Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 45

This had a section-title once, but seems to have lost it
Does anybody object to me turning the subsections of the 'Overview' section into top-level sections -- they make the overview section appear ridiculously long. Also, would anybody object to me inserting a stub 'Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District' subsection within the 'Controversy' section? It really deserves a subsection of its own. Hrafn42 07:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like an improvement to me, though my suggestion is that the "overview" becomes focussed on the history, with the Origins of the concept and Origins of the term as subsections, then a new Concepts main section incorporating most of the existing Overview text with Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity, Fine-tuned universe and Intelligent designer as subsections. I'd suggest that the The Dover Trial section should go after Polls, and should be followed by a Teach the Controversy or Explore Evolution section which would briefly summarise the post-Dover strategy of avoiding "intelligent design".....dave souza, talk 16:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good refinement, though I must admit a (possibly quite idiosyncratic) discomfort over describing either ID (Origins of the concept) or Irreducible complexity & Specified complexity as "concepts". To me they are (partisan/tendentious) "arguments" or similar, not (neutral/cerebral) "concepts". Hrafn42 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, the "concept" term appears in the current headings, but really they're philosophical arguments. .. dave souza, talk 18:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC) tweaked 18:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't add a stub section to a Featured Article. If you want to add content make sure it's complete when you add it. Having section stubs can result in the article losing its FA status. FeloniousMonk 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center. The suit was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. Kenneth Miller, Kevin Padian, Brian Alters, Robert Pennock, Barbara Forrest and John Haught served as expert witnesses for the prosecution. Michael Behe, Steve Fuller and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense.

On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.

Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:

Dr. John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it."

Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer."

Since the decision, a variety of scholars and others have examined this decision for flaws and conclusions. Some of this is an attempt to understand what mistakes not to repeat by intelligent design supporters in potential future court proceedings.

In the winter 2007 issue of the University of Montana Law review, three articles addressing this topic were published. David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin argued first that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the decision of the Jones court in Kitzmiller v. Dover will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory. Peter Irons responded to the DeWolf et al article, arguing that the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was extremely well reasoned, and that this decision spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools. DeWolf et al rebut the Irons article in the same issue.

Discussion
I get the impression, on occasion, that often the only way to get people to pay attention (favourably or unfavourably) to proposals on the talkpages is to go ahead and make the edits. Only then do they go and look for what you've been talking about (at times until one is blue in the face), and give a response. This strikes me as dysfunctional, in that it tends to reward unilateral behaviour over consensus-seeking.

This proposed section is cobbled together mainly from the introduction, 'Responses' & 'Analysis and criticism' sections of the main article, trimmed down to eliminate most of the legal-system-specific, as opposed to ID-specific, detail. It probably could do with some further refinement, but I hope it would not look too out of place in an FA.

On its placement within the 'Controversy' section, I would note that this section's introductory paragraphs mentions KvD early on so I would suggest that it feature near (or at) the start of this section. I also think that the introductory paragraphs may be getting a bit long and unfocused, and that some of it should be moved into existing/new subsections. Hrafn42 10:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good. I just wonder about the length of the article overall.--Filll 12:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree about the length. But given that KvD is the sole important court case on ID, it deserves its own section, and a significant treatment, in this article. Hrafn42 13:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is biased towards people who do not believe in Intelligent Design. WikiWiznerd 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to clarify note 3
Note 3 seems highly confusing to me; could it be clarified somewhat? Here's the text of it, without the attribution at the end:

"'ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.''this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley' (the teleological argument) 'The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God.'"

There's a double quote at <""this argument> and the first opening quote is not closed anywhere that I can see. I'm not actually sure who is saying what, from this. Mike Christie (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is Judge Jones quoting John Haught quoting Aquinas. It's actually not completely verbatim, and has been edited slightly, which probably explains the erroneous quotes.  It should be:

"ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He [Haught] traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer "everyone understands to be God." The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase "purposeful arrangement of parts." Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Tevildo 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're sticking with the reduced version, some strategic ellipses are necessary. Tevildo 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; though I'd be happy with the full version (including the square bracket clarification "[Haught]"), plus some form of your initial sentence that explains context and who is saying what. Mike Christie (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, It is not Haught quoting Aquinas. It is the judge summarizing Haught's testimony with a brief quote of Haught in the middle. And Haught is not quoting Aquinas but rather is summarizing the fifth of Aquinas' "five ways" with only a very brief paraphrase of Aquinas' "and this we understand to be God". The quotes and subquotes, prior elipses and attibution apparently got screwed up during the last round of footnote consolidation, which is what happens when people try to do this without closely examining the citation and understanding it. I don't have time to fix it myself right now, but it can be found via Kitzmiller v. Dover which links to the entire ruling at Wikisource, or it can be found in a single document at . Either way it's on page 24 of the ruling. ... Kenosis 22:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-fair use problems
I admit I am puzzled by this fair use situation. Can we not contact these organizations that hold the copyrights? Have we not contacted them?

If this cannot be done, or we cannot get permission by that route, I am totally confused by NFCC #8:

I have heard deletionists claim that usefulness is not an appropriate rationale. It seems like nothing is an appropriate rationale to satisfy this rule. Does this mean all non-free images on Wikipedia should be deleted? All images on Wikipedia can be described by text, of course, even if somewhat awkwardly or inaccurately. However, there is no doubt that in many cases, text just does not get the message across.

In our case, we have produced reason after reason to show why these images are important for delivering the message about this Culture War. These book and magazine covers are the principle weapons used in this battle. So far, most of our reasons have been summarily dismissed or ignored, I am sad to say.

Unlike other articles, there are no experiments we can show. There are no images of discoveries, or graphs or charts. There are no machines or inventions that we have pictures of. It is all ideas, and not expressed in learned academic tomes, but in books and magazines meant for consumption by the public. These books are the main shots being fired in this conflict. We have no pictures of the inside of the Dover court room, and even if we did, they would not convey the main thrusts and parries that are going on, because the court battle is really not the main place that this war is going on. It is being carried out in the public sphere.

And not by people making speeches or people in debates in small venues, in libraries and schools, by and large. It is in articles in magazines and newspapers and in books, and in television and radio programs and on the internet. It is a media campaign, meant to address a mass audience. It is a propaganda campaign. And the pillars of this propaganda campaign are the books.--Filll 22:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you believe what you just said? I believe that even if there were a dozen of meaningful free charts, pictures and diagrams for this article, you all would still be defending the used of the non-free book covers. --Abu badali (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's rather unfair – considerable effort was put into trying to find free images, but none had the relevance or explanatory power of the book/ magazine covers. Any suggestions for suitable images will be most welcome -- The Anonymous Designer 23:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As Mencken once said in re Darrow's speech at the Scopes Trial, "The net effect of Clarence Darrow's great speech yesterday seems to be precisely the same as if he had bawled it up a rainspout in the interior of Afghanistan." Ditto.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe what you just said? All I can say is... huh? And please, AGF...--Filll 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Abu, see NFCC 3b. To borrow someone else's motto, "Those who can create, those who can't delete".
 * There also those who copy copyrighted material. --Abu badali (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ... in proper accord with fair use, and with a good faith attempt to abide by Wikipedia guidelines on such material. Good for them. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  02:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (aside) Thanks for the heads-up on The Wedge. .... dave souza, talk 09:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I just noticed what you linked to! That image gives a profound new understanding of the intelligent design movement, but alas I really don't think we can stretch fair use that far. A pity.... :-) &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  11:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was hoping to use Stevestory's image at the top here, but licensing could prove tricky. ... dave souza, talk 18:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, you do realize that even works under free licenses like GFDL, CC or BSD-new are still copyrighted. Reinistalk 11:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_21#Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_19#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Intelligent_design
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_21#Image:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Time_evolution_wars.jpg

and so on and so forth. Do you get the idea we are being buffaloed?--Filll 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of addressing these one at a time, maybe we should come up with a comprehensive plan to deal with these. We should remove them all, or justify them all, or get permission for as many as we can and remove the others. This nitpicking on many different pages is just ridiculous.--Filll 16:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I would be much off to observe that the people arguing against the images aren't actually addressing whether they're inside the policies (or just summarily asserting that they aren't), but are objecting to any fair-use in general. Reinistalk 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can state, in my own case, that I don't object to fair use in general. There have been many instances where I have worked with other editors to fix concerns with non-free content, instead of pushing for its deletion. I just happen to believe that, in this instance, the usage doesn't fall within the policy, and that it potentially harms this featured article's status as an example of Wikipedia's best work (which it truly is) - because Wikipedia is, above all things, a free encyclopedia. I think this may subconsciously cause me to hold featured articles to a somewhat higher standard than some crufty video game article, and I promise to try to keep aware of this potential bias on my part and act accordingly. I sincerely hope we can work together civilly toward a resolution of this question, and not make any assumptions of bad faith on anyone's part. With respect - Videmus Omnia Talk  16:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The law is never known until its thrahsed all the way thru the highest court, but in most cases you can get a reasonable idea of what the legislation allows. Then again its just like calculating the moral answer to a question, it all depends on how the person sees it. The whole "Fair Use" question is rather ridiculous, as its a law in one country and if somone was to be able to view from another country that countries laws would have to be obeyed and for all countries in the world. The important question is, will X drag wiki thru court over this use? as its the only question that counts--Polygamist times 4 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg nominated for deletion
Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg, the low resolution book-cover image of Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, has been nominated by User:Videmus Omnia for deletion at Images and media for deletion. Please see. ... Kenosis 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Time cover comments
I have done a partial revert of some recent changes by Kenosis, to restore some comments about the Time magazine cover and the public controversy. I consider that the comments, which I added a few days ago, give a useful addition to the article quite apart from any concerns about image protection. I am happy to defer to consensus on this, and have enormous regard for the hard work Kenosis has done on this article. However, I would like my proposed addition to be considered here. The section in question is as follows: I have just restored everything from "Prominent coverage" through to "in a science class." Is there any good reason for removing this? I think it does add to the article by making explicit that the cover was so damaging for the ID attempts to argue that this is a scientific dispute. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * References to Time may be unneeded now  Regarding another image, the Black Box cover apparently showing Johnson trying to measure up against a chimp (no images of a wee bearded gnome like Behe) is presumably the current cover, the original can be seen here. .. dave souza, talk 10:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This presumes, Dave, that it ever was necessary, i.e., the text itself. The image, IMO, said all that need be said about the public dimension of the controversy in the US, as differentiated from the detatiled specifics and minutia of the arguments. IMO, the image was self-explanatory -- self standing -- and, maybe you recall it did indeed stand by itself for well over a year. . ... Kenosis 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Size
Every time I see this it seems to be getting larger. 135 kb is over four times the old recommended limit of 30kb, which is still a long article to read. I'm not going to look through all the archived discussion of this, but it looks to me like the article could still use better summary style. Some possible subdivisions include history of intelligent design, intelligent design controversy and introduction to intelligent design articles. Richard001 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's already a timeline of intelligent design, and a creation-evolution controversy, but I seem to remember not so long ago, the idea of an introduction article being kicked around, may not be such a bad idea. ornis ( t ) 07:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems sensible. History of intelligent design is well overdue.--ZayZayEM 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The timeline (still under development) explores the history and provides a resource which could be used when developing a History article. .. dave souza, talk 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the history and controversy are integral to the topic, which spans only about two or two-and-a-half decades to date. 135kB is not the article length, only the size of the page. The body text and illustrations take well under 60kB, which is well within reason. Also, the 32kB recommended article size (a) is a three-to-four-year-old recommendation prompted by limitations in browser and "bandwidth" capability, and (b) is determined by the local consensus. ... Kenosis 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC) ... Perhaps I should clarify what I just said. I've no objection to anyone creating a new article on the history of intelligent design, so long as it isn't split out of the present article on intelligent design. Dave, for instance, already created an article page with a timeline of intelligent design. Perhaps that would serve as a starting point for an expository history. At present, I don't see the need, but would be interested to see such an approach if one or more editors chose to begin such an article. Certainly there is plenty of material to add w.r.t. the history. ... Kenosis 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with this sentiment. It makes it far more accessible to the readers, which is, after all, the entire point of this exercise.--Filll 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all ears. What would be a proposal for the content and accessibility level of an article such as Introduction to intelligent design? It's not as if all the obscure molecular biology and cosmological terms, formulas and numbers are in the article; it's almost all expository text at present. ... Kenosis 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What I have done previously, is to start with a Simple Wikipedia article, and then grow it from the ground up. Avoid large words like teleology. Express the ideas simply in a way that your average 13 or 14 year old could understand.--Filll 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is already an FA, don't think we need to split it up yet. Also, article splits make it too easy for POV forks to be created. FeloniousMonk 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ID-related new article
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. One wonders if this should really have its own article yet, but someone else created it. Adam Cuerden talk 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is a bit early, frankly. I suspect from past experience that it is likely to get deleted. Other articles on upcoming films were deleted. I would put work into this, in particular compiling links and information which contradicts the claims of Stein's letter on the website, which I posted above. However, I do not want to bother if it will just be deleted.-Filll 20:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: dissecting claims isn't what Wikipedia is for. We can report others dissecting claims, but dissect them ourselves per WP:NOR. I think the dishonest way Stein is alleged to have gotten a few of his interviews is probably notable, and reported enough in the semi-respectable blogosphere to be referenced accurately.--ZayZayEM 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That article has no content. *sigh* are we gonna clean it up or it?--ZayZayEM 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy it. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Hrafn42 04:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So tagged. ornis ( t ) 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably still in the blogosphere, but The Front Page: The Fodder, The Shunned, and the Oily Spirit provides some commentary and context. .. dave souza, talk 18:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Subst of templates
Is this alteration really a good idea? I would think that using subst[ituted] templates would increase the chances of successful vandalism (as it would make the vandalism harder to notice) as well as increasing maintenance overheads. Hrafn42 04:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think it was a terrible idea, and I've undone it. ornis ( t ) 05:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep on topic
Please consider WP:NOT and read my comments on Adam's talk page.

The discussion never had anything to with improving the article and was deterioting fast into a point-and-laugh fest at IDists. This is not productive. There was nothing wrong with my deleting it.

The topic has been reintroduced appropriately. I am not censoring the topic.--ZayZayEM 17:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. No doubt notable information about this topic will turn up all too soon, best wait till then. ... dave souza, talk 18:07, 1 September 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 09:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use
Regarding
 * 1) You can't close a deletion debate as anything other than a "keep" or "delete"...the debate was clearly a keep
 * 2) On what basis does someone with no obvious legal training make the decision to override consensus on this issue?  Guettarda 23:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The non-free book cover tag allows the image only to be used to illustrate an article discussing the book in question. Other then mentioning the books, there is no discussion. The books do not qualify for use in this article. -Nv8200p talk 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That, plainly, is a personal opinion, reflected in the fact that overhwleming consensus to keep these images in intelligent design and two closely related articles were overruled by administrative decree.
 * Please see:
 * Image:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg and Image_talk:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg
 * Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg and Image_talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
 * for any interested participants, it may also be appropriate to place the following on one's watchlist w.r.t. the intelligent design article:
 * Irreducible complexity, topic first brought into the marketplace of ideas by Darwin's Black Box
 * Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial
 * ... Kenosis 05:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to me we have a number of members of the Bildpolizei who want to rid Wiki of these pesky little pictures. Sadly, while they may have a very tenuous grasp of policy, their lack of legal knowledge is glaring.  It also seems to be focused on a series of articles on which Kenosis participates, as well as on a series of images that he, or others on the said pages, have uploaded.  It might be best for said admins and wannabe admins that they bone up on the legal issues surrounding image use and copyright law, follow policy properly, abstain from judgments that are both personal and autocratic, and learn to listen to arguments made by those who clearly know the law and policy better than they do.
 * Or, they could persist, lose any right to the assumption of good faith, and possible be desysopped for abuse of administrative tools. That seems to be it for opyions.  The first one looks much better to me.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not actually about legal issues at all; they are completely irrelevant to the dispute. This is all about a matter of principle. Some folks just don't like non-free content, and this feeling goes right to the top of the Wikipedia organization. There is a "no non-free content" principle at work, and which applies at a number of wikipedias... the German one for example.


 * To see the real background here, check out the Licensing policy of the Wikipedia Foundation. This carries a lot of weight, and despite claims that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, this is one case in which bureaucracy has teeth. The resolutions, established in March 2007, is strongly against any non-free content, but it does provide for local projects to have an Exemption Doctrine Policy allowing a certain amount of non-free content.


 * The English Wikipedia is a project that has an Exemption Doctrine Policy, which is actually our Non-free content criteria official policy.


 * So that is the background. What is happening now, in my opinion, is that there is a push to have our allowed exemptions interpreted as narrowly as possible. The way this is being done has several unfortunate aspects.
 * The wording of our policy is being routinely rephrased in discusses, with implications that non-free content must be "necessary" or "essential" for understanding of an article. No such phrasing appears in the policy; the actual requirement is for contributions to be "significant".
 * The third clause of the policy is on minimal use. The language of the clause is a constraint on the amount of non-free content taken, in the sense of the size or resolution of an image, or the length of a quote, or the length of a recording. This is being routinely extended to claim that an allowed cover image can only be used in an article specifically about the item in question. I do not believe that is actually the policy; the requirement is rather that every article in which it is used needs to meet the fairly heavy requirements.
 * The people involved in this are claiming to have a special unique insight into the matter, which overrides local consensus. They are presuming to make judgments on the significance of content from positions of ignorance of the subject matter; and justifying that only by claiming to be experts on the policy.
 * I'm pretty annoyed about the whole thing; but I expect to lose and I am inclined to give up. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks; we all know there is an edit war going on over the images. Regardless of all other concerns, edit war is a bad thing in general, and in particular it is not appropriate to carry out the discussion in the edit comments. The edit comment is to explain what your change is doing. If you need to justify the change, do it here in the discussion page.

The most recent attempt to make an argument in the edit comments is by Thivierr, who states: onus on those wanting dubious fair use to prove need and consensus. I am placing this here, as the argument is better here in than in edit comments.

My response is that this is absurd. There are effectively three claims here; one poorly worded and two incorrect.
 * The fair use is not dubious at all. What is disputed is whether it fits the non-free content criteria. This is a subtle but important difference. The criteria are spelled out in WP:NFCC.
 * There is no need to prove "need" under the criteria. This is a common exaggeration from the deletion warriors. The actual requirement under policy is to show a significant contribution to understanding. I consider that has been done; but some of this comes down to what you might consider significant, or else (in the worst case) a resolute determination not to admit the basis for significant from people unfamiliar with the actual topic but determined to get rid of non-free content.
 * Consensus IS established as far as people involved in this article is concerned. This was clear in discussion. The basis for deletion is precisely that a few people claim that policy overrides consensus, and don't accept that the policy basis for deletion (see point 2) is dubious. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note, I did add comments to the Fair Use Review going on, which is where the debate belongs. It's important to understand that a "local consensus" carries no weight against the broader community's consensus determined policies.  If it did, we'ld still have countless celeb bio articles with Time Magazine covers, since in almost all cases, 100% of the "regular" editors of those articles, insisted the covers were essential.  I seriously suggest, this talk page be used for starting a discussion on what *free* images could be added, that would help illustrate facts and concepts presented.  Let's talk about that, instead of book covers, that we all know, aren't going to stay long. Also, like it or not, it is policy that the onus is on those favoring inclusion of non-free content.  You have to prove 10 points of WP:FUC, and I just have to challenge one (such as "#8 Significance").   --Rob 07:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why the *&^^*&^ are you already deleting images while the blasted review is still open!?!? Sheesh!


 * I've made my response in the fair use review as well. In fact, I did it before I saw your comment here.


 * Make up your mind! If this is something to be managed at the page, then have the simple decency to explain your deletions of an important image here in the discussion. If this is something to be managed at the fair use review, then make your case there, but DON'T just jump to conclusions about the result of that review until it is closed.


 * I'm not optimistic, myself. But I am royally pissed off about the way you guys are running roughshod over process, over consensus, and over the dispute over the proper application of the exemption doctrine policy under which non-free content is allowed. I appreciate that you want to minimize the use of non-free content. I object to the way in which this is being done.


 * Futhermore, I think the editors of the article are RIGHT about the significance of these images. They are certainly in the best position to make that call; and it is only being denied on the dubious presumption that it's all only an excuse to preserve decoration. No, it isn't. The case for significance is given. If images are deleted, I for one will put it down to the triumph of bureaucracy and superficiality over yet another lost opportunity for quality content. It may come to that; the absurd decision on the Time cover is a bad indication of just how badly people fail to get it. But let's not jump to conclusions too hastily. The English wikipedia has a formally recognized exemption policy to the foundation's dislike of non-free content, and under that policy as written these images have a good case for being allowed. Will this get actually recognized? I don't know. I still have some hope for such a result. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  07:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The fair use review is just a discussion process; it has been open for weeks, with little progress. There is no need to wait for it to be closed before moving forward.
 * It is clear from the fair use review, the IFD, and discussions elsewhere that there is no consensus the book cover images meet the requirements of WP:NFCC. I'll remove them again. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus everywhere, in every discussion has been that they meet fair-use requirements. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus on the fair use review, and the IFD close was to remove them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken.--Filll 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * IfD can only be closed as keep or delete. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This IFD clearly shows otherwise. At the very least, it is one of the several locations where there was not consensus to keep the images in the article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, this issue is only a dead horse in the sense that several discussion has failed to show any consensus to keep the images. They need to be removed until such consensus develops. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

moved here from my talk page <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Can you point me to any discussion with a clear consensus that the book cover images from intelligent design satisfy WP:NFCC? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Any of them will do, they all showed clear consensus in favour of keeping the images. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 04:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fair use review show multiple editors who explain why the images fail NFCC. The IFD came out as remove - that's hardly consensus to keep them in the article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * IfD can only be closed as keep or delete. It was closed as keep, despite attempts to assert otherwise. As for the fair use review, many more showed why they meet the requirements, and given that their use is within US copyright law, and the criteria is subjective, consensus trumps unilateral decree. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the criteria are subjective, there is a clearly substantial number of editors who feel this usage doesn't meet them. Look over the fair use review, for example. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the consensus of the editors of the article, the people who actually know the subject and can speak rationally to the value of the images, is keep. It's only the members of the self-appointed image-police, who want any and all images removed on whatever pretense they can dream up, who are squalking like headless chickens running amok in the Wiki barnyard about this. Carl, please take this excrementum galli to another article.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  10:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The local editors don't get to ignore sitewide policies, as I keep pointing out. The idea of "local consensus" seems to arise only when a group of editors of a page don't wish to follow documented project-wide consensus. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And you Carl don't get to appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner on the interpretation of project-wide consensus. You are pretending to a mantle of legitimate authority in order to dignify your actions as being more than they are: simple edit-warring. Hrafn42 02:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

edit warring isn't a long term solution
Edit warring to keep the images on this article isn't a long term solution. I'll wait for several hours for any example of a page where there is consensus for these images to stay. If no such consensus can be found, I'll remove them again. The clear reading of the fair use review is that there is no consensus there to keep them; multiple editors have expressed the opinion that the usage here fails NFCC. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is unrealistic. You can't get a unanimity when there are a lot of people involved. In the fair use review, you have a very close match between those who say they fit the policy, and those who say they do not. There is a clear consensus of people who actually work on the article and follow the content that these images do add significant understanding.


 * The responses to this generally miss the point entirely. They misrepresent or ignore all the actual explanations for significance, and repeat the same tired canard that it is just decoration. It isn't.


 * Why should the lack of consensus resolve in the way that that runs roughshod over all the people who actually work on the articles? These are images that will not be deleted in any case. They do add significantly to the understanding of the issues here, and it will be yet another degradation in the basis quality of information available if they get removed. I think the most appropriate thing in a case like this, where there is no clear consensus in the review, but there IS a clear consensus right here at the coal face, is to steer clear of the bureaucratic option; effectively giving due weight to people who actually work on content, where there is indeed a strong feeling from people working on the page that the images contribute significant relevant information. This is especially the case when the images will not be deleted in any case.


 * And by they way... this is a genuine question. Don't fair use reviews get closed at some point? I might be wrong about that much; I thought they did get closed. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Carl: how is edit warring to enforce the deletion of images from an article, which deletion is backed by neither consensus nor any legitimate authority, any better?

No higher forum, with the authority to adjudicate the issue (as many have pointed out IfD lacks the authority to decide the deletion of images from an individual article) has held for deletion of the images from the article. No consensus in an external forum (e.g. the FUR) has appeared to override the consensus on this talkpage for their retention.

I have previously abstained from involvement in this debate, as I tend to be more interested in text than images (which is why I haven't taken part in previous image-related discussions), however I am now sick to death of this! Lacking clear authority deriving from an objective rule, a clear consensus for deletion (either in relation to the interpretation of a subjective rule, or otherwise) or a directive from a higher forum with legitimate authority on this area, I intend to regard attempts to delete images from this, and related, articles to be vandalism, and act accordingly. Can anybody demonstrate that this intention is in violation of Wikipedia policy? Hrafn42 04:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy WP:NFCC reflects projectwide consensus about the requirements to use nonfree images; there is no consensus this use meets the requirements; so the images shouldn't be used here. Local editors can't overrule WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NFCC, or similar sitewide policies. It's up to the editors who favor inclusion to develop a consensus to include any material, whether it is a fact, a quote, or an image.


 * I agree that we can't expect unanimity in the fair use review, but it shows multiple editors who feel the images don't meet the NFCC requirements, not just one or two. The review is just a discussion process, and anyone can close it. This one looks like it is about done, so closing it would probably be appropriate.


 * I have no intention of reverting again this evening. I want to give editors time to present any evidence that there is consensus to keep the images. If there is no consensus that the images pass WP:NFCC, then removal is certainly justifiable. Reverting the removal when there is no consensus in favor of keeping the material is inappropriate. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 05:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Duly noted and logged accordingly. ... Kenosis 05:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Carl: the problem is that you have neither a consensus nor a legitimate binding adjudication that states that the use of these images in this article in fact violate WP:NFCC. Until you do, you are just another editor edit-warring against the WP:CON on this article. To take this out of rule-speak into pragmatic language: lacking the authority to impose a change, you (and every other deletion-warrior who has come crusading into here) are reliant on local acceptance of a change in order to make it stick. My advice to you is therefore: get authority, get acceptance or get out. Hrafn42 05:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points. First, for Carl. You are absolutely right that policy overrides consensus. But you have not shown that there is any policy violation here. Opinion on whether there is a policy violation is divided. I claim, strongly, that use of these images in this article is fully in good accord with the letter and with the intent of policy. Where is the consensus that this use violates policy?


 * Second, for Hrafn42. Just be careful about the word vandalism. While I agree that removal of these images is wrong headed, and not justified under policy given the strong showing for the real significance of the images, it still does not follow that removal is vandalism. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am asking you: where is the consensus that these images meet the burden of inclusion of WP:NFCC? If there isn't general consensus that the images are compliant with the policy, in the end they will be removed. Local editors can't override WP:NFCC and more than they can override WP:V. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Duae_Quartunciae: I was attempting to be careful. How would you describe repeated deletion of material, lacking authority or consensus, if not vandalism? Hrafn42 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hrafn42, as I said, local editors edit warring to prevent removal of the images isn't a long term solution. If no project wide consensus develops to keep the images, then they will end up being removed. If you wish to keep the images, it will be necessary to convince a wider audience that they meet the requirements of our image policy. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In answer to Hrafn42's question: it depends on whether I've slept well the night before... :-) Bureaucratic mismanagement? Well meaning but confused cluelessness? Pointy-haired boss syndrome? It's a tough line to stay on the right side of assuming good faith while continuing to maintain, as I do, that some folks just don't get it.


 * The images on these covers are not merely decoration, and because of the whole nature of the way the ID debate plays out with popular appeal and the culture wars, the visual details of the covers are more than usually relevant. They contribute real information that could not be given with a simple text description. We've already lost the Time cover, which was a startlingly wrong headed decision that I am sure was well meaning and sincere, but it was still stupid and has been a significant loss of real and relevant content; another score for the pointy haired boss syndrome over the top of a strong consensus for its importance. A dreadfully bad decision. I have no faith in the bureaucracy to manage this case any better. It would not be the end of the article if we lose these book cover images; they are not "necessary" in that strong sense. But policy does not require that. It requires significant contribution to understanding, and the images do give that. They should stay, in line with the WP:NFCC formal policy.


 * In answer to Carl's comment on edit warring: I beg to differ. In all seriousness, any article like this only gets to maintain its quality by the continued and never ending willingness of a group of contributors to deal with the endless inroads of people who add bad information or delete good information. This image campaign is not new in this respect. It is one of the quaint features of the way wikipedia works that quality is only maintained by ongoing effort. It never stops. We do also keep trying to explain the matter, but it is never enough. You also have to keep undoing poorly thought out removals, additions or alterations. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Usage of the pictures on this article clearly violate NFCC. They are here primarily for beautification purposes. Removal of the pictures does not remove meaning or understanding from the article. It does decrease the quality of the article (aesthetics are important) - but in an effort to maintain a free encyclopedia, wouldn't it make sense to try and find free images to replace them with.--ZayZayEM 05:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Followup long comment. Last week, Carl asked me about these images on my talk page. I tried to give a complete answer there; and no further discussion resulted. I'm taking the liberty of transferring my comments into this page. I'll edit a little bit to get rid of a few bits that related to the particular context in which Carl asked his question. But you can see the talk page section here: User_talk:Duae_Quartunciae. In the interests of full disclosure, Carl was qurying some remarks I made which did not name anyone by name, but probably crossed over the line in terms of civility, with a generic remark about "clueless nitwits". It's not my usual style; and though I still hold the basic sense of that remark, I should have phrased it carefully. You can read my little explosion at Image_talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg. Here now is a repeat of how I tried to explain the matter for Carl on my talk page.


 * I confess to being increasingly frustrated at this debate. I think the manner in which it is being pursued is disruptive, and corrosive of the good working at the encyclopedia. I am annoyed at repeated implications that I am not being genuine in my own advocacy for the significance of these images, and that I am really just making excuses for the sake of decoration. I am annoyed that despite the fact that I have explained the relevance of the images repeatedly, people still want to see it again. I am annoyed that there seem to be endless hurdles placed in the way of non-free content, which seems to me to conflict with the formal exemption doctrine policy; which is intended to allow for non-free content in certain circumstances. These restrictions are substantially stronger than legal fair use restrictions; but they are not intended to be prohibitive, and the exemption policy for en.wikipedia explicitly identifies a tension between free content and quality content.


 * Part of the problem is that there is a hard core of deletion advocates who deny that there is any compromise involved, and who apply the policy with extreme paraphrases of the policy wording that reflect their personal view of what policy should be rather than a credible account of what policy actually says for itself; and they will just keep trying again and again and again in different venues or with different clauses or with petty quibbles over the structure of rationales until they finally get what they want.


 * I don't know that you are in this far extreme of the debate; I'm just noting this as a weak excuse for being fed up and raw with the mess, and touchy about how it is being pursued. I'm sorry if I have let that hit you harder than was appropriate.


 * The easiest one to explain is the cover of Darwin's Black Box. I've tried to explain its significant a couple of times now. Here's another attempt....


 * I could never put all of that into a wikipedia article. It is basically my own expert opinion; and would count as original research. I do claim to be something of an expert on this book; but I don't claim the right to put my arguments into an article without citation. Furthermore, spending too much text on analysis of cover would be undue weight. The best thing to do, in my opinion, and in line with neutral point of view, is to present the image itself, with a bit of background in the article on the themes that bear upon its relevance. It is legitimately relevant information; and the chosen imagery has pertinent associations, and the placement of that imagery in the cover of this particular book is important. Presenting the image gives the visual message that was intended, and the overly long argument I have given above shows (or attempts to show) why it is significant. It should be taken as a reason for including the image, and not as an perspective that should be incorporated into the article as a matter of encyclopedic information. The real information is the cover itself.


 * I don't actually expect this to be persuasive; I've become too cynical for that. And even if you suddenly switch over, there is a stream of others to take your place; all claiming the right to override consensus on the basis of policy. I think that the image fits policy, but I have grown tired of the fights and the way they are engaged. I think this is just one symptom of a deeper problem with wikipedia, that is still being stuggled with; which is how you balance the benefits from allowing anyone to step up and contribute to the encyclopedia, with recognition that there are some cases where special expertise can enhance the quality of an article. We've lost some first rate contributors who have given up in the face of an endless struggle to maintain a good level of quality once achieved in the face of a tendency for exceptional quality to degrade as poorly founded additions or removals are introduced.


 * Effectively I am resigned to probable loss of important content. It does degrade quality, in a way that I think the exemption policy was intended to prevent, but hey. It's still a good article in any case.


 * But I am deadly serious in arguing that this cover fits the criteria for non-free content spelled out in policy. I am not just out to decorate the article. (originally written 17:11, 7 Sep).


 * And by the way... these images do not make the encyclopedia itself any less free. You can still distribute it as freely as you like. The only thing "lost" is that there is a little bit of additional use by the encyclopedia of content that is not free, and that is a different thing. The use is very much fair use, and so no lack of freedom transfers to the encyclopedia. Some folks have a kind of principled commitment to an ideal of free use, which goes beyond making their own content free and extends also to refusing to use other people's content that is not free. That's fine; I think it's a good thing to do. But not as a sweeping principle that always overrides quality of content. I accept and approve of the policy recognition that there is a tension between free content and quality content, and that exemptions are allowed under some circumstances for the sake of having a high quality encyclopedia. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument on a more abstract level
Prior to the immediate past, I have abstained on this debate, so I hope that debaters will forgive me if I now weigh in with a lengthy treatise/rant.

Firstly, I would like to make a couple of points:
 * 1) My POV of this debate (as some may have gleaned from my above comments) is I don't bloody well care if the images stay or not, what I do care about is the disruption that this debate & associated edit-warring is causing.
 * 2) The current state of play on WP:NFCC (and related rules) is this:
 * 3) The image deletion warriors swear until they're blue in the face that the usage of these images on these articles is a violation of it.
 * 4) The regulars on these pages swear until they're blue in the face that they don't.
 * 5) The above is a wash, a stalemate. The battle-lines on this are drawn, and short of a legitimate higher adjudication, all the further hand-waving from either side merely serves to signal that they are not conceeding the point.

Let us then consider the levels of decision-making available on Wikipedia, in the abstract:

1) Local consensus (at the article talkpage). This is the default decision-making level. It tends to be self-enforcing as, if a change lacks consensus, it will be reverted by the larger number of editors who reject it, forcing the dissenter(s) to either accept this decision, or violate WP:3RR.

2) Arbitrary authority. This is such actions as an intemperate Admin abusing their tools to arbitrarily override the local consensus (but also includes a closure of an XfD that is either against that forum's consensus, or in a decision that is beyond its remit). It may be effective in the short-run, but in the longer run it tends to be self-defeating in that it tends to result in the Admin being reported to a legitimate higher authority or worse, if there are intemperate Admins on both sides, in a wheel-war. I am aware that there are Admins who hold to a viewpoint that roughly equates to "the consensus is only legitimate if it agrees with me", but this viewpoint is both against Wikipedia policy and also unsustainable.

3) Legitimate authority. This is some forum that the Wikipedia community has conferred a level of power of enforcement but also, and more importantly, widespread acceptance of its legitimacy to adjudicate certain issues. This includes the authority to adjudicate and enforce the application of a wider consensus to specific issues. As far as I can see, the results of attempts to refer this dispute to higher authorities has been:
 * FUR: no clear consensus, but arguably any tendency towards consensus would be in the direction of keeping.
 * IfD: this forum lacked both enforcement ability and legitimate jurisdiction over this matter. In addition it has been argued that the closure was against the consensus. (Thus it was an "arbitrary authority" on this issue.)
 * ANI: deference to local consensus on this issue.
 * Arbitration Committee: refusal to accept jurisdiction on this matter.

The result would seem to be that, in the short run, the only viable option is deference to the local consensus, as any other course of action is unsustainable against this local consensus. In the longer run, a legitimate authority should be found or established, as a matter of priority, to offer binding adjudication on these matters. Hrafn42 06:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Another alternative that I know others are working on is to change the NFCC that's like a drug for a handful of deletionists. It has been warped into something completely impractical. Just because a few deletionists have chosen to drink the ideological kool-aid doesn't mean we all have to. -Nodekeeper 07:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that a legitimate authority and a workable policy may go hand in hand on this. Until somebody has been given authority to adjudicate on the basis of this policy, it is unclear what the results of this will be, and so whether it is a practical policy or not, and whether (and what) changes need to be made to it. As it is, all we have is a large number and wide range of completely unauthoritative interpretations of this policy. This is not a good foundation for policy change. Hrafn42 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At every forum where the images on this page have been discussed, multiple editors have explained why they don't meet the policy criteria. This isn't because there is a large conspiracy, but simply because the arguments made that they do meet the criteria haven't convinced many people outside this page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't listened to a word I've been saying, have you Carl? "...multiple editors have explained why they don't meet the policy criteria." And multiple editors have also explained why they do meet the policy criteria. And so it goes on. And on. And on. And on. And on. As for the arguments not having "convinced many people outside this page", I would suspect that the only people outside this page who have any interest in this tedious saga are your fellow image-deletion-warriors. They weren't convinced? Colour me shocked! Hrafn42 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the kind of significance we have here is a little bit like the significance of an equation in a technical article. People unfamiliar with the fine details of the subject will often not be in any kind of position to follow the significance of the equation. Generally, this doesn't matter. Newcomers are quite happy to take at face value the relevance of the equation as significant information. It may not be information they are in a good position to grasp, but that's normal. It's normal for an article to have a lot of information; some of which can be grasped immediately, and some of which becomes more apparent as you continue to learn and study more about the subject.


 * If you sit down with someone, and explain carefully all the ins and outs, you can often get to the point where the can see the point at issue.


 * But now, add a wrinkle. Suppose that, for some reason, the encyclopedia had a basic principle of no maths. This is not unheard of; it is often a guiding principle for popular writings. But (as in popular writing) there are exceptions. Where an equation has particular significance, it may be retained. An equation which is not particularly significant can be deleted. I have done this already, in physics pages. I'll delete equations that are just a step in an argument where all that really matters is the end conclusion; or calculations of a number when all that really matters is the number.


 * If there was a campaign to get rid of all the maths that was not actually making a significant contribution; and then we had a whole pile of people who don't have a great deal of background stepping in to judge the relevance of equations, then we'd be in somewhat comparable position to what is happening now with images.


 * There are several arguments for the significance of these images. Not everyone finds those arguments convincing. Personally (my opinion) this is not really because the argument are poorly founded, so much as because some folks are getting a valid point. It happens.


 * If you look at Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg, you find a rationale. It's quite concise; we aren't writing articles for a rationale! Part of the rationale (I wrote this sentence, I think) reads as follows:


 * Now I am not a bit surprised if a newcomer to this whole debate looks at that and finds it hard to see the point. But it's only three lines. I'm trying to give a quick note of its importance; not a detailed argument to win over skeptics. But unfortunately, that seems to be the position in which we are being placed. It's not enough to give a quick summary of the use. You also have to actually give an extended argument to persuade a pile of people who frankly would rather not be persuaded. That's almost impossible. I wrote a longer expansion of this just above (its in the box) but even that reads badly.


 * Its a two edged sword. A short account is not enough for the skeptics who claim a kind of bureaucratic right to act under policy in the face of consensus as long as they can find a core of people who are not persuaded by the argument. A longer argument starts to appear contrived, and people just skip it, or want to know why it isn't all in the article. But putting a long argument for significance all in the article would be approaching original research in many cases, and giving undue weight to the topic.


 * Fundamentally, in my view, cover images for these books are important to intelligent design, because the whole intelligent design movement is a culture war, appealing to a popular market and not technical readers. The cover images for the major texts are actually very revealing about this culture war. Explaining the iconography in detail in each case would be an interesting sidenote, but it would be original research. That does not mean the iconography is insignificant! It just means there's a bit of background involved. The neutral presentation is the cover itself; useful information about the selling of ID of direct relevance to many of the article themes. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  13:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If no reliable published source has claimed that the iconography is significant, we can't use the rationale "we want to show the reader it is significant", since expressing such an opinion in the article text would also be forbidden by the OR policy. I don't know what "first visual impact" is; could you explain what you mean by that? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Last I heard WP:RS did not apply to rationales for exhibiting a picture in an article. Hrafn42 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't use an image primarily to make an implicit claim that WP:OR wouldn't allow us to make in prose. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This claim stretches the meaning of OR well past breaking point. What you are in effect doing is creating a new, divergent, undiscovered, class of OR that might be termed 'compositional OR'. What next? Must we likewise check an article's heading-structure for OR? Hrafn42 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (&larr;) What I am saying is that we can't use as a rationale for nonfree image use that we want the image to convey something to the reader that we would be prevented from conveying in prose. That's not a novel interpretation. We already require section headers to be factual and not be aimed to convey implicit messages, but usually that's a POV issue rather than an OR issue. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

<unindenting &edit conflict> Grounding this argument, what is at issue would appear to be neither the WP:RS & WP:OR that Carl is throwing around, but which appear to have no applicability to compositional questions, but WP:NPOV (and subsidiarily WP:UNDUE etc). Does the inclusion of these images in some way bias the article or give undue weight? I think not. Hrafn42 14:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The image is NOT making a claim that would be OR. What is OR is my own extended argument for why the image is significant.


 * Unfortunately, given the resolute determination of the bureaucrats to over ride consensus of the content experts, it becomes necessary to attempt a more detailed argument; but even then, it is apparently not enough. The proper neutral presentation of the information about how ID is being sold to the public is the unadorned cover image. A couple of comments on some significant features would be okay, but it won't be enough to convince an entrenched skeptic. And that's what we have; a resolute determination to presume no significance from a position basically of ignorance; to the ultimate detriment of the objectives set out in policy. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  14:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CBM, I have to admit I find your reasoning here not particularly compelling and singularly unimpressive.--Filll 14:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Carl is wrong that we "can't use as a rationale for nonfree image use that we want the image to convey something to the reader that we would be prevented from conveying in prose". It is perfectly acceptable to let a picture speak for itself as to its contents and the impression it is trying to create, even when we don't have a WP:RS describing its contents or intended impressions. This is in no way a violation of WP:RS or WP:OR. A book-cover (or other illustration) is every bit as much expressive as a quote. The book-covers in question express the way their authors wish to frame the controversy. This is valid information for the article. Hrafn42 14:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually its more like Gaming the system. If the images are being used with the intent to convey a meaning that would violate wikipedia's strict policies on WP:OR and WP:NPOV then they most certainly should be removed from this article. While this argument seems to be the strongest argument for their inclusion (I can now understand how someone might feel they NFCC has not been breached), they are by far the most soundest argument for their removal.--ZayZayEM 03:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? There's no OR or POV involved in just presenting the work of a suitable source to speak for itself. We didn't draw the image, or select it for the cover of the book. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  03:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The intended rationale is dubious at best. It doesn't violate the rules as it is just presentinga picture. However if the idea is to use these pictures to convey an idea that, if expressed in words, would violate OR/POV rules this seems to be Gaming the system. Gaming specifically implies not breaking any rules (see example #4). I was much more happy when I naively thought these images were being forwarded as prettying-up the article with relevant images.--ZayZayEM 04:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am getting more than a little tired of people spamming this debate with completely spurious invocations of wikipedia policy, without making the least effort to establish that they are relevant. The whole point of this debate is that we are using ID's own prominent images, not ones we created ourselves to illustrate how they seek to frame the debate. This cannot be WP:OR. Hrafn42 04:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But they aren't being used to illustrate anything of the kind. The book covers are included with a description of book contents eg Absolute no reference is made to the alleged point of them trying to look all science like. And jolly well good because this would be POV-pushing OR. This is not a good argument for using these pictures in line with NFCC. I would really strongly recommend dropping this argument, because there is little chance of it getting past Wikipedia's policies on "framing" issues.--ZayZayEM 04:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The OP&P description would appear to be factual, and to cover the aspect of the book that was found to be most notable at Dover (where the book came to public prominence). Additionally, this illustration isn't one of the ones that is at issue in this immediate debate, so it isn't particularly surprising that the arguments don't apply to it. Hrafn42 05:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable and/or Accurate?
I made careful emendations in the "Movement" section of the article. For some reason Adam Cuerden comes along and simply dismisses them as of no account?

"All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture" the article claims. Yet the truth is, based on what I could find by following the cited links, the vast majority are fellows or staff only of the Center for Science and Culture. According to the cited source, only Stephen C. Meyer is a staff member (as well as a Senior Fellow) of the Discovery Institute. It is only when you get to the CSC that you find Behe, Dembski, Wells, Kenyon, Thaxton, Johnson, etc. --I posit that the sentence as currently written is at least misleading.

Similarly with the next sentence: "Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement . . . " --Sources please? I would like to suggest that though the claim may be true, there is no verifiable evidence for the assertion. . . so it doesn't belong in the article.

And the rest of the sentence trails off in something a bit less than clear prose: ". . . and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign." --I'm curious why my more cautious revision--"Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement appear to be products of the Discovery Institute via its wedge strategy and its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign"--proved unacceptable?

Prior to my edits, (and now, once again), the article says concerning "leading intelligent design proponents": "In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible." --Once more, I followed the citations and found no evidence for the general comment about the undefined "their" comments about intelligent design being non-religious; I found several references to comments that demonstrate Phillip E. Johnson's ideas about ID being founded in the Bible. So I attempted to clarify the matter, noting the need for at least some citation about undefined ID leaders' claims concerning ID's non-religious character and narrowing the scope of the second comment to that which is proved: "Johnson has said that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible."

Next sentence refers to "the institute" (lower-case). I clarified the reference as to "the Discovery Institute," but got slammed even on that emendation. . ..

And then, finally, in the first paragraph beneath the subhead "Religion and leading proponents": Some of the sentences are unnecessarily complex and convoluted. Moreover, I sense an attempt to present Johnson in an ethically questionable light: "Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity . . . is a necessary first step. . . ." And, "Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations. . . ." Follow the citation, however, and an impartial observer, I believe, would have to characterize Johnson's statements in more neutral terms. One wouldn't have to use my words, I'm sure, but I think I summarized him more fairly: "Johnson has stated that employing secular language . . . is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson explicitly states that part of the Wedge strategy involves removing religious speech from scientific discussions so as to avoid having intelligent design identified 'as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message'; yet, he notes, the specific purpose of such a disjunction is to enable discussion of religious issues later on."

I think my edits carry all the original provable meaning, and also avoid the unprovable and tendentious remarks in the original. Therefore, I request the "powers that be" to undo Adam Cuerden's reversions of 07:43, 6 September 2007, and reinstate my emendations from 06:37, 6 September 2007.

Thank you! —Brightflash 03:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My impression is that your changes are less accurate than the original on a number of points: e.g. both the DI & its CSC each have their own list of Fellows, and so it is necessary to include both to cover all activists, Johnson isn't the only one founding ID in the Bible (many/most prominent ID activists have said such things), etc. I therefore support Adam's reversion. Hrafn42 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Proposed changes are less accurate, less complete, and ignore both verifiable facts, opinions and sources. Sources are provided and available that all the leading DI/CSC Fellows believe the designer to be God and ID to be a form of revelation for example. So I can not support the changes. But I do encourage Brightflash to continue reading all available sources and giving this topic some thought and coming back when he has a better understanding of the current state of affairs. FeloniousMonk 04:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

opposing view points please
Making a logical argument against intelligent design is exceedingly difficult because complex structures do indeed require design. Nevertheless, there are people out there who have made convincing counterarguments. For the spirit of debate, please include some of those sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.78.105 (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a debating forum. Counter arguments are supplied and sourced in this article and others in the ID series. Do you have a suggestion to improve the article? <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 10:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your first claim is directly contradicted by work on emergence, complex adaptive systems, and the evolution of complexity. On your second point, in order to establish that there are "convincing arguments", it would be necessary to establish that a significant proportion of the scientific community has been convinced by these arguments (see WP:UNDUE). As far as I know this has not happened. Hrafn42 10:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need to invent inadequacies that don't exist for the sake of squeezing unverified authoritative statements or straw men into the Talk page. (206.63.78.105) Vacancy 17:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple english wiki
This is slightly off topic, but it's still related to improving the wiki.

I've just made a simple english wiki page on simple:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. I know, it's a bit mad, but... =) Adam Cuerden talk 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is great. As everyone who knows me already knows, I am always in favor of making Simple Wikipedia articles and also Introductory articles. I would like to have a way for elementary school students to learn about a given topic, then high school students, and then advanced articles, on the most important topics (and intelligent design is fairly important, I would argue). --Filll 01:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye. It actually came about because I was trying to improve the simple:creationism article, and needed to link to simple:Edwards v. Aguillard to talk about the U.S. court decisions, so had to make that. Having done that, I figured I had best do Kitzmiller too, which I know far better. We need to do simple wikipedia coverage well, because if we don't, creationists will. There were some POV-pushing versions of simple:Creationism, for instance. Adam Cuerden talk 05:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome. It manages to stay informative and correctly balanced while making it simple.--ZayZayEM 02:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good. A few points seemed to me to misrepresent things a bit, but then it is a wiki ;) ... dave souza, talk 09:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page from editing until the dispute over the images is resolved. Please discuss it and request unprotection at WP:RFPP when you are ready. Tom Harrison Talk 12:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. Just minutes after an edit to remove the images.


 * But what really pisses me off is that the edit comment of the delete says that the images are only used for decoration.


 * That's just refusing to acknowledge the good faith of pretty much all the editors involved in this. I got into trouble for this before with remarks about clueless nitwits, but I think it is warranted. I would not mind so much if people had the elementary decency to say that they are not convinced by the arguments for significance of these images. But I've had this crap about decoration thrown at me so many times, and its just not true.


 * Ah well. I probably just need a coffee and a walk. There was a much stronger case for keeping the Times cover, and in monumentally stupid decision, over the face of a massive keep consensus, it got deleted anyway by the closing admin. Acting in good faith, no doubt; but totally ridiculous and precisely the kind of degradation of quality that the policy was (it seems to me) intended to prevent. Real pointy haired boss stuff.


 * I expect we'll lose this one too. It's a significant loss of useful and relevant information in a very good featured article, brought about by a triumph of bureaucracy over basic content expertise. It's still a good article. I'll still continue to work with wikipedia. But I think it is a reflection of a larger problem here that the systems in place have a tendency to drive articles to mediocrity, unless there is a continual effort by dedicated editors to deal with the erosion of quality and to moderate and integrate useful new input. In this case, you've tied the hands of the dedicated editors behind their backs, and given a green light to mediocrity. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I too found it an odd coincidence. But Tom is, as we seem to need to be repeatedly reminded, an "uninvolved admin". Hrafn42 14:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a common problem for admins. Whatever version gets protected, someone is going to claim it is the Wrong Version. I don't doubt Tom's good faith. But the more I think of it, the more I am persuaded that this is basically a case of bureaucracy vs content expertise. The hard core delete folks are something else again; fundamentally I think they are folks who don't like it that the English wikipedia chose to have an exemption policy at all, and who are determined to make it ineffective. People treat the policy as if its aim was to prevent non-free content from being used. That's not actually true; if that was the aim then no policy at all was needed and we'd have to be guided by the foundation resolution against all non-free content. The aim of policy is to allow for some non-free content for the sake of quality content.


 * The admins, who have to sort out the whole mess, have taken the easy road, I think. Ah well. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  14:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The foundation resolution authorizing nonfree images said "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." The goal of this resolution is to allow nonfree content, but only a minimal amount of it; the great majority of our articles should contain no nonfree media. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The full resolution is as follows: Hrafn42 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So everything's in one place, the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) referenced above is Non-free content criteria, part of the wider Non-free content guideline.
 * I don't think there's an easy answer to this one. It might be worth asking on the copyright problems talk page, or making a request to the Mediation Cabal. --h2g2bob (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's not an easy answer because a few people do not want to recognize the local consensus for using these images. The difficulty is in their own mind. It's certainly not with copyright law, or even with wikipedia policy as others have pointed it out on this page (and don't rehash it for me here, I no longer buy it, and I don't buy the motivation behind it, and I do not support the editors who thoughtlessly promulgate it without thinking of a more orderly way of addressing problems with NFCC). If these images can not be used here, then all images of all books need to be removed. Oh yeah, you're gonna need to protect all those other pages too so only admins can edit them. In fact, all of wikipedia needs protection from the dangerous people who otherwise might use an image for their article and cross some unseen unknown boundary of NFCC#8. The deletionists forum shop unsuccessfully their case all accross wikipedia and the only way they can get their way is if they lock the page. The name patheticpedia comes to mind -Nodekeeper 10:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Timing of protection
Duae_Quartunciae thinks this is simply a matter of WP:WRONG. He may well be right. However, I think it might be appropriate to put some hard numbers to this hypothesis. The article had been unchanged for 5 1/4 hours before Thivierr removed the disputed images. Tom Harrison had been active for just under an hour and a half at this time. 6 minutes after Thivierr made this change, Tom protected it. I would also note that this issue has been only 'delete+revert'ed four times in the last seven days. Hardly an intense edit-war, of the type requiring urgent admin intervention. Hrafn42 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I noted on my user page, it certainly does seem odd. No edit-war, no need to protect used to be the rule, but maybe that's not the case anymore. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  10:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Timing of policy
When this was discussed at Talk:Intelligent design/Archive43, the WP:FUC policy 3. (a) read:

After considerable discussion and good faith efforts to comply full with the FUC policy, the images were added to the article on 27 July 2007, removed, then readded on 2 August. At that time policy 3. (a) was the same, however there seems to have been a lot of debate on the FUC talk page (with the occasional edit war) and the current version of 3. (a) was introduced on 4 September.

So the vaunted Wikipedia wide consensus that is claimed to trump local consensus, and is rudely applied without proper efforts to achieve that local consensus, is a recent innovation which, like everything on Wikipedia, is subject to change. If more editors are interested in taking this up at WP:FUC. .. dave souza, talk 09:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And even that doesn't match the legal definition of minimal use (although it's a tiny bit better). We should should make an attempt to consider legal precedent rather than making up policy willy-nilly. Ah, but I guess we're FUC'd if we do, FUC'd if we don't. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Replacement images
Would it be possible to find some replacement images that can be used to document the imagery used to market ID without using the nonfree book covers? For example, possibly Image:PandaEating.jpg could be used with a caption about how the Panda's thumb has been used as a talking point in ID. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The immediate problem I see is that you can't simply let that image speak for itself. Even if you talk about all the issues, there's no further understanding that comes from actually seeing that image. That image would be purely decorative (though decorative free images are fine, I prefer if we can increase understanding with as many of the images we use as possible). The book covers, on the other hand, clearly illustrate issues on their own and help the reader understand issues a bit better. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The lingering issue is whether the book cover images do convey information on their own apart from illustrating the appearance of the book. Apart from showing what the book cover looks like, what difference in information content is there between the cover art of "Of Pandas and People" Image:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg and the image of a panda Image:PandaEating.jpg? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been answered before, when you asked it before. What part of the explanation wasn't satisfactory? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, please humor me. I'm trying to understand the justifications that are being given, but they seem to focus on identifying the book or on "visual impact". I am presenting here a concrete example of a potential replacement image that, as far as I can tell, has the same "visual impact" (open both images in different windows and compare them). What prevents this image from being used to illustrate the fact that pandas are used as an example by ID proponents? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not much concerned to find images illustrating how ID is sold to the public. That's just looking for images for the sake of being images, and I'm not about that at all. This point is that these were the specific identifiable cover images that were the ones chosen not by anyone else, but by the ID advocates themselves. The idea was never to illustrate a Panda because of being a Panda using its thumb. The idea was to illustrate a central book and to show how that book is presented to potential buyers.


 * But at this stage I think it no longer matters whether people manage to grasp this evidently tricky concept; and I am letting it drop. The relevance of this has been explained multiple times; and deemed insufficient by higher powers. At this point, I am inclined to retire. Fighting a lost battle endlessly is probably more destructive than anything else; and I won't do that.
 * Thank you linesmen. Thank you ballboys. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the most obvious difference is between Image:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg and Image:PandaEating.jpg is that the latter is not the actual cover of any DI textbook. It decreases understandability of the article by placing an entirely irrelevant picture in the mix.--ZayZayEM 03:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole fracas seems to have begun with User:Abu badali deleting images from this article without first discussing it on the talk page. Given the enthusiasm of the deletionists for policy, it might be hoped that they would follow WP:EQ and precede such deletions with a note on the talk page giving their reasons and links to the relevant policy pages. Perhaps too much to hope for. .. dave souza, talk 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When I suggested finding non free Images, I was thinking of someone just taking a photo of the book. Or possibly several photos containing all the books, with the picture-subject at the fore of each one. Does that make sense. Photo of books don't breach NFCC if they are clearly a photo, right?--ZayZayEM 03:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, if the book cover is copyrighted, and I take a new photo, there are now two copyrights &mdash; the original one held by whoever designed the cover, and an additional one for whatever creativity is in my photography. I don't have the right to release the first part of the copyright into the public domain. See Derivative works. ElinorD (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that might be an idea: An artistic display of books, with a few other things related to the DI, would probably not invoke the book cover's copyright, as they weren't the only focus. You could have the books, a watch, maybe a couple sketches of a bacterial flagellum.... Adam Cuerden talk 04:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably best to run that past the image police first to avoid another edit war. As to using a generic image rather than the book covers, at Talk:Intelligent design/Archive43, "(see User:Raul654/Featured_article_thoughts). They are too far removed from the topic. Anybody who is not intimately familiar with the topic will not understand the reason its there. Raul654 14:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)" .... dave souza, talk 09:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be considered acceptable. I took this photo a few months ago, and innocently uploaded it to Commons, where only free images are allowed. They were deleted, and I was pointed, very nicely, to Derivative works. See especially Question 4 about a hypothetical photo of a child holding a Winnie-the-Pooh stuffed toy. I've seen cases on Wikipedia and Commons where people took their own photos of a chocolate bar wrapper or a cornflakes box, and uploaded them under a free licence, but were then told that such photos could not be free. If you look around, you'll certainly find some examples of new photos of copyrighted material either on Commons or here with a free licence tag, but that's only because they haven't been discovered yet by anyone who cares enough to do something about it. I've seen questions and answers about this at Commons, and only a few days ago, I saw a something in an old archive (but I can't remember where to look now) where someone explained that if he takes a photo of a busy street, and there happens to be a poster in a shop window, that would be considered acceptable, but taking a photo of the poster itself wouldn't be. Adam, I think the question is not just whether the books are the only focus, but also whether they are an intended focus. ElinorD (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we have to upload these images onto the Commons. I thought Wikipedia had less stringent guidelines.--ZayZayEM 01:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we wouldn't have to upload them to Commons. (In fact, it wouldn't be permitted, as they wouldn't be free.) Yes, English Wikipedia has less stringent guidelines, in that we accept non-free images while Commons doesn't. But that would simply mean that we'd have a new set of non-free images to justify, so it probably wouldn't solve anything, unless you could show that the photo you took was more significant to the article. But not because you could show that the photo was more free. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be accepted. By all means, if you think a photo you take yourself of copyrighted material would be significant enough to the article to stand up to challenge from those who are most familiar with Wikipedia image policy, I'd say, go for it. In other words, if a photo you take yourself is more significant to the article than the currently disputed images, you'd have a better chance that they'd be considered acceptable, but not because this photo would be more free. We don't recognise anything that's halfway between free and non-free. ElinorD (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

On the specifics of Carl's suggestion, I don't think the Panda Eating is particularly useful to an article on ID. This is for a number of reasons:
 * 1) It would be fairly difficult to see the thumb on the panda in such a picture.
 * 2) The issue of the the panda's thumb predates ID by over a decade. Stephen Jay Gould published a book by that title in 1980, and an article on the subject a couple of years before that.
 * 3) The panda's thumb is more an evolutionary oddity & in-joke than a major argument against creationism. It is an example of convergent evolution, yes, but hardly an extraordinary one. As such its inclusion is more likely to confuse than inform.
 * 4) The thumb doesn't usually turn up in too many debates over ID vs evolution (can anybody verify if it came up in either Dover or Kansas?).

On a more general level, what little substance there is to Intelligent Design can be attributed to a handful of people and a handful of books. If we eliminate the books we are reduced to little more than (the contents of) a DI group-photo for illustrations. And in fact, the only illustrations left on the article after the image-deletion-warriors depredations are two: photos of Dembski & Dawkins (with the latter being at best of second-order relevance, as Dawkins is an opponent of ID). Hrafn42 10:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the iconography of Pandas is less pointed than the man/chimpanzee back to back on Darwin's Black Box. Neither of them are as relevant and significant as the Times cover, and that got tossed by the bureaucracy. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  11:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hence we had the book covers, which perfectly illustrated the ID movement. Seems so simple, so obvious, so elegant and argument, one that we've made over and over, to no avail.  Alas, had Churchill's Blood, sweat and tears speech been given to a gathering of folks who knew nothing of the war, it too might've been received in the same manner.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  10:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How does a book cover illustrate a movement? These book covers use imagery appropriate for their content, but so do bodice-ripper novels and all other professionally published books. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) This article isn't on the Intelligent design movement (which has its own article), it is on 'Intelligent design'. (2) The "contents" of these books is ID. There is almost nothing substantive to ID (to the extent that ID can be considered to be substantive at all) that isn't in the contents of these books. If, as you say, these covers "use imagery appropriate for their content" then they must "use imagery appropriate for Intelligent Design". Hrafn42 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC) [Slight correction: by "these books" I meant the handful of books I mentioned above, which includes one or two beyond the ones whose covers are in dispute.] Hrafn42 14:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim62sch mentioned the movement; I was asking how these books illustrate that, because I don't see it. Just because the imagery on the covers is related to ID doesn't mean that it's worth including the covers here - that's the point. I offered a replacement image with virtually the same imagery that can be used if the goal is just to have imagery related to ID. If the goal is to illustrate what the covers of these books look like, it seems like that should be done on the articles about the books. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The books and their covers are iconic, showing precisely how the movement represents ID. As I recall, an external source was cited earlier as making that point. Raul654 clearly doesn't share your idea that a vaguely similar photograph meets the need. Out of interest, if we composited heads of a chimp and a baldy man back to back, would that then be a derivative work? ...... dave souza, talk 16:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't see that ref to a reliable source. We would be able to use a cover image if we could quote someone in the article saying that the cover art itself is "iconic". I looked above but didn't see the ref; I also looked in the article, but the article doesn't (and didn't) claim that either of these cover images was iconic. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly explained. It pains me to go through this for the nth time. Intelligent design and its attendant movement is part of a "cultural war"; it is a battle of ideas. These ideas are contained in these books. These books are the main weapons in this battle. As such, they are of singular importance.

There are no experiments, no observational evidence, no images of processes or structures that demonstrate intelligent design. There are a few iconic images that evoke intelligent design. The main images are these book covers. There are one or two others, which might be even more difficult to make a case for (although eventually we might have some other alternatives, such as a simulacrum of the mechanical representation of the flagellum that is common in the ID community). For the time being, these book covers are the touchstones for ID and serve to identify it in the public sphere. --Filll 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The argument in the first paragraph above is an argument to mention the books, but not an argument to display their covers.


 * If the argument in the second paragraph was made by a reliable published source, and the article discussed it, that would lead to a rationale for including the cover images. But the captions that were on the images when they were removed did not make any argument about the covers being important. It seems equally likely that the covers identify ID only by identifying the books, which in turn are identified with ID; the article can mention the books without showing their covers. That is, seems that that the books are iconic because of their content but their covers are only the sort of covers that would be expected on such books. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah we are back to Carl's patented "rationales have to be backed by a reliable source" fallacy. Carl, could you please quote a specific Wikipedia policy that explicitly requires this. Either that, or we will simply assume that you are making the rules up as you go along, in addition to appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner. Hrafn42 18:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The rationale doesn't need references; but cover images can only be used if they complement critical commentary in the article (Non-free_content) and that critical commentary is subject to WP:V. In light of the minimal use and significance rules (WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC), it takes more than just a mention of the book to use the cover image, since we can link that mention to the article about the book where there is already a cover image (see item 5 of Non-free_content). In any case, numerous editors beside me have pointed out that these images didn't have a usage in the article that met the restrictions of WP:NFCC; it's not just me. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for abandoning your fallacy. As to complementing "critical commentary", there is an entire section on 'Irreducible Complexity', the central thesis of Darwin's Black Box. Hrafn42 19:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Commentary on the subject of the book is not the same as commentary on the book itself. There is exactly one sentence in the article that mentions Darwin's Black Box the book: "Previously, in Darwin's Black Box, Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively." The section on irreducible complexity doesn't mention the book at all. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually these books and their covers have been featured in the media and in the courtroom, and so serve to identify intelligent design in an unequivocal fashion. If there is a problem with the captions, this can be fixed. If there is a problem with finding media references to the books and their covers, this can be corrected. However, it is not clear to me from the past discussions where the threshold is, or if we satisfy the requirements of one deletionist, if some new deletionist will not magically appear to use a different argument and engage the local community in some other issue.--Filll 18:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You will probably find it hard to convince anyone when you call them "deletionist". You can start by getting broad support that the usage can meet current policy requirements; if the requirements tighten later, then you may have to change again, and so on. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if the term "deletionist" was offensive. I was unaware of any negative connotations, particularly since many have advertised the fact that they are "deletionists" proudly on their user pages on WP. If this term was improperly used, or caused inadvertant discomfort or offense, I beg your forgiveness; please chalk it up to my ignorance. I had not meant to be confrontational by using this term.

However, of course standards change over the long term; weeks, months and years. This phenomenon is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the almost constant attacks and tag-teaming of a team of editors who appear to be unevenly and even improperly applying a somewhat vague policy here. We have had to deal with wave upon wave of these editors, many with slightly different objections, over the last few weeks. All kinds of tactics, not all of which are particularly appropriate or reasonable, have been deployed. These discussions have been fractured among numerous different talk pages, and instead of carrying on the discussion with clear boundaries and understanding of the policies, the local editors have had to deal with what appears to be a multi-pronged attack that is more akin to playing a game of whack-a-mole than writing an encyclopedia. --Filll 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There, you have gone off and done it again by calling them moles. We'll never see the page unlocked. -Nodekeeper 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Carl, WP:OFFICIOUS. Really.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  02:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

101 uses for parts of a mousetrap
One possible alternative illustration that could be useful if appropriate text was written around it, is an illustration of Ken Miller's 101 uses for parts of a mousetrap (slight exaggeration, I know -- but you know what I mean), in the Irreducible Complexity section. Hrafn42 10:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the editors of this article should give ground to ignorance and stupidity by doctoring perfectly good images. -Nodekeeper 11:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting the doctoring of any images. I'm not even conceding the point on the book-covers. I would however think that having some illustrations that weren't photos of protagonists or book-covers might be useful, by way of variety. Hrafn42 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an idea. But personally I do not plan on investing much time into articles when there seems to be egotistical thirteen year olds running interference for a flawed policy. -Nodekeeper 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please replace images of ID books
The Fair Use of the book images has been discussed. Images and media for deletion determines only whether to keep or delete an image, IfD does not decide the use of the image in individual articles (which is determined by a proper FU rationale and the consensus of editors working on individual articles). Since the images have not been deleted, the use of IFD to determine individual article usage is nonsensical, as would be the subsequent use of WP:DRV (since there is no deletion to review in the case of a 'kept' image). As such, the local editors here should include the images of the books which are important in the description of the ID movement, and such image inclusion vastly improves the quality of the article (link to article version with images). The arguments are stale and it's time to make the consensus to include more explicit. R. Baley 16:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (Added in response to comment by Adam Cuerden) Specifically I think we should include the cover images: (1) Of Pandas and People (2) Darwin's Black Box, and (3) Darwin on Trial. R. Baley 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Struck per AC. 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. The above statement is mine, in support of the inclusion of the book images. I do not normally edit this article, but it is my understanding that regular editors of this article do wish to do so, and have made a reasonable case in justifying their Fair Use.  R. Baley 16:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support most inclusions - I don't think we need all of them, but several are extremely important to the development of ID. Adam Cuerden talk 20:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (reply) In my statement I was addressing the 3 books in the previous page version linked to above. Specifically those were: (1) Of Pandas and People (2) Darwin's Black Box, and (3) Darwin on Trial.  Do you agree with those being included?
 * Of Pandas and People, definitely. It's important to Kitzmiller, originated the movement, and so on. Darwin's Black Box, also important, set out most of the basic arguments. Maybe not as important as Of Pandas and People, but still strong reasons for inclusion. Darwin on Trial - eh, it's not particularly well-known; I haven't ever seen it discussed outside of this article. And the image is a long way from the discussion of the book. Adam Cuerden talk 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just checked to confirm that you are a long-term contributer to this article and as such I trust your judgment on the merits of inclusion. I will modify my support in light of your comment. R. Baley 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A vote won't restore the images onto the page - many editors have raised serious policy concerns about these images in the many settings where this has been discussed. The best way to get the images back onto the page is to make a compelling argument for their inclusion (that is, an argument that convinces others that the use is valid after all). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop lying misinforming by saying 'many'. 'Minority' is more accurate. Likewise, 'many' editors think the images should be in the article. Note the IfD discussion. -Nodekeeper 01:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The IFD discussion closed saying the images should be removed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The IfD discussion was closed with a majority voting keep. Just because the closer decided to overrule that doesn't make a minority view into a majority. Adam Cuerden talk 00:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, the discussion closed with the overhwelming majority saying "keep" w.r.t. the uses disputed by the user who nominated the images. Therefore I've replaced the "Darwin on Trial" image, since the local consensus is the only controlling issue that remains. ... Kenosis 04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to lengthen this sidetrack, but it was way more than a majority choosing to 'keep' and the admin basically closed going against consensus. Also, whether one admin has the right to impose his opinion/interpretation --to determine content through the IfD process, when no actual deletion took place is also matter of some debate (see archived ANI discusion). R. Baley 01:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was a mistake not to have a DRV, since it encourages this sort of speculation. Deletion discussions are not votes; the close does not always agree with the majority of opinions expressed. Several recent DRVs where the image closer applied policy to overrule the majority of comments at an IFD have upheld the deletion. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not voting, and I didn't ask anyone to. But editors are free log in their opinion to see where the consensus lies,  especially when it involves subjective criteria. R. Baley 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A summary and a suggestion
Carl has been a broken record on a number of points. He has repeated (but has since withdrawn) the "reliable sources for rationales" canard. He continues to rant about the "many editors" who support his contentions (but continuing to fail to make mention of the many more editors who take an opposing view). He continues to trumpet the IfD, as though repeated mention of it will turn it into anything other than the illegitimate impotent kangaroo court that it was on this issue outside its jurisdiction. As far as I know, he has raised one, and only one, issue that is of any import:

The standard imposed by this rule would seem to be readily achievable: I would therefore like to suggest that we concentrate on preparation of these paragraphs and ignore (and if necessary censure) Carl's continued repetition of ephemera. Hrafn42 04:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) These books are important to the ID movement, so a paragraph critically evaluating each, in the appropriate section, would not be out of place in the article.
 * 2) Each of these books have been repeatedly criticised, often in great detail, often by people with considerably more gravitas on the subjects than the books' writers. WP:RSs for the criticism should not be hard to find.


 * The "reliable sources" are the ones you have mentioned as well: the ones needed to write critical commentary in the article. I'm sorry if that reasoning of mine wasn't clear before. If a section of critical commentary belongs in this article, a much stronger rationale can be written for the images, and I will be glad to write it myself. The reason that the previous use wasn't allowed by policy was exactly because there was so little text in the article about the books themselves (distinct from the content of the books, which is of course is well covered). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, a series of boxes, containing the book-cover + a one paragraph critique of the book would make attractive inserts into the article. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

'Of Pandas and People' paragraph scratchpad
I think we would have difficulty doing better than the Dover decision quote from the Of Pandas and People article:

However we also have access to a whole heap of further information courtesy of the NCSE. An embarrassment of riches. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think the P&P cover&criticism-paragraph box would be most suitably sited in the Kitzmiller section, as it was at this trial that the book attained its greatest notability/notoriety. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 15:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

'Darwin's Black Box' paragraph scratchpad
The Ken Miller review is probably a good place to start. I particularly liked his closing paragraph:

However this Dawkins quote from the book's article is also good:

Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

'Darwin on Trial' paragraph scratchpad
Stephen Jay Gould's Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge is probably the most authoritative critique. I especially like this bit, which sums up DoT rather nicely in my opinion:

However I also like Brian Spitzer's explicitly Christian critique: The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth? (subtitled "Why Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and the "Intelligent Design" movement are neither science--nor Christian").Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Images added 2007-9-15
The images were added again this evening with the same captions as before; since nothing has changed, the usage isn't acceptable yet, but I'm going to leave them for now in good faith that the critical commentary being discussed here will be added to the article in the next day or two. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll be leaving them here period. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Awful sentence of doom.
I tried to fix this, but was reverted, so...

"Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign."

Problems:


 * Sentence is excessively long. Should be broken up, with more explanaztions of what the things mean.
 * "Wedge strategy" undefined at this point - we've talked very briefly about the "Wedge Document", but have not actually defined the term. For that matter, there's an earlier occurrence of "wedge strategy" in the "Origins of the term" section that is also undefined.
 * "Adjunct" is an awful, awful word to use.
 * "Teach the Controversy" isn't defined anywhere in the article.

This sentence should be shot. Adam Cuerden talk 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, nowhere from the references do I see the implication 'nearly all' justified. That is an unverified claim, making the sentence incorrect from that standpoint. Certainly the Discovery Institute is a large proponent, but they could also just be the voice for all the disparate organizations that support them (as what the references really allude to). Either way it needs to be reworded or removed -Nodekeeper 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Adam, the sentennce is not "eccessively long", unless one prefers sound bites. Yes, one could break it down to the idiot English level, creating three or four sentences of baby talk, but that wouldn't really serve much of a purpose, would it?
 * See the link.
 * Use associated.
 * See the link. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's good writing not to expect people to read two other articles just to understand one sentence. This sentence is not communicating information, so much as being a placeholder for links. Adam Cuerden talk 01:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh please. Do you always assume the reader is an idiot?  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I usually presume that the reader is about 16, and write for him. It's a good guideline. Adam Cuerden talk 14:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sample 'critical commentary' boxes
These are a sample of the sort of thing I am suggesting to get the cover-art permited under:

They are also meant to convey the strong majority (scientific and/or legal) view of the books in question (as per WP:UNDUE) & thus be informative in their own right.

A few notes: Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not an expert in formatting, boxes, tables, etc. So the formatting is necessarily rough. Improvement is welcome.
 * 2) Not having read the books in question, and not being a biologist, I am letting the experts (or in Jones' case, letting his summary of the experts' testimony) speak for themselves. If anybody thinks they can come up with a better formulation, they're welcome to try.
 * 3) While you may not like what I've come up with, we need something at least approximately like this, in order to pass muster under the Cover Art clause. This is important for two reasons:
 * 4) It removes the one valid argument against us that the image-deletion-warriors have, removing the wind from their sails, and hopefully gaining us some peace.
 * 5) If and when a binding forum is set up to adjudicate Fair Use issues, it will put us in a far stronger position.


 * Critical commentary is not required. The WP:NFCC policy, as written in the wake of the March 2007 Wikimedia Board resoulution, states: "3(a) Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. 3(b) Minimal extent of use. The entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used (especially where the original could be used for piracy). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace."
 * The demand of several users focused on image deletion for "critical commentary" arises out of WP:NFC, which is a guideline, not a policy, and cannot trump the local consensus. Either way, though, the article is filled with critical commentary as it is. Please do not change the language for this reason only, unless you had already wanted to propose this new language-- if that's the case, it can be discussed on its own merits. Personally I don't think it's needed. It is, though, an interesting approach that's being proposed, critical commentary on the three major works--then there's Dembski's 1999 book too, making four. As I said, I don't think it's needed... Kenosis 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, as noted at above, the WP:NFCC policy as written in the wake of the March 2007 Wikimedia Board resoulution stated  "3(a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." There's been a running debate about this, and on 4 September it was changed to "Minimal number of uses", reflecting the views of the faction who consider that only one article should have each fair use image. ... dave souza, talk 09:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is more than just a few editors who are angry about this. Isn't there enough editors around to change the policy yet, or is this specific faction so in control of the policy page that no other input is going to be accepted there? What am I missing? -Nodekeeper 09:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favour of any specific language, per se, but given that the books in question constitute the ID-Creationists' 'arsenal' of 'silver bullets' meant to 'slay' Evolution, I most emphatically think that some explicit commentary on why they are duds is warranted, WP:NFC notwithstanding. (Note to self: always read the headings of WP:XXXs more carefully, so as not to allow oneself to be misled as to whether they are policy/guidelines/essays. Grrr) Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kenosis take on this. I think this direction of commentary boxes is an exercise in futility because as long WP:NFC is what it is, the deletionists will remove anything from any article and justify it with the flawed policy. Also, I'm done calling them 'deletionists'. That's too kind of word for them. I am calling them what they are, 'censors'. -Nodekeeper 07:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Focusing on the right word choice to disparage people you disagree with won't help resolve the issue here. Given that nobody disputes the importance of these books to ID, adding some critical commentary can only serve to improve the article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well sorry you find it disconcerting, so maybe you can explain how the image deleters are not censoring articles through their actions? Having to jump through a hoop by providing commentary boxes is just another form of censorship. So by definition they are censors. The issue is not one of whether the images of book covers should be in the article or not, but one of censorship. -Nodekeeper 12:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (&larr;)The guiding concept of our nonfree image policies is that a nonfree image is not intrinsically acceptable or unacceptable, but that the each specific usage of the image in an article must rise to a certain level of significance. In an article about the book itself, most people currently agree that it benefits the reader to show the cover. But for other articles, the policy is that the image can only be used when it complements text about the copyrighted work.  No content is being censored from the article -- the problem with the images is that there was already not enough content to support their inclusion. We are discussing adding more content to the article, which isn't compatible with censorship. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a guiding principle, it's guided censorship. Unfortunately your ignorance forces you to thread your way through a maze of NFCC 'significance' in order for 'inclusion'. However well meaning the 'policy' is, you end up with the bastard child of censorship. These images are perfectly legal to use under U.S. law, but because they happen to be 'nonfree' (an artificial construct that does not exist in the US legal system) according to the censors they must be removed. This is restricting the speech of the editors of this page. Forcing editors to include commentary (no matter how good it supposedly is) is also restriction on speech. That is censorship. -Nodekeeper 13:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At present the push by a focus-group of users is to mandate hand-written rationales for some estimated 170,000 images classified as NFC, each of which are subject to argument and review by regular deletion advocates and anyone else who may care to participate in the decision. Frequently we have seen the consensus in the discussion overridden by an administrator on the basis of these subjective measures presently described in the policy with words like "as few ... as possible", "significantly increase readers' understanding" and other such measures. The criteria have tended to be compromises between "no fair use" advocates and those who advocate a more moderate interpretation of NFC/fair-use, and the policy discussions have often tended to be based on instinct and "wiki-myth", so to speak. As time passes, more are getting familiar with the actual statutes and case law, as well as with the intent of the Wikimeida Board. The actual practice of image oversight and/or deletion advocacy in recent months has been somewhat arbitrary, to say the least. In the meantime, one ot the Board members has made clear that the Board resolution did not intend to require an individually handwritten rationale for each NFC use. So there's still some work to be done on the WP:NFCC policy and the WP:NFC guidelines to bring them and the actualy practice more in line with the intention of the Board. Currently the position of several users who participate in the policy and guideline discussion is that Wikipedia's restrictions can be, and should be, more restrictive than the Board Resolution. ... Kenosis 16:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity
Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitzmiller trial
Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Movement
<div style="float: right; border: 1pt solid black; width: 3in;padding-left: 0.5em;; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.5em;" >Phillip E. Johnson's 1991 book Darwin on Trial was among the early "intelligent design" books that attempted to "teach the controversy" about evolution.

Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely forward progress. Would it be possible to paraphrase parts of these quotations, so that the commentary boxes read more like part of the article and less like inserted quotes? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I reformatted the Darwin on Trial box. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Hrafn
Carl: 3 points:
 * 1) The claim you made, and on which basis I made these recent efforts, that "cover images can only be used if they complement critical commentary in the article" is, to say the least, highly inaccurate. WP:NFC is a guideline not policy (something that I didn't notice until Kenosis pointed it out), so can be more accurately represented as "cover images should only be used if they complement critical commentary in the article". One more misrepresentation. One too many. The straw that broke the camel's back. You've forfeited what remaining tiny spark of trust and goodwill you had left. Henceforth I won't believe anything you say until I have gone over the underlying substantiation for myself with extreme skepticism and a fine-tooth comb.
 * 2) In case you haven't noticed, there doesn't seem to be much appetite on this article for these boxes. Unlike you and your fellow crusaders, I see little value in quixotically tilting at windmills, so will not spend any more time on something that seems to have little chance of getting consensus approval. If somebody else decides to run with it, I will offer assistance, but otherwise I am done with this sub-project.
 * 3) As far as I can see, you and your fellow crusaders have three options:
 * 4) You can continue on with your futile quest to attempt to delete the images against the consensus and lacking a clear higher authority to do so. This will most probably result in eventual censure for WP:DE or similar.
 * 5) You can attempt to add text-content to the article that would justify the images (which are going to be included regardless of your opinion) to your reading (either with critique boxes or some other format). This will however prove harder than it need have, due to the level of ill-will you have generated here.
 * 6) You can simply leave, and let us get on with improving this article our own way.
 * I am under no illusions as to which of these three choices you will end up pursuing, but thought that I should at least point them, and their likely consequences, out to you.

Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 13:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear you have decided not to contribute further to the commentary on the images. The text in the guideline about critical commentary is the consensus interpretation of the "significance" requirements of WP:NFCC, which is policy. Editing an article to bring it in line with policy isn't considered "disruptive editing", and I have made an effort not to edit disruptively. I refrained from removing the images last night, and when I noticed that someone else had done so, I contacted them to ask that they leave the images in place while the article is brought into compliance. As I said above last night, I'm going to wait a couple days in the hope that the use in the article can be brought in line with policy. I was hoping that you and I could work on that, but it seems I will have to find another editor here to work with. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The "consensus" you claim on the WP:NFC guideline seems more than a little fluid (for example, this dif of changes so far this month) to make it a firm basis for editing. Unless and until it stabilises considerably, or is given boundaries by some binding rulings giving some precedent, I think most editors would simply go straight to WP:NFCC for solid guidance. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 14:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I really despise officiousness -- it represents a clear inability to think critically, relying instead on a Manichaean reading of rules drafted by Manicaeists. Thinking, as Hrafn is trying to explain, is good.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, basing any project on an attempt to rigidly enforce ever-changing 'guidelines' is a formula for an unholy mess. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate?
Can I raise a couple of points?

Wouldn't the use of single-source quotes that have been deliberately chosen for their critical nature be pretty easily perceived as violationg WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV?

Should an article on general intelligent design really sit down and individually tear apart every book written by the DI? Especially when these books have articles of their own. --ZayZayEM 13:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just hashed them together as a sort of trial-balloon (which sunk like a lead balloon). If you think you can do better, then you're welcome to try. It's not like I have a patent on the concept or anything. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 14:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV is that this text matches WP policy perfectly. These books purport to be science books, or books about science. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate that they be examined in that light. Comments from theologians or politicians or the general public are nor appropriate. Similarly, a book on the theology would need quotes from experts in that field, instead of from plumbers. Books on plumbing would require commentary from plumbing experts, not equestrians or bakers. Therefore, comments from the mainstream of science are appropriate for books on science, as these books are. It is astounding to me how often this type of argument is made in these kind of debates about intelligent design and creationism.--Filll 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the appropriateness of the individual focus on each book on the general parent article on intelligent design?--ZayZayEM 04:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the vast majority of the contents of ID (what little there is to it) is contained in a small number of books -- namely these three + The Design Inference, Icons of Evolution and possibly Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (though the latter is more of an ID-precursor). Hence, the focus of them isn't unreasonable. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 06:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not disputing this, but individual focus on each book could be perceived as bit too much. As I understand it none of the books really seem to contain too much original thought - it's all a part of DI's continual reframing cycle: Same ****, new box. --ZayZayEM 07:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll. While we shouldn't be choosing quotes "for their critical nature", we should be choosing representative quotes from authoritative sources. In the context of a discussion of intelligent design, the quotes are appropriate. If the context was on the literary content or writing style, then no, we shouldn't use quotes like these. But we want to use the books in the context of ID. So I think the quotes are appropriate. Guettarda 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That said, I think it'd be better to summarise more generally, writing a bit broadly about the general criticism, not just one aspect. We could use quotes, but I don't think we should just use one huge one from one source when it's a general opinion of much of the scientific community.
 * It gives the impression of bias to those that don't know that quote is typical. I prefer short, well-chosen, typical quotes that show a viewpoint vividly, combined with neutral reporting that puts the quote in the general context - which is, of course, generally negative for these books, at least in the relevant fields, but that's not going to be obvious from one long quote. Adam Cuerden talk 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we're not allowed to use fair-use images on talk pages - I've changed them to placeholders for the moment. Adam Cuerden talk 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Will we get a ticket? Adam, you're starting to worry me again.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Temporary image removal
I've temporarily removed Darwin's Black Box - while the Of Pandas and People caption has plenty of commentary, which ties a lot of threads together, sets out the history of the book, and so on, at the moment, the caption just said that Darwin's Black Box popularised irreducible complexity. And we don't mention the book anywhere else.

It's not that I think it should be permanently removed, but we ought to be fair to the other side - at the moment, we aren't using the image as a starting point for discussion, so let's wait until we are to use it. Adam Cuerden talk 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also the Darwin on Trial image, since we don't even mention Teach the Controversy yet, which the image ostensibly ties into discussion of. Adam Cuerden talk 14:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Critical commentary is not required. The WP:NFCC policy, as written in the wake of the March 2007 Wikimedia Board resoulution, states: "3(a) Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. 3(b) Minimal extent of use. The entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used (especially where the original could be used for piracy). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace."
 * The demand of several users focused on image deletion for "critical commentary" arises out of WP:NFC, which is a guideline, not a policy, and cannot trump the local consensus. Either way, though, the article is filled with critical commentary as it is. This demand for "critical commentary" as if it were a policy mandate is, simply put, either misleading, or false. ... Kenosis 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing for the moment. These images were self-standing even without an image caption, as was the TIME Evolution Wars cover image. That discussion, though, is a separate fair-use/NFCC analysis that will need to wait until later, assuming we don't lose all our competent contributors in the face of the recent image-deletion madness. These book-cover images, on the other hand, are typically plastered all over the web on booksellers' websites and also on mirror sites. It's fair use, plain and simple, and well within the WP:NFCC, the policy. The IfD was something like 16-5 users in favor of keeping them in the article or deferring to the local consensus, with only a unilateral administrative override with no explanation or justification for the override, and an immediate determination on Administrators' noticeboard that the IfD wasn't controlling anyway. ... Kenosis 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy requirements in question here are WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. The idea that "local consensus" can keep the images without a compelling justification isn't right. The point of "commentary" is WP:NFCC: if there is no commentary in the article about these books, what significant contribution do the cover images make? "Identification" is an insufficient reason to use the images here, since they are used in the articles about the respective books for that purpose. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * NFCC #3 and #8 are subjective criteria that must by their very nature be determined via consensus. Or, as made clear in the Administrators' noticeboard thread, WP must be changed so that consensus doesn't decide subjective criteria any longer. ... Kenosis 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC) And incidentally, the notion that "critical commentary" is controlling here, based upon the WP:NFC guideline, a guideline that was written by a focus group of WP users consisting substantially of "no fair use" advocates, is at least misleading, and could reasonably be construed as worse than misleading. ... Kenosis 14:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree they must be decided by consensus. Of the many forums in which the use in this article was discussed, none of them developed a consensus for including the images. It's the idea that "local" consensus by established editors can determine content that isn't correct. If you feel my interpretation of NFCC is misleading, I suggest asking about it on WT:NONFREE. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The assertion that there was not consensus on these issues is either mistaken, absurd, or an outright falsehood. I should call attention to the fact that this debate about images in the article on intelligent design has gone across a number of userspaces, four IfDs, a fair-use review, various templating and other strategies, administrators' noticeboard, and an attempt to short-circuit standard mediation processes by filing a Request for Arbitration -- all initiated by deletion advocates. In legal parlance, this is known as forum shopping. It's a shame, IMO, how divisive to the community these NFCCs #1, #3 and #8 have turned out to be. For one of the IfDs, see the Images for Deletion proceeding, where a strong consensus (12-5 to keep) this image in the article on intelligent design was unilaterally overruled by the closing adminitrator with the words "Images removed from articles per Wikipedia policy on non-free content and image copyright tag requirements. -Nv8200p" This was concurrent (within five minutes) with Nv8200p's removal of the required image copyright tag requirements. For the fair use review, see Fair_use_review. For another of the IfD's also closed in the same way by Nv8200p, the consensus was even stronger, 16 to keep in the article and five to remove (here). See also, e.g., the very recently archived discussion at Administrators' noticeboard. As well, I should call attention to the Request for arbitration. And, in addition to the increasingly lengthy discussion at the image talk page, there have been the various other strategies in efforts to delete, including the arguments brought to bear by CBM at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. ... Kenosis 15:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl, for a constructive approach to improving the article so that the importance of these books, and their image, is made clear and explicit. Darwin's Black Box is notable as the first attempt to present ID as "serious" science, and essentially the backbone of their claims to scientific credibility which Dembski then elaborated with mathematical tricks. See the timeline for some sources. One nice comment is Miller's testimony about Behe: "when I read through the pages of Darwin's Black Box, I was struck by how many of the arguments used against evolution that are found in Of Pandas and People are also used in Darwin's Black Box." Unsurprisingly as Behe set out his argument in the 2nd edition of Pandas, then introduced the term IC in his black box. ... dave souza, talk 15:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Carl so far as saying that: If we're going to include the book covers, we should make it clear why we're doing so. At the moment, only the importance of Of Pandas and People is actually clear from the article. Adam Cuerden talk 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

 * Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

'Best explained by an intelligent cause', as close as I can figure, is not a coherent clause. I changed this sentence to something along the lines of 'best explained by the actions or choices of an intelligent agent', but it was reverted on account of 'being unacceptable after months of building consensus'. Understandable, of course.

Now, I'm not going to fight much on this, because if the Intelligent Design article lacks coherency that is, quite frankly, a fitting state of affairs in my estimation. But, I thought I should point out that as it stands, the first sentence of this featured article does not, under strict examination, make much sense. The gist is comprehensible but it lacks proper construction. Best regards, Vranak 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, you miss the point, That sentence has been carefully constructed, probably by an eminent retired lawyer, to be incoherent but hint at what they want it to mean. You'll notice it's a quotation from the linked sources, with the "ID is a theory" omitted from the start as that's too obvious a bit of misdirection. We could translate the clause you've objected to, perhaps as "are empirical evidence for God but we're not going to mention God", but that would be original research which we're not allowed to do. The ideal would be to find a reliable source translating that "definition" into plain English, then cite that. ... dave souza, talk 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL ok! Vranak 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ID in UK & Australia
ZayZayEM has (correctly to my mind) cut out half of a sentence comparing the UK & Australia situation here. I would however question whether the remainder of the sentence is an accurate characterisation. The UK situation seems to be one of explicitly allowing Religious education but having fairly lax oversight of it (e.g. as documented in this article). The Australian situation appears to be one of a lone minister (long since moved on) floating a brief trial balloon, which got shot down in flames. Where is the "similarity"? I think this needs to be clarified or removed. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 06:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's more to it than that, I don't remember the details off the top of my head, but as I recall, whether or not it is taught at all in public schools, is at the discretion of the state governments. There also are (or were) a number of private religious schools teaching it in science classes, mostly in SA I think. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 08:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I left it because my understanding is that it is the same story here, I just didn't get the purpose of that sentance fragment. AFAIK Religious education is permitted to teach what they like, and is even allowed in state schools, with pretty lax oversight. The Fraser incident is on top of that. I went to Catholic Boarding school in regional Queensland and did six months of year twelve solely focusing on Evolution. I don't think ID came in at all in any discussions (maybe theistic evolution, but instigated by students not teachers). There has been a minor rabble of "teach the controversy", but nothing organised or political.--ZayZayEM 10:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I get the tentative impression that the similarity might be a similarity-in-ambiguity: not officially approved, but allowed through a combination of lax/vague rules & local implementation of them. Would a better way of expressing this be: "The status of intelligent design in Australia has a similar ambiguity to that in the UK."? Also a bit more fleshing out of the Australian situation might be worthwhile -- it gets far less mention than the UK, and not nearly enough currently to make the similarity self-evident. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 11:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or that religious classes are allowed in public schools? I'm not sure that either way it's a terribly useful comparison to make, and without a source saying they're similar, it's OR anyhow. You're right though the Aus section could use some fleshing out. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Subject to checking as always, "In the United Kingdom, public education includes Religious Education as a compulsory subject, and many "faith schools" that teach the ethos of particular denominations." – not just "allowed". It was supposed to give information about different religions, but the Grauniad article suggests that could be under threat in England (note that Scotland's different). In all countries of the UK there are "faith schools" which are expected to push a religion. Up to about a decade ago my wife taught in a "non-denominational" school which effectively means secular, but morning assemblies have a short religious bit which was apparently always a Church of Scotland minister, and NOT a Roman Catholic priest – they had their own school nearby. She did yoga and tried to get agreement for a Buddhist to do the assembly, but that was refused. It really needs a source as to what happens in Oz. .. dave souza, talk 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some quick links from a Google search IDnet.com.au ID Hits Aussie news stands ID Hits Oz ID Down Under and Christian Today - the last is about a Catholic school planning on introducing ID into the classroom last month. Includes quotes from George Pell. Most focus on the Nelson incident and how it's all about stupid American creationists with trojans.--ZayZayEM 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Beware christians bearing gifts. <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 09:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've filled out the australia section a bit, though it could probably use some massaging. As it is, it's more like a handful of facts flying in loose formation, than a cohesive piece of prose. Oh and should we mention the Campus Crusade for Christ, that's been pushing ID DVD's? <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 13:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The school in question, Pacific Hills Christian School "is not affiliated with any particular Christian denomination." The Catholic angle is the fact that "ID is being incorporated into Catholic school texts on religious studies". <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I forgot the catholic issue. George Pell and Fred Nile as notable holy bigots probably deserve a mention as well. Oh and I thought the last paragraph of this may be relevant to the... uh.... other issue.


 * <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(ri) I see the stuff I added was reverted so I'll dump it here and see if anyone has any thoughts on what's wrong with it and how it can be improved. <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 08:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it. I think Pacific Hills Christian School should be edited to make noteit was the first Aus school to officially start teaching under the ID banner. idnet.com.au does actualy have a good selection of links, as usual you can have fun by visiting the official sciencey type ones that allegedly support ID, but mentione evolution as fact at least once.--ZayZayEM 00:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone particularly object to my re-adding this section then? <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some input on ID believers from a sci skepticism perspective
Hello all. I made some changes to the article and this was the result:. You rotter! Just joking! Well, consider that a first friendly shot across the boughs. The explanation from Adam there seems to be quite satisfactory, and NPOV policy does seem to prevail here. In fact I came across this article because the AFA article I have been working on seems to involve ID believers and I wanted to look into the matter more closely.

I would like some input into any particular style or level of ID belief they may have. Also, I have been having a bit of bother on the AFA article for some time. In "writing for the enemy", I feel I have had a huge amount of trouble getting the views of the AFA across warts and all. But I leave that assessment up to you. I am specifically looking for editors who are do not have a particular religious interest in the promotion of conservative Christian views. If any skepticism oriented editors could spare some time on the AFA talkpage, even for a very basic face value assessment, I would appreciate your input. Hal Cross 11:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh. Don't worry about it - this article's one of those tricky ones, where parts of it are tricky compromises between explaining fringe views and making it clear they are fringe views. (Also, there's no particular reason you should have known "Argument from ignorance" was the accepted term - we're kind of stuck with it, even if your version is more precise)
 * I'll have a look at the AFA after lunch. Adam Cuerden talk 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes thats the impression I am getting the more I read it. Thanks for the reasoning. Hal Cross 11:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, PS. I would some input into how relevant the pseudoscience category may be to the AFA article. It seems completely appropriate here as it seems to help the reader understand the concept of pseudoscience and critics refer to pseudoscience in an explanatory way, rather than accusatory. But I am not sure how relevant it is on the AFA article. I guess it depends how much the article can contribute to the reader's understanding of pseudoscience, rather than just listing accusations or POVs. Your assessment will be appreciated. Hal Cross 11:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Structure
Can I propose a fairly major change in structure? Can I suggest that this article should be merged with creationism? I see no difference between the two, only a different name. We could entitle the new article "Creationism (Intelligent design)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.113.164 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. Odd nature 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Several reasons. For one, we have too much material for this. Second, each form of creationism like intelligent design has its own article, which is completely appropriate. Also, as accurate as this might be, even if there were no other impediments, to make a structural reorganization like this might be too much trouble.--Filll 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Intelligent Design and Creationism are not the same thing.
 * Intelligent design is "The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes", Answers.com
 * Creationism is "Belief is the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible",Answers.com.
 * (RichardKingCEng 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

"Intelligent design creationism"
''In the interests of full disclosure, there is a similar debate over the same phrase at Talk:Irreducible complexity. However, I think the issues are a bit different here, because of the very different prominence of the phrase, so I think it's probably best to keep them seperate.''

Very simply, is there any need to use the phrase "intelligent-design creationism" in the photo caption of Dawkins? The article reached Featured Article status without any use of such a phrase, except in a quote. It's an at least mildly controversial phrase, and I don't see that it adds anything.

I removed it, but was reverted with "Actually it is in the article (quote and refs) restoring phrase". True, the phrase is in the article - but only in a quote. Using a phrase when quoting the views of others is very different to using it in the narrative voice, as the view of the encyclopedia. The source is a perfect source to establish that Barbara Forrest believes that intelligent design is creationism; but not to establish that intelligent design is creationism.

I'm very impressed with this article (not surprising, as it's a featured article), and the way that it clearly establishes the flaws in intelligent design, and that it ID a form of creationism, without ever needing to break NPOV by stating that as its own opinion. It seems a shame to throw that away with one photo caption. Is there any good reason to keep this? TSP 23:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can think of several reasons for using the term there. 1. It is creationism. 2. Dawkins usually use the term. Odd nature 23:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's creationism too; but that is a view - admittedly one held by the vast majority of sensible people. We characterise debates, we don't engage in them - WP:NPOV.  It seems silly, when the rest of the article does this so well, to break it on one little caption.
 * If the phrase was used in a direct quote from Dawkins, I'd have no problem with it. TSP 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a view, it's an unavoidable fact made by necessary by ID's premise. Odd nature 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact is that some people disagree with that, which makes this a matter of controversy which must be dealt with according to the neutral point of view policy. The majority of the article seems entirely clear on the issues here, and goes into great detail explaining the issues, explaining the vast majority of scientific opinion on the side of ID being viewed as creationism, without feeling the need to state it as its own view.  This single caption is (as far as I can see) the only place where it breaks that.  Is it really necessary?  TSP 23:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is, because the fact is that only ID's partisan promoters make that claim, and they're a tiny minority view taht's widely rejected in the field they stake their claim. Another fact is that there's no provision in WP:NPOV that requires us to repeat their claims as fact. Odd nature 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As fact - no, absolutely not. We present their views as a (minority) view - and the views of the majority as a (majority) view.  WP:NPOV does require that - "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."  The rest of the article manages this well; why not this caption?  TSP 09:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the caption is only minor point. But it could be that it can be altered to make it more obvious its Dawkin's view. I am interested in precisely what Dawkins is criticizing though, and I'm new to the details and specific issues here. I'll see if the Dawkins article has anything brief and more clarifying that can be a candidate caption. Its a seriously interesting read folks. All relevant alternatives and views are included and it leaves it open for the reader to consider any of the combinations of views presented. Well done. Hal Cross 07:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts - if there was a Dawkins quote in the article, in which he used the phrase, then the phrase was used in quote marks in the caption, that would be fine.
 * Yes, it is only a minor point; which is why it seems so silly to insist on keeping it as it is when in my view it damages the carefully-crafted neutrality of the whole article. I'd have liked to be able to just remove it without fuss, as I think it clearly doesn't add anything to the article; but I was reverted, so I brought it here.  TSP 09:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

More extensive discussion of intelligent design as creationism
From the recent dust-up at irreducible complexity and here in the Dawkins figure caption, this is obviously something that should get more attention here and at creationism. I propose that we add a sentence to both articles with a good number of references, to drive a stake through the heart of this objection. Then this can be referenced from other articles with a wikilink if necessary. I suggest something like

--Filll 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have no problem at all with that - that's characterising the debate, and entirely fairly. But I think the objections both here and at Talk:Irreducible complexity have been about whether certain parts of the articles have stopped characterising the debate, and started engaging in it.  TSP 16:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the wording, but would disagree with TSP's characterisation of how it is presented in the articles. When the "debate" is as heavily lopsided as it is ("Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID." -- KvD), it is not unreasonable under WP:UNDUE to only represent the majority view. The "debate" is over -- ID lost overwhelmingly, so lets write on that basis. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not my reading of the Undue Weight section of the NPOV policy. In articles on a general subject, we don't have to give significant space to minority views; and in articles on minority views, they should still be treated as minority views and the majority view explained.  NPOV still requires that they are treated fairly, though, which I think means not describing them using terminology which presupposes their incorrectness.
 * I think I'd have more sympathy for the idea if I saw any advantage in using the term "intelligent design creationism", but I don't, really. It's a rare term - most opponents of the theory seem to simply use "intelligent design".  It would be a different matter if the proponents' title was, say, "intelligent design science"; but we seem to be going out of our way to use an uncommon word with POV implications instead of an alternative which is both more neutral and far more common.  TSP 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "begun" is problematic - the Pennock reference, for example, is 8 years old. It also implies that there are people who currently refer to it as IDC who did not do so previously.  Without citation, I don't think that working is acceptable.  129.15.160.100 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also saying "within the scientific and academic community" is (a) redundant (implies that the scientific community is not a subset of the academic community) and (b) overly limiting. It's also described in that manner by many outside the academic community.  Something like

(and it should include the quote from the volume edited by Pennock where he explicitly addresses this naming issue) 129.15.160.100 16:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the science community is FAR larger than the academic community. Remember there is a huge piece of the scientific community in the commercial world and in government, etc.--Filll 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] 'It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism, with some authors using the term "intelligent design creationism".', perhaps?
 * I was going to suggest something like "with the view often referred to as 'intelligent design creationism"; but actually, at least on a Google search, "intelligent design" gets about 5.8 million hits, and "intelligent design creationism" only 122,000 - it seems to be a relatively rare variant.
 * To be clear, I have absolutely no objection to ID being shown up for the creationism I believe it is, by fair presentation of the facts. I just think that we damage our powerful and neutrally-expressed evidence when we start expressing one side of the debate as our own view.  When this article became a featured article, it didn't use the phrase "intelligent design creationism" once; I don't see why it, or articles related to it, now need to.  TSP 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, wrote that before reading the above (so many edit conflicts!). 129.15.160.100's draft looks fair - except that, at least from Google, 'many' seems an overstatement.  Most on both the supporting and opposing sides seem to simply say "intelligent design".  TSP 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, Filll is right. My mistake.  So, my suggestion would become: It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism [refs] with some referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".[refs]  There's a hint of OR in there, but I think that could be solved in adding Pennock's quote (as to why he insists on IDC over ID) in a footnote.  129.15.160.100 16:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone include here the exact Pennock quote? I think something like this might be slipped in here and at creationism fairly easily, and would easily address one of the biggest sources of confusion and objection. Of course, if we wanted to drag it out (which we do not have room for in either article), we could have references from both sides, and a description of the history of this objection and claims and counter-claims. Maybe eventually it can go in another article, but for now, there must be room for a single short sentence in these two articles, just to lay this one to rest.--Filll 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these proposed changes are necessary, accurate or improve neutrality. That ID is a type of creationism is a fact by necessity of it own premise. But the claim it is not creationism is a genuine viewpoint. Those who hold that view are also a tiny minority in their field and completely partisan. I don't see why we need to present a fact as a viewpoint, doing so gives undue weight to the those who claim it is not creationism. Odd nature 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They might not be strictly necessary, but I notice this is something that seems to come up over and over. I think if we make a short statement clarifying this misunderstanding, and being explicit with plenty of references, then we will have removed this as a point of contention.--Filll 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

From the definitions I quoted above, from Answers.com, Creationism is tied to the Biblical approach. Intelligent Design is not necessarilly Biblical. Therefore, logically, Creationism is a type of Intelligent Design, not the other way round. (RichardKingCEng 21:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Well this is not what all our peer-reviewed references say. And RichardKingCEng has proved exactly why we need a very heavily cited statement to silence such nonsense.--Filll 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That depends on selection of peer reviews. Often supposed peers are out of their depth as much as those they review. Much of the peer review approach seems to be more "end of pier review", amusing, in its own way, as well. The language of the Answers.com definitions seems entirely reasonable and the language logical but when is does not suit an agenda, of course it has to be changed. In much the same way a large section of the Faith Healing article appears to be written by one person and said person has not a clue, but it fits a certain agenda. Not that I am a Creationist, and I accept Darwin's theories make sense, just that my understanding is a bit more.(RichardKingCEng 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

I'm a newbie to this article, and I hope I don't make a faux pas and whatnot. I just have a couple of questions about the quotation referenced above. First, is the "academic community" considered to include most proponents of ID? What I'm trying to get at is this: Do the actual backers of this idea have any say-so in defining their own belief? Or did the so-called "academic community" simply take it upon itself to define an idea using their own terminology to make it easier to attack? I personally think many ID proponents would take exception to classifying the concept of Intelligent Design as "creationism". Applejuicefool 00:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Timing of DI involvement
I've clarified the timing a bit in the lead, and will restore edits to the outline and other sections. The DI was founded by Chapman and Gilder in 1990, but Chapman only heard about ID from Meyer's December 1993 WSJ article and met him the following year. "In late 1993, Mr. Chapman clipped an essay in The Wall Street Journal by Dr. Meyer, who was teaching at a Christian college in Spokane, Wash., concerning a biologist yanked from a lecture hall for discussing intelligent design. About a year later, over dinner at the Sorrento Hotel here, Dr. Meyer and George Gilder, Mr. Chapman's long-ago Harvard roommate and his writing partner, discovered parallel theories of mind over materialism in their separate studies of biology and economics. "Bruce kind of perked up and said, 'This is what makes a think tank,' " Dr. Meyer recalled." Thus in 1994 Stephen C. Meyer introduced Bruce Chapman to the idea of intelligent design as an approach to re-establishing spiritual values and getting funding. By 1995 Chapman and George Gilder were negotiating with the Howard Ahmanson family for a grant to set up the CRSC. . . . dave souza, talk 19:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, feel free to improve my syntax or whatever, but the idea that the DI was involved in promoting ID in 1990 is not supported by these references. The Seattle Weekly reports "For most of its existence, Discovery Institute occupied a dumpy office suite in an old- fashioned downtown Seattle office block.... Chapman soon learned that a think tank, particularly a brand-new one, has to trim its sails... The liberal Republican issues that had proved so effective 20 years before had lost their sizzle." ... dave souza, talk 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't belong in the lead. It's too much. We talked about it in March, extensively, with about ten participants at the time. The third paragraph was expanded to accommodate a non-US-centric perspective, then modified so it gave a very brief glimpse of an important aspect, the formation of the DI in ralationship to ID. This last addition has lost perspective, IMO. It doesn't belong in the lead. As a matter of fact, even the mention of the DI in that third lead paragraph was already stretching it. That paragraph was supposed to be about the legal standing of ID. ... Kenosis 20:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is common to try to push too much material into the LEADs on these articles. The LEADs should be just overviews with as little detail as possible. The average reader just wants a quick summary of what the subject is. Most will never read past the LEAD, or even the first sentence or two. All this complicated stuff can go in the body or even in subsiduary daughter articles. We should hit them with the bare necessities, early and hard.

That is my reason for constantly lobbying for an Introduction to Intelligent Design article; we want to be able to deliver this material in simplified form for those who just want something easy to digest. All the more complex minutiae can be in this intelligent design article, for reference, and available to those who want an indepth study.--Filll 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Any way we look at it, it was misleading to suggest that ID proponents founded the DI in 1990 and began promoting its use in schools. I'd modified the Overview to give more detail of the beginnings of ID, that can be restored.
 * Sadly, ID had complex beginnings, first the FTE ID movement then Johnson's disciples of the proto-wedge in parallel, with Meyer and Behe in both camps contributing to the 1993 2nd edition of Pandas. The DI was a moribund think tank until the 1994 meeting with Meyer, then an infusion of Abrahams cash brought if new purpose, and political and public relations push to ID. The FTE originals got positions in the CRSC, and it's at this stage that Johnson becomes the guru / leader of ID and the Wedge rather than the anti-Darwin guy. All the "concepts" had been in place since the 1993 Pandas, and in 1996 onwards these were expanded to book length by Behe and Dembski.
 * My inclination is to have an Origins section, with Origins of the concept and Origins of the term as subsections, then the Overview section with its subsections on concepts. As it is, the historical context in this article is a muddle and needs sorted. .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd Nature's edited the lead to say "After founding the the Discovery Institute's creationsim branch, the Center for Science and Culture, by 1995 they had obtained funding..." The funding was indeed arranged in '95, the CRSC was founded in 1996. I'm not going to fix it tonight. .. dave souza, talk 22:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Presently the third paragraph has gotten out of control -- it's too many specifics and too many slants for one paragraph. The sentence "The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute and began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[17]", if someone here finds it misleading because it took a few addtional years for the DI to put its agenda into full swing, then change the sentence to something else or remove the sentence. An alternate example is "The following year the Discovery Institute was founded, and within a few years began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[17]" Or eliminate the sentence. But right now it's just too much. ... Kenosis 22:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's important information, but it needs to be cut down a bit. There's got to be a middle ground.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we work this out on the talk page? <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state, when the term was substituted for references to creation science in drafts of the textbook Of Pandas and People. This was published in 1989, and campaigning promoted its use to teach intelligent design in high-school biology classes. The same ruling inspired Phillip E. Johnson to lead others in a "wedge strategy" seeking to replace materialism in science with "theistic realism". They founded the Discovery Institute's creationism branch, the Center for Science and Culture, and by 1995 they had obtained funding for increasing publicity and political advocacy of the "intelligent design movement". This culminated in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


 * Thanks for the improvements, everyone. The detail belongs in the body of the article, will get to that soon. At present the lead has this paragraph:


 * As Nick Matzke notes, campaigning began in 1989, and "all of the basic arguments of these ID proponents are found in essentially modern form in the 1989 Of Pandas and People (Behe's irreducibly complexity argument is found in the 1993 edition of Pandas)." Other explicitly ID books began with Behe's black box in 1996. Here's a corrected version:


 * Here's a draft of a more informative version:


 * Edits and comments welcome, .. dave souza, talk 10:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dave, "in the 1990s" is intended to accommodate Johnson's Darwin on Trial. ... Kenosis 16:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that, Kenosis, but from everything I've seen (short of actually getting the book) Darwin on Trial isn't explicitly about ID, and only makes passing mention of ID as something which has appeared in Pandas. I'd be very interested in any source saying otherwise. . dave souza, talk 18:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some credible sources have asserted Johnson is regarded as the father of the intelligent design movement. I can't see how Darwin on Trial could be viewed as anything other than an "intelligent design" book. This is in the lead. It's not the place to be inserting too many specific facts. Indeed I'm uncomfortable with that many specific dates such as presently given in the third paragraph. But it seems to work as a brief intro to the very basic timeline leading up to Kitzmiller. I certainly would not want to get bogged down in additional specifics in the lead, such as the CRSC/CSC distinction, Johnson's having read the brief of the Edwards decision, or any of a lengthy list of specific issues. If a particular specific is considered important, it can be moved into the "Overview" -- keeping it to a minimum of course, otherwise at some point it won't be an overview anymore. (Thanks for the clarification about the 1994 meeting, incidentally; I had previously understood the marker of the initial connections of proponents with the DI to be the 1992 conference.) ... Kenosis 18:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's commonly stated that Johnson was the father of the ID movement. That makes sense if you identify the movement with the wedge group which formed following the publication of Darwin on Trial, though in a 2006 interview Barbara Forrest said "It's important to distinguish between the development of the ID creationists' Wedge Strategy, which I describe below, and the development of the ID movement itself. The ID movement began in the early 1980s with the publication of The Mystery of Life’s Origin (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen..." (from Daily Kos: Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies) However, Johnson clearly wasn't present at the conception in 1987, and there's no sign of him having anything to do with the birth in 1989. I don't have a big problem with that part of the wording, but it should be made clear that promoting intelligent design in state school science curricula began in 1989, followed by a shift to grassroots campaigning when that proved unproductive but keeping trying to exert local political pressure on local school boards. The effect of the DI's involvement and the CRSC getting funding was to develop a wider public relations campaign and political pressure using Chapman's contacts. I therefore strongly recommend changing the paragraph to include:


 * or something similar putting over that message, and removing the current implication that "publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula" followed on after 1995. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dave, I think it's just too much for the lead, where we're "taking from Peter to pay Paul" at this stage. Please feel free to add it to the "Overview" or somewhere else. I'll try to adjust the language of the third paragraph to accommodate the early grass-roots campaing that followed the initial failure of Pandas to gain any significant market share. ... Kenosis 22:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's all I'm asking. The link in the quotation box gives some indication of how extensive the campaigning was immediately after publication of Pandas, more examples and sources in the timeline of intelligent design, but all that's needed here is to be clear that campaigning for "intelligent design" being taught in schools began then, and didn't wait for the DI's involvement. I'll revise and add the more detailed bit to the Overview fairly soon. .. dave souza, talk 23:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cites
I wish people would be a little more careful to maintain the new cites when they revert.. Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Expelled" update
The New York Times ran an article on it. We may be moving towards the point where we could make a short article on the film. Adam Cuerden talk 00:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think it's established sufficient notability at this point. It's also generated a fair bit of controversy already, so we should even be able to make a decent-length article on it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed IT LIVES! <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 03:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a zombie, just like Jesus...--ZayZayEM 03:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed first sentence
There have been repeated concerns about the first sentence, which is a partial quotation from one of the definitions put out by intelligent design proponents. Its language is deliberately obscure and misleading. A third party definition (download page for pdf) has been provided by the UK government for education purposes, and adapting this so that it is neither a direct quotation nor a copyvio I propose the following:

The pdf gives a description of ID under the heading "Is intelligent design a valid scientific theory?", and a brief definition in its "GLOSSARY OF TERMS". ... dave souza, talk 13:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. I'd probably change it to "fit for their purpose", though. Adam Cuerden talk 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes thats an interesting one. I'll check the source. Hal Cross 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "fit for a particular purpose"? Orpheus 18:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I and many others here think that the definition of ID should be the one given by it's leading proponents, i.e.; the Discovery Institute. It's not a good idea to change it away from an exact quote of their definition. Odd nature 22:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I am a bit leery of going too far away from the DI's own definition. This might cause more problems than it is worth, although this version is certainly clearer. --Filll 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think "fit for purpose" is a positive change. The idea that any part of the natural world has a "purpose" is already invoking teleology, albeit in a fairly uncontroversial way.  Also, "fit for purpose" is the current UK political catchphrase, and it's going to annoy any UK readers of the article.  I would agree with Odd nature and Filll that we should stick with the DI definition; however, if we're going to rephrase it along the lines suggested, how about "well-adapted" or "matched to their function"?  I'd like to say "efficient", but that only connotes energy efficiency these days. Tevildo 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, it's apparent that the nuances of this proposals are still problematic, and the DI's own definition is how its proponents choose to present it.. dave souza, talk 08:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem Dave. Looks like a reasonable source. Its still worth thinking about a good representation. I'd adopt the general approach of Adam Cuerdon, Hrafn42, and Felonious Monk as above in the Verifiable and/or Accurate section. Hal Cross 09:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Timing of DI involvement revisited
Following up on the discussion above, I've expanded the overview a bit to clarify these developments. This includes moving info there from the "Origins of the term" section. The info is about development after the term was first adopted, not its origins. .. dave souza, talk 11:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)