On the other hand, maybe my use of the word "appear" was taken as an insult of your personal appearance, and some suggestion that when someone looks at you, they do not see that you have a base to stand on. I myself do not possess such a base, but maybe in your culture not having a base is a grave insult. If so, I apologize for suggesting that you do not have a base or do not appear to have a base.

That "your complaints appear to be baseless" obviously is my own personal opinion, and that of several other editors as well. And as far as I know, we operate based on consensus here, not on your own personal dictates. Or am I mistaken, and Crockspot personally is a dictator on Wikipedia? If that is true, I apologize. Please show me the documentation where Crockspot gets to dictate policy and content on Wikipedia. I would be most interested.

So in your opinion, "disagree strongly" is a more civil thing to say than "appear to be baseless"? To me, the opposite appears to be true. Perhaps you are a bit biased and trying to save face after you made a, dare I say, "baseless" claim of incivility? And I wonder about all the other editors above who disputed your claims? Those do not constitute "qualifications"? I am shocked and surprised to hear you claim that. I guess you might have missed all the people who disagreed with you. And do I have to detail exactly in which ways I disagree with you when I state that I disagree? That is news to me. Please show me where I must do this in Wikipedia policy. I would be most interested to see this.

I also might take umbrage at your use of the word "simple". Are you implying that I am simple? And even, perhaps a simpleton? This seems to me to be uncivil. You are being quite uncivil and I protest you calling me simple in the strongest possible terms. I am highly offended by your use of the word "simple".

Please respond to my entire list of questions and requests before you go any further. I am quite dismayed that you just brush off all my comments and arguments without responding to them. In fact, I find it insulting and uncivil.--Filll 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I used the word "simple" in reference to my explanation, not to your IQ, and said that in response to your implication earlier that I was typing long stream-of-consiousness replies, which is a bit ironic, considering the length of the replies that have been posted back to me. This discussion has become very unproductive, and I no longer wish to engage you. Have a nice evening. - Crockspot 03:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not? What is wrong? You are unable to answer why me saying that "appear to be baseless" is uncivil? Come come now. I am waiting for your responses.--Filll 03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And now, a threat. Look, for anyone who reads this, I am really stunned that someone wants to claim that me stating that their argument "appears to be baseless" is an uncivil comment. In fact, I am quite taken aback by this, and feel that this sort of tactic to silence dissent is really inappropriate. I find the claims that the article is biased in some terrible way, or the use of blogs is inappropriate (when it was explained repeatedly how this was wrong), or that the cited article is not relevant to the LEAD sentence is just someone trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult. I did try to confront Crockspot in an admittedly humorous way, in an attempt to defuse this situation. I did not intend to badger him or offend him in any way and I apologize to anyone if I have given anyone affront. I do not mean to be insolent or to engage in contumelious comportment. --Filll 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected
Due to the edit warring and apparent meat and sock puppetry here and at Of Pandas and People, I've protected the article until things settle down. FeloniousMonk 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Relevance of citation attached to lead sentence of Discovery Institute
Is [this citation (diff, one of five footnotes, relevant to the short lead sentence that it is attached to as a source, or does it introduce a further concept and/or criticism that should be edited into the article on its own? For clarity, the lead sentence that this citation is attached to reads: "The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses.[1][2][3][4][5]" - 02:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As the caller of this RfC, I do not believe that this citation is directly relevant to the sentence it is being used to source, and is introducing criticism that should appear elsewhere in the article. Being a self-published source, I also have issues as to the appropriatness and reliability of this source, but that is not the question that I have raised, and I am focusing on the appropriateness and relevance of this cite being used to source this specific sentence. - Crockspot 02:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mind you, Matzke is one of the experts used to prepare the Kitzmiller trial, and has been published repeatedly in major journals, so his views are notable even if self-published. Adam Cuerden talk 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Matzke is an acknowledged expert, so his views are notable. Panda's Thumb is the mostly highly rated science weblog, as established by a review by Nature magazine. I read the cite and as far as I can tell, it is completely relevant to the cited sentence.--Filll 03:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, but the question is not about notability or reliability, the question is if the cite actually sources the sentence in italics above, or if it introduces further information that should be worked into the article on its own. I thought I made that quite clear. - Crockspot 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, all that I can see so far is that you have engaged in tendentitious and disruptive editing and made baseless accusations. Basically, you have not read the quote or the citation or the arguments for or against it or the replies to your complaints. You have not really acted in good faith at all and frankly I am shocked that an editor with 8000+ edits would engage in such behavior. And why don't you respond to my queries and statements above before you go any further? --Filll 03:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you have the diffs to back all that up, because I certainly do, but this is not the appropriate venue. Good night. - Crockspot 03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are threatening me with an RfC? Is that not uncivil? Good heavens. What happened to WP:AGF??--Filll 03:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is this even up for an RFC? I don't understand the premise behind this move.  Could someone explain?  Baegis 04:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As near as I can tell, Crockspot wants to remove all negative material from the articles on intelligent design, including this one, since he claims that having negative material in these articles violates WP:NPOV. He also claims that all blogs including Panda's Thumb weblog should be removed as sources. Crockspot also appears to reserve to right to call anyone uncivil who disagrees with him, or at least disagrees with him in some way he deems inappropriate. And if someone challenges him on this, he is prepared to take administrative action against them. And this is apparently to silence any dissent, as far as I can tell. He is demanding that these articles be written the way he dictates, or else.--Filll 04:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does appear as such. His behavior is borderline disruptive.  Baegis 05:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should back up every single one of those assertions, Filll. Show us where Crockspot said he wants to remove all negative material about ID from articles and where he said any negative material violates NPOV. Show us where he claimed all blogs should be removed as sources. Show us where Crockspot's comments about other people's incivility or any warnings of admin action is any different from, oh, the comments and warnings by you, FeloniousMonk, et al. Show us where there is absolutely no irony in your statements about silencing dissent and demands that articles be written the way someone (or a small group of someones who back up each other's edits to duck the 3RR) dictate (or else!). Can't do it? Didn't think so. Jinxmchue 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Easily done. Just read above. --Filll 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place for this - please focus on the article, not perceived slights to your friend. Guettarda 05:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points. One is that, regardless of anything else, PT is a reliable source for Nick Matzke's opinion. And Matzke is an expert on this topic. The other is that we can also source this to Not in Our Classrooms. Can the problem be solved by adding the following ref: ? Guettarda 04:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that attributing it to the book is a good idea. However, if that is allowed in this particular case, it will only bolster certain editors quest to eliminate PT as a reliable source.  They will see this as a victory and be emboldened.  We should be careful with any such move.  Baegis 05:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying replace the PT ref - it's accessible online, for free. As I said - PT is absolutely a reliable source.  But it doesn't hurt to strengthen the argument.  Guettarda 05:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strengthen which argument? The argument that "The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses."? If anyone has read the question I posed, I have not said to remove the source from the article, I have said that the argument that the source poses should be worked into the article, supporting a statement stating that argument. Right now, the source is supporting the statement in italics, but it makes an argument that the statement does not even pose. How does this translate to "removing all negative material from all ID articles as POV"? Can anyone answer that? Why is everyone so defensive, and trying to paint me as a fundie nutball who is wielding the sword of the lord? - Crockspot 05:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A stab in the dark, pun intended, about this defensiveness. You are one of a long line of people to disrupt these related articles and hundreds will come after you.  And maybe it's because you are being unreasonable.  And using policy to further only your own point.  Pick one.  Baegis 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I gather that CS does not believe that the PT cite contains any information about the DI and the Teach the Controversy campaign or its efforts to teach intelligent design or introduce creationist beliefs in schools? Wow. Maybe I need to go back to high school because according to my reading of the PT cite, this is exactly what it was about. But I must be confused; I am too "simple" after all and all my thoughts are "baseless". Plus I am not allowed to disagree with Crockspot or he will see that I am banned. --Filll 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Yes, that is a great idea and I added it was going to add it but forgot the article was protected.  I think it should be added in addition to the current PT ref.  My apologies.  Baegis 05:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Although the book is a great source, the advantage of the blog is that it is more accessible and satisfies WP:V better. Plus we do not want to create a precedent of getting rid of PT.

The problem is, here and on other pages, editors come on and announce that all 100+ articles on creationism and/or intelligent design are all BS/crap and should be torn up and turned into promotional tracts for the Discovery Institute and if we do not give in, we are violating all kinds of laws and fairness doctrines and Wikipedia policies. That is what is going on now. This attempt is just the latest in a string of dozens and dozens and dozens. All with the same agenda. And if we give in, soon this will just turn into an advertising venue for the Discovery Institute. Great...--Filll 05:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Guettarda does make a good point though about strengthening the statement. And I do agree that allowing a tiny crack to form will eventually compromise the entire dam.  Plus, conservapedia already accommodates those who do not rely on troubling things like reliable sources and peer-review and facts.  Can't have two of those products on the market.  It's already saturated.  Hah!  Baegis 05:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, which statement are you wanting to strengthen? There is no such statement in the lead sentence. Why not actually add the statement to the article, instead of footnoting it to the lead sentence? Most casual readers only read the article, and do not bother checking footnotes, especially the last footnote in a string of five or six. If you want the point made to readers, wouldn't it be more effective to have it in the text of the article? - Crockspot 05:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that a) the material has both a reliable and a verifiable source. I'd say cite the book and put in a link to the blog. And b) I see no reason why the statement shouldn't be worked in to the article. It makes the most sense. Phyesalis 06:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Though Crockspot retired, I think I might be able to rephrase the question that he is getting at:

How does the content of Pandathumb support the statement "The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses."''

I read through it and recognize that he is an expert. I just question how that page backs up that sentence. It dances around the topic but it doesn't exactly come out and say it. For a long time, I have been reminded that controversial topics need to have definitive sourcing. The sentence as it stands is backed up by four sources that do state what it says but this one is less clear. That is all. Have a great day! 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I must have supremely bad reading comprehension skills. It sure looks like it supports the sentence to me. Am I required to write 3 pages of material explaining how? I think it is pretty obvious. --Filll 15:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It does support the sentence. Phyesalis 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it supports the sentence, but nonetheless CS has an ulterior motive and the source doesn't fit that motive.
 * Also, I find his assertion regarding the alleged non-comprehension of ID on the part of various editors to speak directly to his own cognitive dissonance rather than to that of anyone else. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, my head hurts. This was my understanding:


 * Consensus seems to be that the info is valid, the question is now an issue of formatting the citation.
 * The footnote does support the statement, it also introduces new info, but this in and of itself is no big deal.
 * Crockspot wants to retain the new info, and instead of leaving the info in a footnote, wants it be brought up into the body of the article proper where it will have more prominence (and while I am only familiar with the content in the RfC section, in his defense, I think Crockspot has made this quite clear).
 * Are these correct? If not, how? If so, then what is the remaining problem? Am I just completely missing some sub-text? At this point, I agree with ZayZayEM. It seems as if the best thing at this point is for Crockspot to just outline his proposal. Phyesalis 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Ok, I am actually trying to help you guys out here to make a bulletproof article but my efforts seem to be overlooked or ignored (or maybe my reading comprehension is faulty...). Let's look at the statement that we have attached this source to:

Now let's look at the article we are trying to link with this:


 * 1) . No mention of "think tank"
 * 2) . No mention of "Seattle, Washington", Seattle or anything of the sort
 * 3) . No mention of "advocacy"
 * 4) . We do see intelligent design.
 * 5) . No mention of "Teach the Controversy" except in the comments section below.
 * 6) . No mention of "creationist beliefs"

This is what I am getting at. You are attempting to attach to this sentence an article that does not even mention most of the key points in the sentence. Use the article elsewhere as it is a great source that analyzes the attempts by DI attack science. But don't attach it to that sentence. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you going to force us to go through the cited reference line by line and demonstrate its relevance? We have several editors here who agree the cited reference is relevant. We have a sequence of editors who appear here once, to only opine on this subject, and then disappear. This just gets tedious and really strikes me as organized harassment.--Filll 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to force you, but others may and that is what I am getting at. I am trying to point out the flaw with that citation being on that particular sentence. It does not clearly state the relevance. On other articles, I have been advised that the content in controversial topics need to stay close to the source in order to prevent misinterpretation and edit warring. I am merely pointing out what the issue is over. You have a statement backed up by 4 out of 5 citations. The other 4 citations use the terms in the sentence without inferring or interpreting the prose in the article. The Panda thumb blog does not. I really want to make sure this article is bulletproof but this citation in this place is shaky to me (and seeing the protection of the article over this). All I ask is that you objectively look at that. I am really not trying to be a seagull editor (fly in, shit all over the place, fly out) in this article. I want to assist by showing you what is wrong. I don't want to change the article to be pro-ID. I don't want to change the POV of the article. I don't want to see PT removed as a source. I don't want to do anything but illustrate what is wrong. I just want it used in the right place.


 * Also, the link on citation #3 no longer works. I am going to make a editprotected request to change the link to the archive.org copy. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Matze source definitely supports that the DI works towards promotion of "teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses". It heavily associates DI with creationist beliefs. Do the other sources provide credible support for this statement? I do agree it is not the best source for this particular statement, and definitely has other points that could/should be added to the article, so unless the other sources do not closely associate DI with creationist beliefs/agenda then it could be removed from this sentance in particular. We are not indiscriminate links. I really would like CS to reply to my suggestion that he simply proposes his as-yet-unsuggested additions.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I read through Matzke's text a couple more times. At most, all that is needed is a very slight rewording of the sentence. Matzke makes a compelling case that the Critical Analysis of Evolution campaign of the Discovery Institute is nothing more than creationism, and in fact the Discovery Institute is advocating creationist beliefs and even still intelligent design, although after its court defeat it is less open about promoting intelligent design.

Rewordings
To fix the problem, I just made a small change. Here is my proposed reworded version:

The cited references and footnotes remain identical in my suggested version.--Filll (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it be better "and related campaigns" go in parentheses?--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure. I would defer to some of our language experts here. But maybe...--Filll (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think it is a tenuous connection between the article and that sentence.




 * At least this version gets to material in the article. Wording definitely needs to be worked on though. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  12:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to: "does it introduce a further concepts"?

 * This seems irrelevant. Many sources introduce concepts beyond that which they are used to support. Actually it's quite common. If you are advocating removing a source because the source has additional concepts beyond which it is being used to support, that seems to be silly. If you aren't suggesting we remove the reference, I suggest you rephrase yourself, as it seems most editors are under that impression.--ZayZayEM 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to: "should [said further concepts and criticisms in reference under scrutiny] be edited into the article"?


 * Yes. If relevant to the topic, any information from any source should be edited into any of wikipedia's articles. As long as it meets criteria for addition.
 * Why not suggest your proposed addition to the article, and see what the response to that is?--ZayZayEM 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Study" of Judge Jones
The beginning of this sections says the DI claims that 90.9% of the judge's opinion came from the plaintiff's submission of findings; then the end says that Elsberry's reanalysis found that 35% of the submission was incorporated into the opinion. Those are very different things, so which is it? Even if it is something worth noting, it seems to me that the former (i.e., the degree to which the judge relied on the plaintiffs rather than writing a new opinion) is the important number. KarlM 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you understood what the numbers mean before advocating a preference for one or the other.


 * A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case and thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section.


 * As stated in the article already, the comparable number, that of amount of text in the section of Jones' decision dealing with "ID is not science" copied pretty much directly from the plaintiffs' section in the proposed findings of fact on that topic, is 66%. Since the DI's intent is to claim that Judge Jones acted in some unseemly fashion, the other number, that of how much text from the plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact were copied to Jones' decision, and that number is 38%. (The 35% number in the article should be changed to reflect that.) It seems to me that the article appropriately deploys quantities, and I don't see a good reason to cut out a quantity that is already reported.


 * Also, "the degree to which the judge relied on the plaintiffs rather than writing a new opinion" is the latter number, 38%. That means that Jones produced about 62% of the decision without use of wording directly taken from the PPFOF. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a different source from the Brayton article used as a reference, which had comments mentioning 35% as well as 38%, and the article at present doesn't match what I'm getting from the Wesley reference:

Here's a proposed revision –

Please advise so that the change can be made. .. dave souza, talk 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The comment on my weblog has the most recent information. I did note a correction in the thread on Ed's weblog:


 * While my comparisons of the "ID is not science" sections of the decision and PPFOF are OK, I discovered this morning that I didn't have all of the PPFOF for the full document comparisons. That changes the numbers for the full document comparisons. In plain language, Judge Jones constructed an opinion that is 38% plaintiffs's proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The judge used about 35% of the plaintiffs's proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law to do so. I have put my source files and the match results up here. That includes the source files I used for the "ID is not science" sections. So if anyone wants to do some more checking to make sure that everything is there, feel free to do so.


 * So I think the revision looks good. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have implemented it as agreed, but as the sentence was rather long and convoluted I've split it, and tried to make it clearer that the section on whether ID is science was the one the DI were having a go at. Please read it and let me know if further tweaks are needed. .. dave souza, talk 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose to change on minor part of the revision (which I like, overall). The second sentence leads out "Significantly, ..." which appears to give the Wiki a point of view on the controversy. I think it would be more NPOV to say, "According to Elsberry" instead of "Significantly" The wiki article should not make judgments about which facts are significant, at least not in this fashion. Agreed?Veritasjohn 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Need source URL Changed
On the third citation in the article, the link to the American prospect site no longer shows the article. I would link to repoint the URL from this to this which is the wayback machine's copy of the original article (earliest copy is December 18, 2002, article date is December 2, 2002). I do not see this as controversial. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

See also section
Needs trimming per WP:GTL. I might do that after the protection is lifted. Any problems with that? Thanks and sorry to interupt your edit wars with trivial house cleaning, Cheers! --Tom 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right. Some of those are already linked into the article, and those that are not, someone should try to work in. I would do it but of course it is locked at the moment.--Filll 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed all the duplicate links from see also. There seems to be many others inside the article itself that I will also try to work on. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Campaigns for creationism
Is it DI's own stated goal to "teach creationism", or is that a conclusion drawn by Barbara Forrest and others?

If it's not DI's own stated goal, then should Wikipedia alert its readers to the dispute oven what DI's real goals are - or should it simply report Forrest's interpretation as the only referenced "fact"?

Where I'm coming from in this, is reading a few web sites where DI and their ilk complain that ID is "conflated" with creationism or with young earth creationism.

Is it the view of Wikipedia (or just of ID opponents) that ID is a form of creationism? In other words, has Wikipedia made up its collective mind that ID's critique of evolution as insufficient to account for the "irreducible complexity' of the flagellum cannot stand on its own? That it MUST be tied to the motive of "using" this critque in an argument from design for the existence of God?

In short, is there no way for an ID advocate to be an agnostic? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You brought up a lot of issues here.


 * The goal of the DI Their positions are identical with creationism and the teaching of creationism in schools. They might not call it creationism for legal reasons, however. And in fact, they do not call their present position "intelligent design" even, for legal reasons obviously. However, it is the same stuff.


 * Alerting people over dispute of goals We have already done lots of this. Take a look at the intelligent design article, for example.


 * ID conflated with creationism We have cited 6 peer-reviewed publications (none of which originate with Professor Forest) that state that intelligent design is creationism. We can cite many more. Six should be enough, however.


 * Making up Wikipedia's collective mind It really does not matter what our collective mind says. What matters is what the mainstream of science states in reliable sources. And what the mainstream of science states in reliable sources is that intelligent design is a form of creationism.


 * The flagellum We have multiple peer-reviewed sources stating that this is a red herring and can completely be accounted for using evolutionary theory.


 * ID advocates can be agnostics Yes of course ID advocates can be agnostics, and some probably are. Who said they could not? The objection to intelligent design has nothing to do with whether the supporters are not atheists or agnostics. The objection to intelligent design is that intelligent design is not science. (1) Intelligent design requires magic. Magic is not science. (2) So far, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever of intelligent design. --Filll (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and you provide a lot of answers here. Thanks, Filll. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed, we'd answered time and again these very questions at other ID articles with you over a year ago, and you kicked up quite a disruption that lead to arbitration and your probation. Nothing has changed since then, so please do not re-raise old issues again and re-start past patterns. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "is there no way for an ID advocate to be an agnostic?" In the words of prominant design theorist, molecular biologist and crackpot, Michael Behe, "It could be a space alien (wink wink)".  Now pull the other one, Ed :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are they connected with?
Serious question: is this in any way connected to the Discovery Channel or to Fort Discovery? Or do they just happen to share the same names? Sweetfreek (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No.--Filll (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

'Controversy' section
I've made an attempt to provide subsection headings to the (very long) 'Controversy' section, in an attempt to give it some structure. Although I think it's an improvement, I'm still not entirely satisfied with the results. For one thing, the remaining un-subsectioned paragraph, on Chapman's transformation sounds like it more belongs as part of a larger section (perhaps on the DI's anti-intellectualism/anti-science theme) than as a general introduction. On the other hand, it does to a certain extent give a lead-in to the religious aspect of their agenda. I'll leave it for the time being, until either I see a smoother way of fitting this together, or until somebody else comes along to improve the fit. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles are linked too muliple times
Is there any good reason that articles are be linked too multiple times? Per WP:GTL, that does not seem necessary? I removed a FEW but there still are a LOT more still in the article. I brought this up a while ago but here we go again. If this has aleready been addressed or there is a different consensus I apologize ahead of time. Cheers! --Tom 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did mention this under "See also section" in the last archives with not much comment. Anyways, --Tom 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the standard is that more than once per link per section is deemed excessive. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people just don't know otherwise. It might be an idea to check the history in such cases and inform the editor responsible of the layout conventions. Richard001 (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people also don't know how to spell - please learn the difference between "to" and "too" for your future comments! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.2.112 (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Partisanship
There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of the term "non-partisan." Describing DI as non-partisan doesn't mean they're not ideological, nor does it imply they never lobby for legislation introduced by Republican Senators. What it means is that they aren't formally affiliated with, and don't support particular parties or candidates. Non-partisanship is a requirement for 501(c)3 status, so the fact that they've achieved 501(c)3 status means that the IRS, at least, regards them as non-partisan. The fact that you don't like their ideological views (and frankly, I don't either) doesn't make them non-partisan. Binarybits (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By The way, it might be helpful to consult the category "Nonpartisan organizations in the United States" (not sure how to link to it). Wikipedia classifies organizations ranging from the liberal (and Democratic-leaning) Center for American Progress to the conservative (and Republican-leaning) American Enterprise Institute as non-partisan. It also defines single-issue organizations like the NRA and the NAACP that way. I'm having trouble thinking of a definition of "non-partisan" that would include all of those groups but exclude this one. Binarybits (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, there seems to be what amounts to a definitional issue here in that the category is being primarily used in the technical sense of the term rather than any colloquial sense (under whaich CAP, AEI, NAACP etc. would all be partisan). The link incidentally is Category:Nonpartisan organizations in the United States. The correct syntax is Category:Nonpartisan organizations in the United States (note the colon in front). Given that it might be appropriate to figure out if the category as currently composed makes sense. I doubt when most people think of nonpartisan they are thinking of the tax code's sense of the word. If the decision is made to continue to use the category in that fashion then it would make sense to include it. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How would you define "non-partisan," and which groups would you include under the category? (And thanks for the pointer on categories) Binarybits (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Under the IRC, bb is correct. Just trust me on this.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that mean that the cat is so broad that it's useless? Isn't every organisation not associated with a political party "nonpartisan"?  In other words, shouldn't it be one of two subcats under Category:Organizations based in the United States, the other being "political parties in the United States"?  Guettarda (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there are a variety of organizations, such as PACs, College Republican clubs, campaign committees, etc that are partisan. Obviously, the categorization is irrelevant for organizations that aren't involved in politics, but for organizations that are involved in politics I think it can be an important attribute. Binarybits (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You needn't split hairs quite so finely. It's still a trivial proportion of organisations in the US.  As for "not involved in politics" - how do you propose to source a negative?  Most organisations are at least somewhat involved in politics.  Looks like a useless category that should be sent to CFD.  Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Two points: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Not only is the category overly-broad (in that it appears to define any organisation without an explicit affiliation to a political party as "non-partisan"), its existence is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
 * 2) Per WP:BURDEN this label has been "challenged" and thus "must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" for reinclusion.
 * I've reverted this edit as a newspaper evidently getting its info from John G. West is dubious as a source, and this is clearly a nuanced question which should be put in context, not just baldly asserted in the lead. If non-partisan is discussed, it must be made clear that this is a technical US definition which is at variance with the general meaning elsewhere in the world, and that's appropriate for the body of the article rather than the first sentence of the lead. Otherwise it gives undue weight to DI claims. . dave souza, talk 15:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, it doesn't cite West as the source of the nonpartisan claim. And is your claim that any news article that quotes someone affiliated with DI is disreputable? I'm still waiting for an alternative definition of non-partisan. Binarybits (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Further on this, the DI routinely self-describes as "a non-partisan public policy center" (a self-description the Oxford Press, of the great metropolis of Oxford, Ohio, presumably accepted without fact-checking) and an article on one of its former board member demonstrates how 'flexible' the 'non-partisan' self-description has become. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What's more important is that the lead is supposed to summarise the article. If you think that a discussion of this issue is relevant to the article, please add sourced content to the body of the article (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind).  Adding trivia to the lead simply to insert a dubiously-useful category isn't an acceptable manner of editing.  Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the "non-partisan" view is contradicted by the Smithsonian Institution, in the New York Times here. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to re-read that article. What it says is that the Smithsonian approved the movie despite having a policy against sponsoring religious or partisan activities, suggesting that the film was not. Binarybits (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, they eventually returned the donation -- which is why I initially misread this passage. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, as I said, if you want to add a section about this in the article, please add a relevant discussion of the political affiliations of the DI, supported by reliable sources. And bear in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to be comprehensible to people who are neither American, nor political junkies.  Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It would be more appropriate to have a paragraph on the DI's political ties in the article body, rather than a single-word, potentially-misleading (based upon an idiosyncratic "non-partisan"='explicitly affiliated to a political party definition), label in the lead. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would further note that the OED defines 'partisan' (in this context) as "An adherent or proponent of a party, cause, person, etc.; esp. a devoted or zealous supporter". I think we have ample evidence that the DI is a "zealous" "proponent" of the "cause" of ID, and that to call them "non-partisan" therefore violates WP:ASTONISH. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * M-W defines it as "free from party affiliation, bias, or designation," which seems more to the point. Binarybits (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, so should not WP:ASTONISH its British Commonwealth readers just because its American ones would interpret this word the way you'd expect. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that non-partisan is a fairly common way to describe organizations that work on political topics (as indicated by the "nonpartisan organizations" category), and that the IRS's designation of DI as 501c3 should be enough to verify DI's claim of non-partisanship. But I'm plainly outnumbered and I'm frankly not inclined to waste a lot of time sticking up for an organization I don't like very much.

If we're going to use non-partisan in this new, stricter fashion, then someone should trim or remove the "non-partisan organizations" category. Organizations like CAP and AEI are obviously not non-partisan as the term is being defined here.Binarybits (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Common? Perhaps. But hardly unambiguous. Last I checked, the IRS only had jurisdiction over a minority of English language speakers. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I would suspect that all US think tanks are "nonpartisan" in the IRS sense of the word, so "nonpartisan think tank" would (in this sense of the word) be redundant. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would further like to note (though as it is a wikipedia article, do not cite as authoritative) Nonpartisan which states:

Is it appropriate to state, baldly, and in the lead, that an organisation is "nonpartisan" (even assuming the US/IRS definition), if it is only "nominally" so? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Again, if this is the standard we're applying, then we have a lot of work to do cleaning up articles like Los Angeles National Impeachment Center, which baldly states in the lead that an organization dedicated to impeaching Dick Cheney is non-partisan. Binarybits (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Binarybits, you're using the most narrow possible definition for 'partisan' here: Devoted to or biased in support of a particular party. But every dictionary says partisan also means devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: The Discovery Institute is clearly devoted to or biased in support of a particular cause, if not party. Meaning they are still partisan. Sorry, but the reasoning given they aren't, not supporting a particular party, doesn't hold water. Odd nature (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The category does seem overly broad. Maybe a CfD is in order? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

top section (Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle)
A week ago, an editor reverted a "bold" change that I made to the top section.

My change had two parts:

First, I referenced the following sources as saying that the Discovery Institute proposes creationist beliefs:
 * wedge_and_response: Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, 1999.
 * kitzmillerP131: Ruling, page 131 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
 * nejm: Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006

Second, I changed the quotes in the references in the top section to use block quotes instead of inline quotes. For example, I changed:
 * "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely inﬂuenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message. Retrieved on 2008-07-23

to


 * Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
 * &lt;blockquote&gt;ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely inﬂuenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

This second change affected the following references:
 * wedge_and_response: Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, 1999.
 * kitzmiller_pg89: Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89
 * kitzmillerP131: Ruling, page 131 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
 * mooney: Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
 * arn: Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? by William A. Dembski
 * pandasthumb: No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11, 2006
 * aaas: AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006

I suggest we discuss which (if any) of my changes should be applied to the top section.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Focus on Intelligent Design
This article appears to include information predominently about this organization's advocacy for the Intelligent Design (ID) idea. In fact, it makes the organization look like that is it's major mission. Is this really true? Is ID the major platform of this organization, or is it but one of many ideas the organization promotes? Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it by the non-response that no one has bothered trying to find out. I'll take a look myself. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They have another arm arguing for certain local projects in Seattle. The article mentions this. Most of the institute's money is directed toward the Center for Science and Culture. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The current lede doesn't summarize the article very well, instead concentrating on criticism.  I'll try to get it rewritten over the next couple of days. Cla68 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I looked at the Institute's website, and although they do appear to be promoting Intelligent Design, the idea does not have a predominent presence on their website. Any article about an idealogical or political advocacy organization like this one should first describe the mission of the organization as they see themselves and then any reliably sourced outside views including praise, neutral comments, or criticism should be included, but not with more weight than any other section.  Obviously, that is not currently the case with this article. Cla68 (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the lead and part of the article is a bit unbalanced though may be accurate. More about how the DI markets themselves is needed. Their "About Us" is particularly interesting: Mission Statement

Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future  practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition   of representative    government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted   through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences    and debates,    plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and  Internet    website ( http://www.discovery.org ).

Current projects explore the fields of technology, science and culture, reform   of the law, national defense, the environment and the economy, the future of    democratic institutions, transportation, religion and public life, government    entitlement spending, foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national    region of "Cascadia." The efforts of Discovery fellows and staff, headquartered   in Seattle, are crucially abetted by the Institute's members, board and sponsors. The fact that "intelligent design" doesn't appear in their mission statement is telling. Yet, it is unescapable that this is what the institute is best known for in the media and it is also what the vast majority of their publications, events, and promotions are about. I'd love to see you take a crack at it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it from your statement that you aren't willing to help me out with it. OK. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly willing to help you out. I'm not sure why my statement gave you any other impression. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, "I'd love to see you [emphasis mine] take a crack at it." You may be right, however, I'll check some news databases today if I have time to see if this organization does anything else besides promoting ID. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, the emphasis was not supposed to be on you! I'm just not sure I'm going to be able to fix it myself. But help I will. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Credible challenge
Is there actually a credible challenge that the Discovery Institute is a conservative thinktank? Or is somebody trying to make a WP:POINT? siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's funding comes from conservative (and in such cases arch-conservative) sources, it's founder's conversion to conservatism is well documented and (AFAIK) not in dispute, and its highest-profile project, ID, is most certainly conservative. Barring substantial contrary evidence, I think the label is safe. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not a "Think Tank" its a religious organisation, as the article states its manifesto says so! The only thinking they do is trying to get religion taught in schools, breaching the constitution and thinking of ways to enforce their religious beliefs onto others.--27.33.109.57 (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

hatnote
Would it not be a good idea to replace hatnote with link to disambiguation page? Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Bus stop! Thanks for doing it, Hrafn! --Kevinkor2 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent design and Teach the Controversy
Should be mentioned that the Discovery Institutes biggest and most intelligent front men, chicken out of the dover trial, as they knew it would be shown ID is just creationism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdefghiabc (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like an unfair assessment to me. Having not read much about the trial, however, I am in little place to judge. Please avoid treating ID like it was a 'Freemason conspiracy.' It deserves an open debate just like every other scientific theory. -Master Imrahil 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master Imrahil (talk • contribs)


 * No, actually ID doesn't deserve open debate just like every other scientific theory precisely because ID is NOT scientific. A scientific theory, by definition, has within itself the ability to be disproved. ID does NOT have such disprovability, for the "theory" is based on belief that all life has ultimately been "created" by a superintelligence in the Universe, a claim that has absolutely not a single shred of proof to it. ID is NOT science. It is purely a matter of faith and either one believes it or they don't, and the proponents of ID instruction in school are not people who want to "educate" students to possibly accept the validity of ID, but instead people who want to "indoctrinate" students to "believe" in ID.99.150.202.12 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The majority of DI expert witnesses did withdraw from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District under circumstances that indicate that either their reasons were spurious, or that they had a substantial hidden agenda that conflicted with their putative role as assisting the defence. ID is not a "scientific theory". The only legitimate forum for "open debate" of science is peer-reviewed scientific journals -- which ID advocates have avoided like the plague. Their assorted, equivocating and often contradictory claims have been thoroughly documented and debunked by the scientific community however, and their arguments have been found (without any exception that I know of to date) to be simple retreads of pre-existing Creationist canards. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was at the trial and did my bit to assist the plaintiffs' attorneys. An interview with Bruce Chapman shows that there was top-down direction in 3/5ths of the DI participation jumping the TMLC ship in KvD:


 * Chapman said he asked Discovery fellows not to testify in the Dover case. But Scott Minnich, a microbiologist, and Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor, did and were asked in court who they thought the designer was. "The designer is in fact God," Behe testified.


 * Source


 * As for the "open question" thing, get back to me when a substantive and convincing reply is made to "Why Intelligent Design Fails" and "Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism". --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've included the Seattle Times Bruce Chapman admission in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Teach the Controversy" is right. I can't tell you how many times I've run into the followers of this organization. This article describes them fairly well but doesn't really show how pervasive this organization has become. What's sad is there are now some respected scientists backing them. But this is creationism, or at lease pointing at it strongly ;( Atheistman666 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Atheistman666"? Wow. You guys don't even hide your bias --Tembew (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Add to Category: Cults?
Hi, I think it's safe to say there is probably a consensus to start adding organizations like these to Category: Cults. Wikipedia's definition of a cult is, "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre." I think we can all agree that this organization and others like it fall under that definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.231.231 (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Outrageous Bias
After 150 years of populating educational institutions with Darwinists, suddenly, when the Discovery Institute attempts to balance these institutions, it is called "stacking" school boards. Why was it never stacking when secular originations did it?

Normally, I feel that Wikipedia is fair and balanced and I have on several occasions defended it against critics, but this section is totally unhinged in its presentation. It sounds more like the Catholic Church's indictment of Galileo's views, which were also not considered REAL TRUE HONEST SCIENCE, because they did not fit with the accepted knowledge of the time and so challenged those in power.

Steve Novak, MBA & Mensan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.132.41 (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi 198.200.132.41,
 * I sympathize with your comments. (See the following sections on my user page, Am I a Dominionist? and The Truth Project, where my own views are on display for fellow Wikipedians.)
 * However, there are two problems with them:
 * You weren't logged on with a Wikipedia account when you made them. Therefore, we can only look at Special:Contributions/198.200.132.41 to judge whether you are a constructive editor rather than disruptive.
 * You claim your real world name, but (because of the anonymous nature of Wikipedia) this cannot be verified. In fact, Wikipedia policy prohibits us from verifying it. So, we cannot evaluate your real world credentials.
 * A core policy of Wikipedia is
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" --WP:VERIFY
 * Because of this, I suggest you do the following:
 * Find a statement in a reliable source that matches your comments.
 * Add the statement into this article and add a reference to the source where you got it.
 * --Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was never called stacking when the secular organizations did it simply because they never did it. While the ID advocates go through legal procedings and try to force their ideas into classrooms, reshaping and renaming the same thing over and over when the courts invariably call what they want added unconstitutional because of it's intrinsic relationship to religion, the secular organizations used the proper method, which is research, testing, attempting to publish papers, going to meetings and gatherings of scientists, allowing people to criticize and pick apart your ideas, revising and improving it, etc.  It took these "secular scientists" 150 years to get to the point they are at now through the proper avenues.  The ID advocates have only been around for about 30 and have been driving down the wrong road the entire time.  That's why they're stacking schoolboards and the secular scientists are not.


 * And fyi, you might want to update your understanding of the Catholic Church's issue with Galileo, because they actually liked his ideas, but wanted evidence before he promoted them as truth. He was only put under house arrest for breaking the law. (criticizing the pope - a silly law by today's standards, but a law none the less)Farsight001 (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Kevinkor2 (talk) stripped a number of references, labeling reason for doing so as blogs. Blogs are allowed as long as they are professional or use the entity itself as a source. Simply rejecting a 'blog' as a reference is not sufficient. Also, in another case, a reference was rejected although it clearly, if belatedly, referred to the topic at hand.


 * Was there some other objection? I don't wish to engage in edit wars, so I'm willing to compromise on this. Thank you.


 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi UnicornTapestry,
 * Thanks for raising this issue on the talk page.
 * I recently made four edits:
 * In the first edit, I replaced a ref to a Chinese language site with a ref to an equivalent English language site already in use in the article.
 * In the next edit, I removed a ref to CriminalBrief.com, which is a blog. I suggest that CriminalBrief.com focuses on helping mystery writers create better mystery short stories. Therefore, it does not have a professional interest in the subject.
 * In the third edit, I kept the ref to a Discovery Institute, but used a fragment identifier to focus the URL directly on the blog entry in question. According to the policy, WP:SELFPUB, self published sources (such as blogs) are allowed when they are by the entity in question themselves. (A few other conditions apply, by I think they are met in this case.)
 * In the final edit, I moved the "slate" and "nejm" references up one phrase, because they talk about "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" rather than about the Wedge Document.
 * Hopefully this answers your questions, UnicornTapestry.
 * --Kevinkor2 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have answered my questions and quite well, too. Now that I understand your overall reasoning, the points I might pick at are relatively minor and not that important. Thanks for a alleviating my concerns.


 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.  Not to say that your perspective cannot help maintain a NPOV, but that you can pretty much assume that you will be incapable of faithfully presenting one yourself.


 * In response to some of the biased statements here, the idea that God cannot be proven or disproven, thus making ID not scientific is a fallacious argument. Just because God has not been proven or disproven does not mean that God cannot be proven or disproven, only that the appropriate scientific method of testing has not been employed to such ends, at least not in a manner sufficient for you personally. Science would have to be able to prove or disprove the theory of intelligent design, or science itself cannot be held up as the final answer to all things material.  The very scientific idea that all things can be explained by the natural demands that all things must be natural, thus eliminating the potential for the supernatural.  Therefore, God must be proven or disproven in the natural, not relegated to the scientifically non-existent supernatural without debate, research, or experimentation.  I would venture to say that this article could use a good dose of the reality that many in the intelligent design camp believe God to be incredibly natural and scientific, even if they are somewhat mystified by some of his scientific methods.  The science of God should be thought of as the study of a highly intelligent being whose very existence is so different from our own that our science has not come near far enough to even begin to understand him.  Like gravity, we may not understand it, but we know it's there.  We test it every day.  Denying it only makes you look the fool.  And there's my bias.
 * --Laynerogers (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design also can't be proven or disproven. It's not a scientific theory. Yet the DI is trying to force it into schools - for religious reasons. The claims of this talk page are generally those of similarly religiously motivated editors who can't substantiate their points with reliable sources. This is not surprising given the consistent lack of scientific support for all their propositions - again, because this is a religious issue, not a scientific one. The extensive use of sources also clearly illustrates the fact that the page is not based on opinion - particularly the fact that the most reliable sources are the most vehement. This page isn't about proving or disproving God, it's about the DI - a religious organization with a religious agenda attempting to force that agenda into secular institutions in violation of the US constitution. The DI is trying to use science to prove God, which even theologians agree is pointless and stupid. If the DI ever presented any actual data or experiments on their concepts, it could be said that they were trying to be scientific, but all that's presented is rehashed creationist arguments discredited centuries ago. Science has even tested the few propositions presented by ID (mostly Behe's work) and found that Behe either deliberately ignored, blatantly misrepresented, or didn't even bother looking in the scientific literature as there were multiple sources contradicting his assertions even before he presented them.

Anyway, your sourceless assertion isn't sufficient to modify the page. If you perhaps had a concrete suggestion it could be examined, but quite literally the entire basis of intelligent design is without merit. It's been examined by the scientific community and essentially laughed out of the room. If you don't realize it, then you've probably been reading solely the Discovery Institute's propaganda pieces - look into the other side, even a bit. Intelligent design is bad science, and in many people's opinion, bad theology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, wow. In all my years on Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever read a more biased article. Unbelievable that this iteration has stayed up for so long. Unbelievable. 172.56.21.56 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You seemingly disagree with WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI, the pseudoscientific fringe views promoted by the institute have to be clearly shown as such, in the context of how they've been received by the clear majority scientific consenus. . dave souza, talk 03:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Bias
The information presented in the introduction is highly slanted, and calls greatly for a re-evalutation. I would suggest citations from the Institute's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.165.23 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 September 2009


 * The "Institute's website" falls under WP:SELFPUB, and generally fails it as "unduly self-serving". The article follows WP:DUE in giving weight to prominent viewpoints that overwhelmingly condemn the DI & its members for rank dishonesty. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the information in the introduction is very biased and defamatory as The Discovery Institute does not teach Creationism. Intellegent Design properly understood does not start with any real understanding of the Bible, Koran, ect. It starts by looking at life as possibly being designed based upon certain evidences found within observed data. Creationism properly understood believes that the Yahweh, the God of the Old and New Testaments created the earth Ex Nihilo (Latin 'Out of nothing'). Within the Creationism camp there are Old Earth, Young Earth, and Gap theorists, ect. The Discovery Institute can't be a 'Creationist Propaganda Mill' because of the fact that there are so many different theological or atheological groups working with them. Ranging from Jew, to Christian, to Muslim, to Agnostic. Sushi (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop saying the pseudoscience "intelligent design?" I don't agree with Intelligent Design, nor do I think it's scientific, but we need to present the information in an unbiased way. Saying that the Discovery Institute teaches "creationist, anti-evolutionist" beliefs is far from neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psstein1 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 20 July 2014
 * As you agree, it's an accurate description. We have to be clear about that to meet WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI policy. . dave souza, talk 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "The Discovery Institute does … teach" a variety of creationism, namely Neo-creationism.
 * 2) "Intellegent Design properly understood…" is simply a 'sciency' wrapper for a bunch of old, tired, long-debunked creationist arguments.
 * 3) "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -- William Dembski So yes, it does start with the Bible.
 * 4) "Creationism properly understood" includes progressive creationism, which goes well beyond "that the Yahweh, the God of the Old and New Testaments created the earth Ex Nihilo"
 * 5) (i) The majority of the DI are in fact conservative Christians. (ii) There are both Jewish and Islamic creationists. (iii) AFAIK, the sole agnostic in the mix is David Berlinski -- a self-proclaimed crank who purports to disbelieve in ID in any case (just believes in its anti-evolution arguments). The DI is chauvinistically theist in its outlock & theocratical in it funding. It therefore can be, and in fact is, "a 'Creationist Propaganda Mill'".

I think that following the policy on Verifiability will give us the best result:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

It does not matter whether or not you, you, or I think that Intelligent Design is Creationism. The question is: What has been published in reliable sources?

The opening paragraph has the following sources:
 * I believe this is a self-published source, and therefore not reliable.
 * Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate ABC News, November 9, 2005
 * This is from a reliable source. However, it does not say that Intelligent Design is Creationism.
 * Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
 * The American Prospect could be a reliable source.
 * This might be considered to be an editorial rather than a news article. Therefore, it might reliably state Chris Mooney's opinion rather than putting the magazine's own reputation on the line.
 * The article does not state that Intelligent Design is Creationism. It says that Intelligent Design is anti-evolution and religious. It gives a book title, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, but does not assert that the book title is accurate.
 * Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? by William A. Dembski
 * Access Research News is a self-published website. As such, it might be supposed to reliably state what Access Research News or William A. Dembski believes, but cannot be used as a support of a bare fact.
 * No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11, 2006
 * This is a blog. Therefore, not a reliable source for anything but Nick Matzke's opinions.
 * Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89
 * I suggest that a court judgement is a reliable source.
 * The source does say that Intelligent Design is Creationism through the following statements:
 * ID posits that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer.
 * The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
 * Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006
 * This is a reliable source.
 * It reports as fact the following statement:
 * The judge concluded that "this compelling evidence strongly supports plaintiff's assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled."
 * AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006
 * This is a self-published source.
 * Ruling, page 131 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
 * I suggest that a court judgement is a reliable source.
 * The source does say that Intelligent Design is Creationism through the following statements:
 * ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
 * Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, 1999.
 * This is a copy of a self-published paper, and cannot be used as a reliable source for anything except the opinions of the Discovery Institute.
 * I found the following interesting section in this paper about the governing goals of the Discovery Institute:
 * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
 * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
 * From this, I conclude that whether or not Intelligent Design is Creationism, a goal of the Discovery Institute is to replace Evolution with Creationism.
 * From this, I conclude that whether or not Intelligent Design is Creationism, a goal of the Discovery Institute is to replace Evolution with Creationism.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Barbara Forrest is a recognised expert on the history of the intelligent design movement, and as she is not the Center for Inquiry, Inc, the material is not self-published.
 * 2) Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate supports the contention that the DI is seeking to introduce 'Teach the Controversy' into schools.
 * 3) William Dembski is a very prominent ID advocate, and thus arguably a spokesperson for the movement. The ARN is one of the IDM's main repositories of material.
 * 4) Panda's Thumb (blog) is generally considered to be a WP:RS, given the level of scientific expertise of its contributors.
 * 5) American Association for the Advancement of Science is a RS on science.
 * 6) The DI is widely regarded as the hub of the IDM, so a RS on the movement's views. In any case, as this article is on the DI it is permissible per WP:SELFPUB.