Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 56

Fundamental Flaw
The Intelligent Design article suffers from a fundamental flaw: It says nothing about the physical mechanisms by which complex organisms developed in our time-variant, three-dimensional world. Surely, someone in the ID community has described a physical mechanism that produced the cilium, for example.

Creationists can point to the creation miracles described in the Book of Genesis as subjective explanations for origins. These, however, provide no objective insight into the physical mechanisms involved in the miracles themselves.

According to Modern Evolutionary theory, Genetics produces variants in a biological population that are tested by Natural Selection for viability in the prevailing environment. The accumulation over time of variant traits produces speciation. Evolution describes a physical process that requires no supernatural intervention to succeed. Furthermore, the same general theory decribes the processes by which all living organisms could have developed - from algae to aardvarks.

Does ID provide explanations for the physical development of complex organisms in our world? If so, it should be stated here. Otherwise, ID is just arm-waving from an objective or scientific point of view. The article provides subjective insight into ID but provides no objective insight into the means by which the gap between designer and design is bridged. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me why viewing all of creation in it's complexity is not good enough for empirical evidence (by just observation alone) as proof of a creator? And if, as an experiment, I created new life, wouldn't this be proof of intelligent design in the first place? And doesn't the 1st law of thermodynamics show us that it is impossible to create or destroy matter, which means you can't get something from nothing? Petrafan007 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * i think you would benefit greatly by learning more about what science is about, and how it works, eg: scientific method. abiogenesis does not involve the creation nor destruction of matter either -- again, go read the relevant articles! good luck Mjharrison (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If ID assumes it's science, which it does, then how do you scientifically describe a designer? You can't, since supernatural beings are outside the scope of science.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Zbvas had it when he stated that "ID is just arm-waving from an objective or scientific point of view". Accurate description. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. It's not the article that's flawed; it's ID. There is no discussion in the article of mechanisms proposed by ID proponents because they haven't proposed any. As William Dembski put it: "You're asking me to play a game: 'Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.' ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dembski Lowell33 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I stated in the creation science discussion, is definitions. If you make up a word, then ascribe to it the definition you want (to fit whatever preconceived idea you have), then you can never have a fair argument. The line of questioning in the scientific method is "redefined" as being impossible to have an answer for Intelligent Design, or God. I personally would argue that it could (in theory) be used to describe it, but most people would deny it. If it doesn't answer the question you asked (whether the question is flawed or with bad intentions), then it can't be right...ever. This aside, it is no one's place to give their opinions IN the article itself. It seems to be painted in a "foolish" light because the majority of editors probably don't agree with it. It is nearly impossible, in my opinion, to have a NPOV/unbiased article on this matter because you really only have 2 choices: intelligent design (or creationism, which most agree is nearly the same) or evolution. So how can we have an unbiased figure write about it? There simply isn't enough people in the middle, and WP:CONSENSUS would overrule them in the nay-sayers position anyways. So, this fight will continue till the end it seems. Petrafan007 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A nondirected reminder, Wikipedia talk pages is not the place for us to argue about the merits and flaws of ID itself, but argue the merits and flaws of the relevant article. This conversation seems to be conflating the two.--Tznkai (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All this energy on this already FA article
There is so much effort on this article, yet it is already FA and IMO near perfect. If only editors were directed towards other (and much more interesting) religion-related articles, such as argument from evil, it would benefit the encyclopaedia much more, wouldn't it? Of course, people are free to edit what they want, but maybe all this fun arguing about minute points of this article could be carried over into articles that really need improvement?? Vesal (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. Apparently ID is a magnet for this though.  I've got to go check out the article you noted...  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's actually a sort of connection, as Paley's theodicy was based on God creating by rules rather than poofing species into existence in the ID manner, and Malthus concludss his essay by describing his "catastrophe" as a divine plan to get people to act properly, while of course Darwin was persuaded by the problem of evil that a benevolent deity could not be responsible for wasps paralysing caterpillars as food for their young. References available on request. . . dave souza, talk 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree the article was nearly perfect. One problem I noticed straight off is that it says that ID was "developed by a group of US creationists". This is a problematic term. Firstly the IDers quite often vehemently dispute the tag, and one of the foremost experts on creationism, Ronald Numbers, argues that the label is inaccurate when it comes to ID. He also argues that it is primarily used because it is "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design" (cited in the Washington Post ). Given this, the introduction probably needs to be changed to something more accurate and neutral such as "academics". Slowansure (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that certainly wouldn't be POV. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, and to list the diverse academic fields the founders come from (biochemistry, geology, law, philosophy of science etc.) would be too long-winded. That's why I think "academic" does the job nicely.Slowansure (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was being tongue in cheek. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why?Slowansure (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ID was developed by known and open creationists who drafted Of Pandas and People before introduing the term iD in place of creationism, and was further developed by Johnson's crew so that "creationism could not lose". It was later that they distanced themselves from the term "creationism". See the timeline . . dave souza, talk 12:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much whether some of the founders of ID are or were creationists that is at issue. It's more that identifying ID as creationism or it's founders as creationists has been described by a world expert on creationism (Ronald Numbers) as inaccurate and used mainly because it is the easiest way to discredit intelligent design. In other words, it's taking a cheap shot at ID. So even if it was accurate it would still be problematic for that reason. Far better with a neutral term like "academic" which is true, indisputable, and does not imply a motivation that may or may not have been present and/or important.Slowansure (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Slowansure, Numbers' comment needs a much better source to overturn opinion here. The AP source to the comment provides no context for Numbers remarks, so it's difficult to gauge if the claim is his own personal opinion or whether he's speaking of the consensus of opinion about ID. I will say that ID is given a lengthy chapter in his book, The Creationists, and in his book he writes that such authorities on creationism as the NSCE do consider ID a form of creationism. Numbers does not express any disagreement of the association except to emphasize that IDers are not YEC creation scientists. Numbers' thesis in The Creationists is that modern YEC creation scientists effectively co-opted the term "creationist"; the strength of the movement since the 1970s overshadowed other forms of creationism in the public mind. In that context, Numbers is taking pains to point out that YEC/creation science and ID are two very different ideologies to make clear that calling both of them "creationist" doesn't mean they're the same ideology. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course ID is carefully arranged to be compatible with both YEC and OEC, and has leading supporters of both persuasions, so the difference is more in what's "officially" left out of ID. . dave souza, talk 18:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So, we have a term, "creationists", that the IDers don't like, that Numbers seems to have said (is reported in the Washington Post as having said) is inaccurate and is a cheap shot, and so may well actually be inaccurate and a cheap shot. And we have another term, "academics", that is obviously true, accurate and in no way a cheap shot, but the consensus here is to use the potential cheap shot in the introduction. Strange!

If I do some digging and find that Numbers does indeed say what he is reported to have said, will the text then be changed from the controversial term to the non-controversial one? That is, if I can find sound sources that show that there is a dispute over this terminology in the way suggested above, will the terminology be changed to something more neutral?Slowansure (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC) — Slowansure (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, you'll need to find a preponderance of significant source that say otherwise. Think about it this way: Barack Obama is widely considered to be liberal. If, like many Democratic candidates he chooses to shy away from that label, and a few scholars and political scientists also decide to call him a "centrist" or a "hopeist" or a "federalist", great. However, the most relevant and useful label is "liberal."--Tznkai (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Slowansure, you're not being called out to verify Numbers said it. But we would need a ref to the full discussion in which Numbers said it in order to understand exactly what he meant, the full context of the remark in other words. It's indubitably true that many of ID's antagonists go out of their way to call them creationists ad nauseum because they know IDers choke on it. However this doesn't necessarily mean the consensus view is that ID is not creationism.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't believe we're arguing with an SPA over whether or not ID is a form of creationism. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not what is "obviously true". One source apparently saying ID is not creationism is nowhere near enough to outweigh, oh, for example the statement that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Including here. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To Tznkai, so, if Obama repeatedly insisted that he was not a liberal, and further insisted that his opponents only used that label to discredit him, you would still say "Obama the liberal" without even noting the fact that he has disputed this many times. And even if some political experts explicitly stated "Obama is not a liberal and opponents only use that label to discredit him" you would still say he was a liberal, and you would write the article identically to an article where the politician in question openly and always acknowledged that label. Some might argue that withholding information of that sort is inconsistent with providing a full and fair account of a topic.

To SheffieldSteel, I am not arguing that anything outweighs anything. I am saying that a certain term has been identified by an expert as pejorative, and that the appropriateness of that same term has been rejected by the people who are the subject of the article. In such a case it does not seem to me to be appropriate to just use the term in the same way one would when there was no dispute at all.Slowansure (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I would, because the preponderance of experts and laymen would say "Obama is a liberal." We might note somewhere that Obama says he's not a liberal, and has whined about it (in this alternate universe) but we would still write it. As for that note, take a look at the lead where the proponents insist that ID is science. It isn't, they say it is, but there we go. As for academics, that isn't accurate, because I don't think all of them are. Infact, some are probably business men with no other qualifications whatsoever. Furthermore, more specific and relevant answer would be "A group of American non-evolutionary biologists, including a biochemist, a computer scientist and a theologian associated with a creationist think tank." Which isn't included in the article for which I hope is obvious reasons.--Tznkai (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are the experts on what is and is not creationism you feel you can cite on that point, and how many do I need to make a preponderance? Slowansure (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the fact that we have an immense amount of evidence that intelligent design is creationism, I think you would need a good 5-10 peer-reviewed mainstream journal articles in mainstream publications (not religious publications or creationist publications) making this claim to outweigh the preponderance of contrary evidence.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well since I take theologians to be the experts on whether something is creationism or not it will be difficult to get many sources if religious ones are banned. Who do you take to be the experts on this matter?Slowansure (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you want the religious studies, historians on religion, Philosiphers of religion, sociologists, anthropologists, social scientists of all types. Theologians study God, religious studies studies theologians. Try jstor if you've got access to it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so how many of those types of sources do you have for the "creationism" tag. My rough count suggests zero, so with the Numbers source cited above I seem to be in the lead.Slowansure (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, since intelligent design purports to be science and not religion, as well as most of modern creationism including creation science, I think you need PhDs in mainstream science at prominent schools. I think you need experts in biology and anthropology and sociology for example. A good half dozen would be a good start. Even then, I suspect you would have an immense fight on your hands.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 20:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, we have a lot more than zero. As a small subset of what we already have showing intelligent design is a form of creationism, consider:

If that is not enough for you, we have plenty more where that came from.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You might also consider . However, there is still lots more than this if you are not convinced. This has been argued and argued and argued by thousands of people for several years and I think you will find this is a fruitless exercise. Sorry.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 20:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost none of your sources meet your criteria of being peer reviewed mainstream anthropological or sociological sources that you set for me above (I discounted biology sources because biologists are no experts on creationism). By my reckoning you maybe have two that you can use from your list, and since one of those two explicitly refers to the dispute over this term, there would be a long way to go before you could take the point as so proven that it can just be assumed as true.Slowansure (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With regard to the FAQ section and the links from it. I see much dispute (not in the FAQs but in the links) and I see many people accepting that to assume the truth of one side in a debate (exactly the point I am making) is not the way to write a neutral article. If this is a disputed point then the dispute should be noted. At present, one side of this debate is presented as fact, while the other side is completely excluded from the article. AS central players in the article, the IDers' denial of the creationist label has to be acknowledged, not hushed up.Slowansure (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That IDers claim not to be creationists can be noted somewhere, and I'll find a place to work it in.--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be welcome but it only partially addresses the issue at hand. I found this on the NPOV policy page:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth"... in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. ... Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

It is perfectly clear that by describing IDers as creationists, that view is being judged the truth. Many above have said exactly that. But it gets worse. That view is being judged the truth to the extent that it is being presented as a simple fact, and it is being judged the truth to the extent that we don't even need to bother the reader with the "conflicting verifiable perspective". And worse still, what is being judged the truth may turn out to be nothing more than a cheap shot.Slowansure (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * = . &mdash; Scientizzle 20:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand how a group of seemingly intelligent people can miss the bias in this article. Darwin would chastise the lot of you for not doing a better job looking at the science and not the emotion. You have sampling bias in your references. You did not do a literature review, you chose whatever document supported whatever agenda you were trying to push. You guys are all over the place. This is a conspiracy theory at this point rather than a meaningful entry into Wikipedia.

I just don't think you help our argument by coming across as God haters. There are atheists (and even a few agnostics) that considered ID a viable hypothesis long before the Discovery Institute was founded. So, the use of the word "all" in the opening paragraph is just petty and wrong. There is truth and there is opinion, you have written a fine opinion piece that does nothing to support or defend evolution but merely cheapens it by avoiding the real question. What are the facts that support ID vs evolution? Congratulations, you are zealots in the evolution religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul rembrandt (talk • contribs) 05:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The aim of this article (and any other Wikipedia article) is that it accurately reflect reliably sources. Since intelligent design is a fringe subject, it's also important that we don't present it as it were mainstream science.
 * There are atheists (and even a few agnostics) that considered ID a viable hypothesis long before the Discovery Institute was founded. So, the use of the word "all" in the opening paragraph is just petty and wrong.  Well, no.  All of the major proponents do appear to be associated with the DI.  No one is arguing that there were no ID proponents before the DI existed.  But as far as we can glean from reliable sources, they all ended up associated with the DI.  If you have sources that suggest otherwise, please let us know.  We can only work off of reliable sources.  There's nothing "petty" about it.
 * There is truth and there is opinion, you have written a fine opinion piece..." Two things.  One of that "truth" isn't something we can work with - we need reliable sources.  I can know that something is true, but if I don't have a reliable source to support that fact, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  That said, on what basis do you consider this an opinion piece?  Are the sources misrepresented?  Are there reliable sources that are not represented?  
 * ...that does nothing to support or defend evolution... Again, it isn't our place to support or defend anything.
 * What are the facts that support ID vs evolution? I think we would all like to know the answer to that question.  I haven't actually come across any.  Are you aware of any reliable sources that discuss any?  I don't believe that there are any.
 * Congratulations, you are zealots in the evolution religion. Er, yeah.  If you want anyone to take you seriously, you shouldn't accuse people of people "zealots" or of belonging to some non-existent religion.  Seriously.  Provide some sources to support your position.  Let us know if we are missing any notable perspectives on the issue.  Let us know if we are missing relevant sources.  Let us know if any sources are misrepresented.  We're willing to listen.  But not to silliness like this.  Guettarda (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me a couple of days to do the research. I'll be back with a summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul rembrandt (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From your earlier statement, you may be confusing the generic phrase "intelligent design" with the DI's usage as though it were a specific body of thought. We already show several examples of generic use before it acquired its new meaning in Pandas. If you want it added to the article, don't forget to comply with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, and of course due WP:WEIGHT will have to be given to majority expert views of the sourced information. Good luck – the DI have taken nearly 20 years and so far have failed to find anything that'll stand up in court... dave souza, talk 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Assigning Ulterior Motives
I've noted a trend on the anti-creation side of the fence (to which I belong) of regularly ascribing ulterior motives to any concept that is not fundamentalist Darwinian theory. In this article, right from the gate, ulterior motives are ascribed by saying, "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer." (emphasis mine.)

Similarly, in the talk page of the article Strengths and weaknesses of evolution, authors insist that the phrase can only be defined as "a creationist strategy designed to introduce 'unscientific objections to evolution into public school science classes.' " Again, ascribing ulterior motives.

As a strict evolutionist, I firmly believe that the science is sound. My faith in it is so firm, I have no fear of any depth of examination of it's alleged weaknesses from any quarter. Science is all about OPEN examination and inquiry, but there seems to be a nearly fascistic element among evolutionists (especially on Wikipedia) which adheres to a POV that creationists should be censored, stomped into silence with hobnail boots, and generally treated with as much scorn, disrespect, and derision as can possibly be mustered. I find that offensive in the extreme.

In the arena of science there is no such thing as a theory that is "above dispute." The very notion is unmitigated fascist BS.

Assigning ulterior motives to any and every school of thought that challenges evolution or even individual elements of evolutionary theory is wrong. If they offer a challenge, meet the challenge and best them with science and logic. Only a coward or fraud runs from the challenge. Their motive is not ulterior: They believe there are specific weaknesses, and they want students to look at the arguments on both sides of the discussion. Do they hope to win the argument? OF COURSE! Will they? No! Calling it a sinister ulterior motive is disingenuous and an attempt to de-legitimize the very idea of critical examination. As if evolution were sacrosanct and the mere thought of critical examination of it is an abomination to science.

Just my 2 cents on the subject of the underhanded and dishonest tactic of ascribing ulterior motives. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where have you noticed any of this? In the article itself or on this talk page? I haven't seen any in the article and people on here who wish to push creationist pov are usually just told it's not the mainstream scientific viewpoint and that wikipedia must adhere to mainstream science. I've enver seen anything aout "alterior motives"...--Patton 123 00:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I don't understand your objection. Intelligent design is a modern form of the teleological argument.  It is also modified to avoid specifying the nature of the designer.  There are no motives, ulterior or otherwise: this is just a summary of the argument.  Moreover, ID proponents also agree (see, for instance, the testimony of Scott Minnich in the Dover trial).  See also this article at the Discovery Institute.  siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to re-read the article, and pay special attention to the sources (which are backed up through labourious and repeated consensus). ID proponents themselves, through documents like the wedge strategy and elsewhere, have claimed that ID is a step in a socio-political battle to have creationism taught in schools. Court rulings have affirmed this. On Wikipedia, we can only report what has been said in reliable sources, and we must avoid giving undue weight to fringe or minority views.
 * It's noble to want to preserve a sense of neutrality, but others more eloquent and educated than I am have been over these issues with many, many others.
 * If you have a concrete suggestion or alternate wording, that can be backed up by reliable sources, though, by all means suggest it here. Quietmarc (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My view is to nod to the originators or holders of a view in their self-definition, FIRST. Then, if their definition is problematic, address those concerns as an opposing POV. Let's take an extreme example: NAMBLA. Everyone who is sane will agree that the group are a bunch of pervs who want to legitimize child molestation. THEY define themselves differently. So strictly speaking (although I wouldn't touch the topic with a 10-foot pole), I would advocate citing their definition first. "Nambla purports to be...." and then follow that up with a reality check of what they REALLY are. Probably a bad comparison, but I wanted to make sure it was something everyone would agree on. Or sane people anyway. Point is, give the holders of a POV the benefit of defining themselves (especially if you disagree with them) before you slap them back into reality. I've had this argument with people who insist that progressives have an ulterior motive in dropping "liberal" and adopting or re-adopting "progressive." Ulterior motives. Who cares. Let then define and label themselves however they want. Hope this helps clarify my deep objection to assigning ulterior motives and denying a group the ability to self-identify before we put them through the grist mill. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand your objection. Here is the sentence that you objected to:
 * "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer."
 * This is fully supported by references on both sides of the debate; in the text, it is sourced to the book by Ronald Numbers. Moreover, I don't see any ulterior motives.  It is an assertion of fact: ID is a modern form of the teleological argument, and it is modified to avoid specifying the nature of the designer (e.g., space aliens). No POV. No ulterior motives. What exactly is the problem here?  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 02:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The anon says that sentence ("It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.") incorrectly implies the IDists have ulterior motives. Silly Rabbit says that the IDists don't have ulterior motives, and that the sentence doesn't imply anything of the sort.


 * The anon is wrong because the IDists do, indeed, have ulterior motives. This is established by the leaked Wedge document, which proves that ID is simply a trojan horse designed from the ground up to avoid court decisions, and sneak creationism back into the science classroom, and the IDists are fully aware of all of this.


 * So - I don't know if that sentence implies they have ulterior motives (I don't think it does), but even if it did, there's nothing wrong with it because it's absolutely true. Raul654 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Did I say IDists don't have ulterior motives? I said that I didn't understand how the sentence under discussion assigned ulterior motives.  Anyway, since both sides of the debate agree that ID is a modern form of the teleological argument, modified to specify the identity of the designer, I don't understand why this is being contested.  I mean, the sentence is a characterization of a completely non-controversial point.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't argue with you, Raul, because you are honest that you have no problem assigning ulterior motives. I do. The danger I see is that majority mob action often rules the process, not neutrality. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sabotaging a groups ability to self-define is my objection. You don't see a problem in the definition of ID becuase YOU AGREE WITH IT. Fine. But I seriously doubt you will find an ID advocacy group which says, "Intelligent Design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer." That is a definition applied from outside, not their self-definition. The term, "to avoid" is itself ascribing motives. We can debate ulterior or not. But again, it is not a self-definition from the group or idea, it is applied TO the group or idea by those who disagree. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sabotaging a groups ability to self-define is my objection. You don't see a problem in the definition of ID becuase YOU AGREE WITH IT.  - we're not sabotating their ability to define ID. We give the DI's definition of intelligent design, verbatim, in the first sentence. Then we give the rational, sourced, non-misleading objectively-correct definition in the second sentence. I do not subscribe to the Stephen Colbert school of journalism where the media should just write down what the DI says and repeat it uncritically, which is exactly what you are arguing for when you say we should "allow them to self define". Raul654 (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any obligation to allow groups to define themselves, but it's a good idea if we mention their definition without affirming it. Spotfixer (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * True, spotfixer. See my NAMBLA example. BTW.. I made the mistake of looking at the entry for that group, andindeed it is allowed to self-define FIRST before being correctly debunked. Now pardon me while I go wash my eyes out with bleach..... 24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Now read *this* article again. Thanks, <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 02:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummmm... ok...... I did. It still suborns the IDers' self-definition in favor of a definition more favorable to those who oppose ID. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The very first sentence is sourced to the Discovery Institute. In fact, the first 3 footnotes are related in some way to ID proponants. I'm having a really challenging time seeing your objection. Quietmarc (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have issue with the implications of the second sentence, and the fact that it suborns the self-definition of IDers.24.21.105.252 (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence is completely uncontroversial, as I have already said. ID proponents, critics, and neutral commentators all agree, and it is a fairly straightforward summary of the main point of the argument from irreducible complexity.  Absent any specific objection, backed by sources, I suggest we move on.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 03:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "ulterior" motives are specifically claimed in the Wedge Document. As such, they are not ulterior motives (hidden, controlling motives) but rather avowed motives. --FOo (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ulterior - adjective: going beyond what is openly said or shown and especially what is proper - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ulterior
 * Given that the wedge document was never supposed to be released or read by anyone outside the DI and its allies, it is most certainly correct to call the motives it describes as ulterior. Raul654 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reflecting on the above replies, it seems that the sentence under debate may be insufficiently precise, in that it admits different readings depending on the orientation of the reader. For example, in my own opinion it is a straightforward summary of the argument from irreducible complexity, which I believe was the original intent of the sentence. However, it can clearly also be interpreted as suggesting that the position of intelligent design was modified to avoid specifying the nature of the designer for the legal reasons subsequently indicated (the improperly so-called "ulterior" motives). Now that things have settled a bit, perhaps we should address what the intended meaning of this sentence is, and how to make sure that this meaning is properly conveyed. Cheers, <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and made this change. <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this discussion, and I quite agree that "avoids specifying" is easily read as implying ulterior motives in a POV way. What about simply changing it to "does not specify" (or "does not take a specific position on", etc)? Thus, it can be viewed as a generalization or weak form of the teleological argument. It could also be viewed as a "big tent" under which people who agree with the overall argument but differ about the nature of the designer (God, aliens...) can unite. RVS (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source used the word "avoided". The motive, especially initially, was said to be to distance their arguments from those made by creation scientists who were trying to find support for the Genesis-style creation and such. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Weighting on the peer
There's been some to and from on the addition of DI spin claiming that ID has peer reviewed support:
 * To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,< ref name=kitzruling_pg87 >< ref name="aaas_pr"> although Discovery Institute claims to have a list of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications. < /ref >

"Although" gives undue weight to discredited claims which fail to stand up to examination, in court or elsewhere. The addition is unnecessary, and if it is to be cited it needs to be presented without giving "equal validity" to this pseudoscientific claim. . dave souza, talk 21:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The link to the discovery institute with the list of peer-reviewed publications for ID keeps getting reversed. Hrafn argued that it violated WP:SELFQUEST and WP:DUE, then orangemarlin reversed the revert(s) and said it fits the NPOV policy. Then dave souze reverted it and said it "undue weight to a creationist argument discreditied in court". Are you serious? This has NOTHING to do with what is "fact" or not in the court of law. This is factual statement backed up by a reference pertaining to the subject at hand. Saying it is pseudoscientific has nothing to do with it. I'm adding a factual claim with a reference, not arguing whether their claim is true or not. That is not my place; that is not YOUR place. Petrafan007 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPS, WP:QS, NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". . dave souza, talk 22:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the term 'peer review' inherently implies a scientific context, the opinion of the DI doesn't change the fact that no peer reviewed literature places exists, making the opinion of the DI (or indeed the opinion of others who try to argue that intelligent design has been peer reviewed) irrelevant as anything but a testament of its (their) dishonesty. As such, I wouldn't agree that the word 'although' gives undue weight to the DI. Rather the opposite, though subtly. The text shows to the observant reader what the DI is trying to do.
 * That said, while I don't agree that the current sentence gives undue weight to the DI's claims, I would agree that a change should be made. Wikipedia articles shouldn't subtly criticise anything. -- Ec5618 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you're going back to whether or not the "claims" are true or not, the claim was made, therefore IMHO the sentence deserves to be there for the reader to come to his or her own conclusion. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, NONE OF US have the right to say what the reference is stating is correct or not, just that the article is pointing to a valid reference and it relates to the topic of the article. P.S. NPOV: Giving "equal validity" IS given. There is a claim that there are no journals but there is a counter-claim that there are publications (I'm being general here). This fits the NPOV policy perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrafan007 (talk • contribs)
 * What 'own conclusions' are you talking about? The term peer review has a very specific meaning in science, and none of the articles giving credibility to ID have passed such peer review (meaning actual peer review). We could specifically spell that out, if you would prefer. But we should certainly never suggest that the opinion of the DI is a valid use of the term peer review, nor that it is their right to redefine terms in this way. -- Ec5618 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that numerous of the DI's self-serving claims have been debunked: The remaining members of the list appear to be numerous other ID books and papers published in ID anthologies (and thus have not gone through any meaningful scientific peer review), and papers that on closer reading do not in fact provide any support for ID (e.g. Axe and Behe & Snoke). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Darwin's Black Box -- the purported "peer reviewers" include people who haven't even read the book.
 * Numerous papers in Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum -- currently an infamous purveyor of pseudoscientifc claims, under the editorship of creationist Giuseppe Sermonti.
 * William Dembski's No Free Lunch -- described as "written in jello" by one of the co-discoverers of the NFL theorems.
 * Stephen C. Meyer's infamous The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, published under dubious circumstances by crypto-creationist Richard Sternberg, and immediately disavowed by its publisher.


 * I'll have to agree with Dave and Hrafn here. Allowing the claim of DI unqualified like it is now gives undue weight to the DI's position. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This article and discussion page is so obviously run by people who are against intelligent design. Any hope for a NPOV article have long vanished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.141.161 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that substance-free complaint. Do you have any reliably-sourced facts to rebut the WP:CONSENSUS that the DI claims are nothing but fallacious & self-serving spin-doctoring (and thus inadmissiable per WP:SELFQUEST)? Or is this simply baseless WP:FORUM on your part?<font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 05:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any good reasons other than your opinion, and the opinion of 1-2 others, that it should not be on here since it a) has to do with the article b) is a npov insertion about a claim and c) is not claiming to be fact or not and d) referenced properly? Petrafan007 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You obviously (1) haven't read Hrafn's post above, (2) evidently don't understand WP:NPOV and what it means to give "equal validity" to WP:FRINGE views. The proverbial ball is now firmly in your court to provide good evidence that these claims do indeed stand up to scrunity.  Examples of reliable sources may include: (1) supreme court rulings, (2) publications in properly peer reviewed sources.  Statements by discredited advocacy groups are generally not considered to be reliable for such claims.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The suggestion that it is a 'NPOV insertion' is at issue here, Petrafan007. Please remember that our job is not to give a platform to the DI. Why should the opinion of the DI be given authority here? It is simply not true that peer reviewed articles exist, and without evidence to the contrary, we shouldn't print the contrary claim. -- Ec5618 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I have to say I am slightly surprised to see it claimed that it gives undue weight to a claim to include it in a sentence that, essentially, states that it is a lie. The sentence states as an objective fact that there are no peer-reviewed articles on ID, before stating that the DI "claim" to have a list of such articles.  I'm not sure I see how to mention the claim specifically as a lie (because it is contradictory with what is stated earlier as fact) is to give it any weight at all, much less an undue amount.
 * (added) Is it Wikipedia's job to seek "evidence" in that sense? By my reading of policy, we're not here to weight evidence and decide what is true; merely to report what our sources say.  The suggestion isn't that the DI's opinion be stated as fact; merely that the fact of the opinion be reported.  "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (WP:NPOV)  It is a fact that the opinion is held, and by a body extremely relevant to the subject of the article.  The fact of the opinion seems to be both well-established and relevant.  Whether we agree or not with that opinion doesn't seem to be the call that Wikipedia policy calls on us to make.  TSP (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can "assert facts", but to present those facts as anything but either unnoticed and largely irrelevent to the scientific community at best, or thoroughly discredited by national academies, court rulings, well-known scientists and philosophers, does not serve NPOV (see WP:NPOV). The DI's claims to peer review should be adequately balanced against the ironclad sources (such as the Dover trial) that these either were not properly peer reviewed or, in some cases, disavowed by their publishers (!), per Hrafn's remark above.  Even mentioning the DI list opens a whole new can of worms that I'm not sure it is the article's place to address properly.  But, of course, anyone is welcome to propose an additional paragraph (here on talk) that presents all sides of this.  I for one don't see that it will add much to the article, but will happily be surprised if someone makes a compelling case.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't "either unnoticed and largely irrelevent to the scientific community at best" cover basically everything that the DI has ever said? Given that, as the article says, the DI includes all of ID's leading proponents, to exclude its views from inclusion on that basis would seem to rather reduce the chances of giving a balanced view of the topic.  This doesn't quite seem to be what WP:NPOV requires.
 * I'm not sure that I can see how stating DI's view as explicitly untrue can fail to give at least adequate balance to it. TSP (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "unnoticed" would certainly be inaccurate -- as a number of scientists have commented upon it & it came up, at least peripherally, in KvD (cross-examination of Behe's claims, I think). As I see it, the problem would be to give WP:DUE weight to the scientific community's rebuttal (which given it is a lengthy list, would also be lengthy & detailed) without yielding excessive coverage. Far better, in my opinion, simply to omit this prima facie untrue & self-serving claim altogether. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 05:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would note that 24.21.105.252 has chosen to escalate this to WP:NPOV/N. You may choose to comment there. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 05:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unarguably the case that intelligent design supporters have published articles in a prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal, and that these ID supports believe that these articles lend strong support to the intelligent design movements claims. (Axe and Behe) I am a graduate student working in evolutionary biology (on the evolution of mutation rates in sexual species), so I certainly have no sympathy with the ID crowd, and additionally I think both Behe and Axes articles are something of a joke, (my thesis advisor guessed the mistake Behe made w/o reading the paper, but we did have to read Axe to figure out why he was wrong, since his abstract was misleading). However, I don't want to defend the claim that ID proponents don't publish work related to ID in scientific journals simply because it is false. This article should not leave the impression that Behe or Axes work is correct; but, I think it is inappropriate to state that no intelligent design advocates have published in peer review papers, or that they are not attempting to gather scientific support for design.

Perhaps you could say "Intelligent design advocates have published only two peer reviewed papers in scientific journals, and these papers have been characterized as 'a load of crap' by Matthew Ackerman, who is a really cool guy." (where load of crap is substituted with an actual quote form someone more respectable than me).

I strongly support the inclusion of the original posters suggested modifications to this article, as it stand, the claim in the article is essentially false. (Matthew Ackerman, yes I know, you haven't heard of me, that is not the point...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.200.26 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

<font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I would point out that 76.194.200.26 has presented no evidence that "intelligent design supporters have published articles in a prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal[s]". Certainly none of the publications discussed above qualify, and I don't see any in the DI list that would qualify either (closest would be Axe in Journal of Molecular Biology).
 * 2) It is of course possible that "intelligent design supporters have published articles in a prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal[s]" in areas unrelated to ID. But this would of course be irrelevant (as would, as in the case of Behe & Snoke and Axe, publishing material relevant to, but yielding results unsupportive of, ID).


 * Let us simply concentrate on Axe and Behe & Snoke's publications, and ignore the Discovery institute list.


 * It is misleading to state that "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"


 * First of all, can a movement publish? Since papers are written by individual authors, obviously not. So this would be better phrased as:
 * "To date, supporters of intelligent design have yet to publish an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."


 * But this is obviously false so should be changed to:
 * "To date, supporters of intelligent design have yet to publish an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which details any aspect of intelligent design, provide any empirical verification of common claims made by intelligent design proponents, or support the to the inadequacy of Darwinian mechanisms to account for adaptive evolution."


 * However, I think it may be appropriate to say why the DI institute papers do not lend support to ID claims, so that people can see for themselves that we are being honest, by adding something like this:


 * "Of the X members of the discovery institute, only two (is Stoke a member?) have published in peer-reviewed science journals (assuming that Protein Science is peer reviewed, something I don't know for a fact). Additionally, these two papers have not be substantively supportive of the claimes made by intelligent design. Behe & Stoke's paper (ref) demonstrates that a protein rapidly loses its functionally when removed from stabilizing selection, and Axe's paper (ref) demonstrates that most possible proteins will fail to perform a particular function, neither of these claims are contentious in the scientific community. (Already discussed in detail.)


 * The fact that you have had to place caveats here (Well yes, they have published in peer reviewed journals, but they shouldn't count because...) demonstrates that we need a more nuanced sentence in the main article, to be less contentious.


 * This is a serious proposal for revision, and I hope you will give it some consideration. I understand that my proposed revisions are not ready for inclusion into the article, but I hope they will open a dialogue. Finally, since I went to the trouble of signing my real name, what do I have to do to get you to use it? -Matt Ackerman


 * Well crap. I just read through the rest of the section, and it does talk about Behe & Stoke's paper, so this section isn't really that bad. But I still think the introductory sentence should be more nuanced. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'Matt Ackerman' Sometime in the morning, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not particularly inaccurate to state "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." To be more nit-pickingly accurate you might state "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article (that supports their view) published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." However (i) most people would consider that parenthetical to be implicit in the statement (if what an IDM member is writing is not supportive of ID, then they're clearly not wearing their IDM hat while writing it) and (ii) articles not covered by the parenthetical are irrelevant to the topic at hand. I wouldn't be averse to adding the parenthetical, but suspect some might consider it unnecessarily complicating the issue. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, you seem to be amenable to a change, and I feed it would enhance the initial summary to make two changes: intelligent design movement to intelligent design proponents/supporters (since movements cannot publish), and an included caveat to make it clear that only certain kinds of articles are not published, so: "To date, intelligent design proponents have not published articles in peer-reviewed scientific articles that support their views."
 * I went ahead and changed the sentence in the article, but if I have been to hasty in assuming consensus we can immediately discuss it here. <font face="Antiqua, serif">Matt Ackerman 15:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.222.222 (talk)


 * I don't violently object to your change, but do reject your premise that "movements cannot publish" -- a movement is a group of people brought together to further some cause. When members of that group are publishing in furtherance of that cause, the movement is publishing. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins sentence
The sentence "Richard Dawkins, another critic of intelligent design, argues in The God Delusion that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex." (under "Specified complexity") cites a very recent work, The God Delusion, which is certainly not the first Dawkins book to raise this argument. Additionally, this point is repeated again later in the article (more aptly citing The Blind Watchmaker. Maybe it's just me but I find the amount of repetition a little bit too much in this article, and I think removing repetitions wherever they are not for some reason essential might be a good way to reduce its length. Richard001 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Useful references?

 * (both have free-full text). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (both have free-full text). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Book covers
Please do not let random book covers slip in to the article. Unless the covers themselves are in some way significant (like, if they are discussed in the article) then there's no need to show what they look like. If you are looking for random illustrations to make the article prettier, I reccomend images of authors, as are used in some places in the article. Note that some of these images did not even have fair use rationales. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, they did not "slip in", but were thought through quite thoroughly and quite thoroughly vetted w.r.t. their non-free content status. A brief check of the image pages would have disclosed that all four of the cover images contained in the article do indeed have appropriate rationales which mention this article specifically. This article has been through once Featured Article Candidate proceeding and two Featured Article Reviews over the past two years, all with the same cover images and similar or identical illustration captions. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand why anyone would object to these relevant images. Spotfixer (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the non-free content criteria. It's pretty standard practice that cover images are not used outside of the main subject article unless they are specifically discussed; for instance, album covers are rarely used on pages about musical artists, book covers rarely used on pages about authors. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As Kenosis states, this is carefully justified fair use of images. Your idea of "pretty standard practice" goes beyond the policy. . dave souza, talk 13:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm slightly alarmed that people believe this use is so obviously justified, but let's actually look closely at this. Per the non-free content criteria, specifically point one, what's to stop these images being replaced with free images of the authors, instead of the non-free images of the book covers? Per point eight, what are these actually illustrating, what are they adding to the article? (Also, I do see now that there are specific rationales, they were just presented in a slightly unusual format. However, I do still question the legitimacy of said rationales). J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked for some input to this discussion at the guidelines talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to side with J Milburn. The images don't substantially enhance anyone's understanding of the topic, and aren't particularly germane to the article. If there was something in particular about one of these covers that illustrated some point in the controversy, and that point of controversy was discussed, I'd buy it. These just seem to be being used decoratively.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

From memory, this issue has been done to death at least once before. Can somebody point newcomers to the appropriate section in the archives? <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as we don't use stamps or coin images to be used on articles about the person or object that are represented on them, book covers would fall under the same improper use of images. You can link to the book where the book cover is expected, and if in the rare case the actual cover of the book was a critical part of a debate on ID then it can be linked but the uses here are not appropriate. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 15:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever. This has been discussed and your POV was not accepted.  This has been done to death at least 4 times in the FAC, FAR, and various edit-wars.  Note that during all those times, intelligent rational editors were involved, and the book covers stayed.  And it will stay here again.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The images will not stay if they are not needed. If these were discussed previously, that's great, surely that means you can point us to a carefully reasoned argument as per why these images should be treated differently to other cover images? Furthermore, Orangemarlin, I really don't think that attitude is going to help issues. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RE "The images will not stay if they are not needed" : Question: Is this written in the imperative mood or the declarative mood? ... Kenosis (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Declarative. Would anyone care to answer my questions about the specific points of the non-free content criteria, rather than analysing the linguistics of my comments and patronising me? J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm not interested in repeating conversations that were settled once, twice, three, four times.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Patronising"? Since your insistence on a more direct response is now made quite explicit, here is a more direct response. Plainly you joined in on this article with one purpose, with one agenda only, which was to remove the NFC book-cover images. You've already given several divergent reasons why you want, or expect, or perhaps demand, to remove these images, at least one justification for which has already shown to be untrue upon even a cursory inspection of the image pages the presence of which you dispute. That's not exactly participating in discussion, but rather is more like having already made the decision about what should or shouldn't be in this article, an article in which you've not participated before AFAIK. So, why beat around the bush? You've already decided these images, what? are in violation of NFCC #8? Are you purporting to replace WP:CONSENSUS with your decision on whether these images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? Or is there now some other ground for the images' removal other than that they will not stay if they are not needed? ... Kenosis (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite reasonable to edit an article for the reason of removing policy and content guideline violations. The vast majority of my edits are removing policy and content guideline violations from articles that I take little to no personal interest in. Will one of you people that are so tired of talking about this provide one pointer to a discussion that justified the use of these images with respect to NFCC #8?&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides decoration, what purpose do these images serve? Is it the CONTENT of these books important to the topic or the physical appearance of the artwork important? How is this any different from album covers? (how many album covers are on band pages?) Seems like ILIKEIT, but I could be missing something.-Andrew c [talk] 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold up a second please. If you're not familiar with the articles, how on earth might you be in a position to properly ascertain whether something is in violation of NFCC #8? ..... As to prior discussion of these images-- well, if you're in a hurry, it's in a number of places, at various length, throughout the archives. If you're not in a hurry, I'll track down a couple of them as soon as I have a chance. Maybe the simplest way, without putting additional unnecessary work on those who've already done a great deal of work on this article, is to simply go through the talk archives and type in "NFC" in your "find" function. You'll find at least three, maybe four, significant clusters of them. Also perhaps look through the edit history in those period when it was under discussion on the talk page. As I'm sure you're already familiar, consensus is reflected also in the actual ongoing edit history of the article itself as well as in the talk threads. I think you'll also find that in general the only objectors are those who've charged themselves with the task of enforcing the NFCC around the wiki. Funny thing about that NFCC#8-- wiki history has taught us that when one is on NFC patrol one gets into the habit of going into an article space or talk space and saying, essentially, "OK, prove to us that this "significantly enhances readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Well, here we go, again. So, may I suggest becoming familiar with the significance of the three book cover images to the topic, since that is a central element of an NFCC #8 analysis. Thank you in advance for your willingness to discuss this issue in sufficient depth to conduct a reasonable analysis of NFCC #8 w.r.t. the cover images for which you've disputed the legitimacy of use. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When we do find the archive that this was last gone through in, can we add it to the 'Points that have already been discussed' list, so that we can simply point to it the next time this comes up. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could provide some valid answers to simple questions, so that there is no need to discuss this. J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Two questions
Look, can we drop the crap, this discussion is going nowhere. I have two primary objections to the inclusion of these images. Could someone please answer these questions in a simple, logical way, without appeal to CONSENSUS!!!! or SOMETHING SOMEWHERE IN THE ARCHIVES!!!!. J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Replaceability- why could these images not be replaced by free images of the book's authors, as is done in other cases in this same article?
 * 2) Significance- what point are the book's covers actually illustrating? What is added to the readers' understanding by being able to see the book covers?


 * The answer to that for the Of Pandas and People pic is simple: (i) the discussion is of the book not the authors (who aren't mentioned) & (ii) it has two authors -- meaning that two pics of these unmentioned authors would be needed (assuming that we could find them (neither of their articles has a pic). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So why is an image needed? What is it actually illustrating? Sure, the book is discussed, but what does a picture of its cover actually tell the reader? J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong standard! Neither WP:NFCC nor WP:NFC demand that an image be "needed". We've seen such standard-creep before, so do not tend to be particularly tolerant of it. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Answers to the questions about replaceability and significance include but are not necessarily limited to: (1) None of the three book cover images could effectively be replaced by a mug shot of the author(s) and have equivalent value for the purposes of this topic. Although, I suppose, in the case of Phillip Johnson we might reasonably revisit the issue, if a "free" image is found to be available, the reason being that he is also generally regarded as the "father of intelligent design", thereby placing as much stock in the author's personality as on the publication itself, arguably at least. In the case of William Dembski, the choice was made to include a "free" face shot in part because he made frequent public appearances over a lengthy period of time advocating his "theories" and also, in part, because his book cover images were rather nondescript in comparison to the three that were included, i.e., they would be of less help in conveying to the reader any sense of the topic than are the three cover images that are displayed in the article. In other words, consistently with WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, a "free" image was available that was fully capable of replacing the available "non-free" images and still have equal information value to the reader. (2) The representations of the book cover art call to explicit attention these three major markers in the history of intelligent design. The history is not one of proponents appealing to audiences based on their public persona such that it might equally well be represented by a face shot, but rather has been done by appeal to the issues under discussion, issues that are represented in part by the chosen visual icons on the covers. Further, each illustration serves as a conspicuous callout to direct attention to the associated captions in a way that enhances readers' understanding by calling these important markers to the attention for the reader in a way that a non-pictoral callout box cannot accomplish with equal effectiveness. Further, the reader of the article is, by the presence of the images, given a visual sense of the presentation of the topic chosen by the authors and publishers. For the very significant proportion of WP readers whose educational intake is supplemented to varying extents by visual learning, the visual image itself is by its very nature a contributing factor to such readers' understanding of the topic. I hope this helps give some perspective on why these images were included, and why it's not because they're just gratuitously thrown in there, or because somebody thinks they help make the article look good, or because, as Andrew_c said above, "ILIKEIT" or whatever. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, what you've said is all well and good, but there's still no reason to include the covers. If I understand what you are saying, your argument is basically that using the covers attracts readers to important elements in the article. Well, that's not a valid argument, at all. The articles should be written in summary style, so the important points are fairly obvious and clear. Images should add to the understanding, not draw attention to what needs to be said. These images are not illustrating anything in particular. Their use is decorative. A non-free image must be used to illustrate a specific point in the text, or for identification purposes. Identification is clearly not valid here (for the same reason that we do not use album covers in discographies- merely mentioning a publication is not enough to warrant a non-free image) so what are these covers illustrating? What can a reader not understand without seeing them? J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RE "there's still no reason to include the covers" : In other words, you didn't care if there were demonstrable reasons for their inclusion when you first started this thread, and now still don't care if there are demonstrable reasons. I'm sorry to say this should have been fairly predictable not later than your first change in your reasoning for removing them. In other words, this is not really a discussion, is it? Why? Because you've already arrived at your conclusion, which obviously was, and is, that book-cover images are purely decorative. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The substantive issues regarding the use of the three book cover images have already been well discussed. Lacking something new in terms of a genuine substantive discussion that hasn't already been hashed over in depth on this talk page, I'm moving onto something else for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact you keep resorting to these kind of non-arguments is rather reflective of where your opinions stand in relation to policy, guideline and precedent. You're the one who stops this discourse being a discussion by constantly dropping back into attacking my motives. J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing I've said that isn't readily demonstrable, based entirely on what you have said in this talk thread, to any reasonably objective set of observers should it become necessary. Please desist from attacking me for merely describing what you're quite obviously doing and saying here. You've already quite plainly arrived at your preferred conclusion, and have already made it quite plain what your objectives are. Thank you. Good day. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns about my motives or my conduct in this discussion, raise it with me on my talk page. This constant background chatter means that the real topic of discussion is lost. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To sort this out, a simple explanation of how the use of these images passes WP:NFCC would be a start, because I don't see any way that the cover of a book helps me understand Intelligent Design in a significantly improved way. J Milburn has asked numerous times, and hasn't yet received an answer that isn't either patronising, or refers back to some "consensus" in an obscure talk archive. If it's so completely obvious that this usage is OK, it shouldn't be beyond someone to actually answer the question. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that every one of the book/magazine covers is in clear violation of policy, namely WP:NFCC. If the !owners of this article can't come to terms with this, maybe it would be better to open up an RFC. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the use of the book covers cannot be justified. I disagree that an RFC is needed because this isn't even a borderline case. CIreland (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's perhaps worth noting that WP:NFC specifically okays the use of "Cover art from various items, for identification in the context of critical commentary of that item". There is critical commentary about each of these books, and these images help our readers to identify in a bookstore or library the book that that commentary relates to.  Explicitly per policy, that clears the bar.
 * Discussion of NFC needs to be considered in the context of the legal position. Nobody is going to be sued for showing these covers.  Not us, not our commercial reusers, not in the USA, not in Europe.  Precisely nobody is helped by removing this material.  WP:NFC deliberately reflects that, in the explicitly more permissive standards it sanctions for cover images.  Jheald (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's important to note that fair use, with an appropriate, well thought-out rationale (like these here) actually allows for far freer (re)use than does the GFDL or cc-by-sa. To begin with, the licensing of most of our "free" images is based on the say-so of pseudonymous editors.  Secondly, as far as I know, the GFDL and other forms of copyleft have never been tested in court with regards to the idea of someone saying "I changed my mind", or (and this is especially appropriate to Wikipedia) "I was underage and not legally able to surrender those rights".  Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this any different from album covers? I don't see any arguments unique to this situation, that wouldn't apply to someone wanting to include the Bringing It All Back Home album cover in the "Going electric" section of the Bob Dylan article, or in the Electric Dylan controversy article. I'm just curious about consistency and the precedent this may set, especially in regards to how cover images more generally are already used on wikipedia. I just want to know, are those who are arguing for inclusion of the cover images here, also supporters of album cover art on musician's pages? Either we are discussing something bigger than this one article and we should discuss it in that context, or there is something unique about this one situation, that I'm missing, that makes the use of book covers for decorative purposes acceptable here, but not on band pages. The main thing that I'm focusing on is that the physical, visual appearance of the books are not important to the discussion of the books. Perhaps if the art and design of these covers were discussed in the article, then it would make more sense that we need a visual aid. But since it is simply the books being discussed, I really don't get it.-Andrew c [talk] 15:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Andrew_c is again right- again and again, the "this helps readers identify the book" argument has been shot down, with the most obvious example being cover art on discographies. Cover art is not an exception to the non-free content criteria, it's just an example of a type of image that will often be acceptable. However, as far as I can see, in this case, it is not. The "identification" argument applies only to the article about the book itself. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Outline answers
The question of fair use pictures has already been the subject of extensive discussion on this article's talk page, the linked discussions come to hand, and there are probably more, as well as being discussed at length in fora devoted to image deletion. The outcome was that book covers of two books of pivotal importance to ID have been shown, rationale as below. It should be clear from the article that ID has essentially been created and presented in popular books, with no published scientific papers. The term originated in the supplementary textbook for schools Of Pandas and People which presents a collection of old creationist claims in a cover which could be a National Geographic publication, both in image and font use, featuring a cuddly panda which does not seem to be a significant part of the wording of the book. Darwin's Black Box is the main presentation of ID's central argument of irreducible complexity, written by Behe who accepts common descent while claiming that irreducible complexity is demonstrated by several microbiological systems, including the cilium, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system and intracellular gated and vesicular transport. The book cover shows the common creationist theme of man from monkeys, though this is not an argument in the book. Thus both books are central to ID and as covered as such in this article, and the covers convey information beyond a simple textual description. Rationale checklist provided below. . dave souza, talk 10:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Nearly forgot Darwin on Trial, the book that introduced Johnson into what became his ID wedge strategy, with a cover reflecting sensationalist coverage of trials, showing a small Darwin crushed by the large red letters. Rationale added below. . dave souza, talk 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Of Pandas and People Darwin's Black Box Darwin on Trial
 * The image shows the first significant published work advocating the idea of intelligent design and introducing the term.
 * The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section of the article dealing the origins of the term "intelligent design".
 * This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for the intended audience of the book.
 * The image of the book cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the book in a manner that prose cannot.
 * The image does not threaten to replace the commercial value of the image to the copyright holder, but instead increases such value to the copyright holder.
 * The use is minimal, and involves no internal content from the book, but rather illustrates the copyright holder's publicized presentation of the topic.
 * Its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * The image shows one of the most significant published works advocating the idea of intelligent design.
 * The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section of the article dealing with irreducible complexity.
 * This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for browsers of the book on irreducible complexity. The impact is concerned with questioning evolutionary relationships; whereas the book is often being touted as questioning evolutionary processes and not being opposed to shared ancestry. The cover iconography is a graphic demonstration of how ID works are used as a kind of stalking horse for creationism.
 * The image of the book cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the book in a manner that prose cannot.
 * The image does not threaten to replace the commercial value of the image to the copyright holder, but instead increases such value to the copyright holder.
 * The use is minimal, and involves no internal content from the book, but rather illustrates the copyright holder's publicized presentation of the topic.
 * Its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * The image shows one of the most significant published works advocating the idea of intelligent design.
 * The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section of the article dealing with the book's influence and the author's status as "father" of the "intelligent design movement".
 * This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for browsers of the book on intelligent design.
 * The image of the book cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the book in a manner that prose cannot.
 * The image does not threaten to replace the commercial value of the image to the copyright holder, but instead increases such value to the copyright holder.
 * The use is minimal, and involves no internal content from the book, but rather illustrates the copyright holder's publicized presentation of the topic.
 * Its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * You are discussing the visual appearance of the books (how the one is similar to a NG cover, how another uses specific monkey to man themes, etc). However, the article does not discuss these topics, nor do we have reliable sources saying the appearance of this cover art is significant. I'd be more inline for inclusion if this were the case.-Andrew c [talk] 15:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To echo Andrew c, those argument would hold sway if the article presented that information and if it had reliable sources to support its presentation of that information. The constant repetition of Its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding is simply false: a reader would have just as deep an understanding of the underlying issues without these images as the reader does with them. What information about intelligent design do you believe the reader might fail to grasp?&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, once again we appear to have drive by deletionists disrupting editing on a well tested article without attempting to follow the information presented in good faith and with some knowledge of the uses of graphic design. The books are critically described as an integral part of the subject of the article, and the message presented by these specific book covers contributes significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject. A reasonable rationale is provided in full compliance with policy requirements, the fair use is well within legal requirements and within explicit policy, and while I do appreciate that some editors feel that the policy should be applied more stringently than the letter of the policy, this is a difference of opinion and not the cut and dried case you seem to blindly assume as newcomers to the article. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, simply stating that "the message presented by these specific book covers contributes significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject" does not make it so. The book covers are not discussed. I am not learning anything new from seeing the covers, and I'm mystified as to what you believe people will learn. What are they illustrating? What do you believe they are showing people that the text isn't? J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy barbarians are at the gates (again)
We've heard all the above questions and assertions before at this article. They're actually standard approaches by NFC deletion advocates who've already concluded that such images add no useful information to articles. I'm for throwing the images into the volcano-- one more little sacrifice, for what I do not know. But this is more work than it's worth. Blind arbitrary policy-wonkism perhaps; circular reasoning with no way to show any real evidence in support or against NFCC#8. The arguments go, essentially, "I think they add useful information that significantly enhances the readers' understanding..." and "I don't see any useful informative value-- it's just an image." (User:Calliopejen1, if (s)he's paid attention to her/his studies, will recognize all such arguments as "conclusory".) ..... But I'd like to seek some consensus among editors familiar with the article to get rid of the three book cover images. For those unfamiliar with this article, immediately below are some of the fora in which the issue has previously been discussed, and at times, intensively argued. Personally I'm not willing to do it again. I say trash'em all. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive43#Main_page_picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive43#Pictures_in_this_article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive44#Image_nominated_for_deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive44#Fair_use_review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_2#Intelligent_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive45#Non-fair_use_problems and in the two talk sections that follow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive45#Fair_use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive45#Temporary_image_removal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_October_12#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_54#Problem_area.28s.29

... Kenosis (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added all these to 'Points that have already been discussed'. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS
There is a long-standing WP:CONSENSUS (as evidenced by the voluminous archives that Kenosis has unearthed), that the images currently under dispute should be kept. The claim in this edit that there is no currently operative consensus is therefore false -- and serves as no basis for removal. If J Milburn wishes to develop a new consensus for removal of these images he may do so -- but he is likely to run into not unreasonable resistance to further argumentum ad nauseam on the topic. It is not reasonable to expect this existing consensus to have to repeat itself de novo each time some self-appointed judge jury and executioner of NF images sweeps into town. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a large number of people opposed to the use, all presenting extremely valid arguments. If the use is, as you claim, so valid, it should not be difficult to convince the editors in opposition to the use (many knowledgable about the non-free content criteria, all experienced Wikipedians) that the use is valid. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Milburn, you're ignoring what others are saying. Try again without dismissing the long history of image discussions here. I assure you people here will be more willing to listen to you if you don't blow off years of hard work and discussion. You make it sound like only the No position editors have any knowledge or experience. Perhaps you're unaware that's how you sound; I hope so; I am willing to presume you meant something entirely different. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that it is not enough to simply say "no, we've discussed this, look at this" without providing any reasoning. The archived discussions make interesting reading, but I am more concerned with this discussion now. My point is that this is not just someone drudging up old discussions, looking for a fight- we have a large number of experienced editors expressing concnern at the current use of the images, all presenting valid arguments. They (myself included) cannot be dismissed by saying "look at the archives". That's all I'm saying. Any connotations were unintentional. J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reasoning is in the prior discussions. I take it the "interesting reading" you've done has familiarized you with those discussions? Which reasons did you find lacked substance? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have failed to find a clear definition of what part of intelligent design a reader might have difficulty grasping in the absence of a book cover. I see a lot of assertions that the book covers will assist in them achieving an understanding, but a paucity of detail. What assertion does the article make that, in the absence of a book cover, a reader might have difficulty understanding?&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I keep asking this, but I am not getting an answer. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No J Milburn, there is a small number of your fellow "self-appointed judge jury and executioner"s. Do any of you have any knowledge of the topic of this article, and thus of what images are most closely associated with it? Your interpretation of WP:NFCC & WP:NFC appears unreasonably narrow (e.g. your "needed" demand above). That you are willing to delete images, against a pre-existing consensus, without a new consensus for their removal is evidence of your high-handedness. I have seen nothing in this latest round to convince me that further argumentum ad nauseam on this already done-to-death topic would be productive, or change any minds -- either of this article's regulars or of the self-appointed NFC police. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the "article's regulars" has already changed their mind about the issue. The fact that the issue is continually raised should be indication enough that there is a problem, and continually raised by people with a good knowledge of policy should be further indication of the problem. And, for what it's worth, yes, I have a good knowledge of the intelligent design theory. I recently sat an exam where it was discussed, in fact. Thankfully, that doesn't matter. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Hrafn, the consensus that such use of non-free images is unacceptable is both long standing and the result of discussions involving vastly greater numbers of editors than those that happen to frequent the talk page of any single article. CIreland (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Translation "We own this article, we know what's best for it, and our own consensus says that the images stay in (oh and for some reason WP:NPA doesn't apply to us - "high-handedness", "drive-by deletionists", "self-appointed judge and jury", "blind arbitrary policy-wonkism", "disruptive")". Seen it before, I'm afraid. Now, can we have an actual rationale as to why pictures of book covers significantly increase the reader's understanding of Intelligent Design? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Odd -- nobody brought up "drive-by deletionists" until you did (but hey, if the shoe fits) -- methinks you doth protest too much. Could it be that you have been called that so frequently that you just assume somebody will have called you it in any conflict? Could it be that there is an element of truth to this solely (if accidentally) self-bestowed title? <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=266563378&oldid=266551796 Personally, I prefer to be called a "non-free content nazi", if only for the irony. CIreland (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (Ahem2: if you use quotation marks inaccurately (it was "drive by deletionists"), you have to accept that people doing a search, which requires an exact pattern match, won't find it.) However, all the characterisations seem to have sufficient truth and substantiation to them (per WP:SPADE) and seem to be insufficiently offensive that it is highly questionable if WP:NPA applies. Per WP:POT, I would note that the longstanding WP:CONSENSUS on this talkpage was described as "majority rule ILIKEIT" on WT:NFC. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. I wouldn't have used that description myself, as this thread seems a bit below the length at which we'd normally expect to see such a reference in keeping with Godwin's Law. ;-) It is, however, a strategy of image policy enforcement that is blind to virtually any reasoning in support of the position that a book cover image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic", no? ... Kenosis (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy that's being cited is explicit. "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof." A valid rationale has been provided, discussed and accepted. Those seeking to remove the images are arguing against the validity of the rationale, with the claim that their unexplained disagreement with a consensus about that rational validates immediate and disruptive edit warring. This is not a collegiate way of working, and is at best disappointing. The fact that some of the newcomers claim to have done the same elsewhere looks like an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and an improvement in behaviour appears overdue. So, again, a bit more patience and a reasonable opportunity to discuss and agree about the alleged shortcoming in the previously agreed rationale is in order. . dave souza, talk 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Before accusing us of failing to discuss, please answer this question that was asked in response to one of your statements, and I asked again here. It's the failure to receive a clear answer to it that is causing difficulty.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Patience! I've endeavoured to show an answer at short notice and, as stated, at a time of other commitments. Sorry that you find the answers unclear, an issue I've discussed is explicitly stated as an expert view which I've added here, in my opinion the contrast between the image presented by the covers and the contents is reasonably implicit in the other images. Hope that helps, . dave souza, talk 20:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would probably go for that one for that individual cover, actually, even though I see that someone else reverted it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those kind of edits are very helpful, and that has definitely warmed me to the use of that cover in this article. I feel that the issue could be less controversial still if (a comparatively minor point) there is discussion of the image in the main prose of the article, as opposed to merely in the image caption. I think it would be better if the caption merely pointed to something discussed in the article itself, but I doubt it's actually necessary. J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is ignored every time it is brought up. For instance when it was re-raised at the recent FAR. Other issues took precedence, and when time came around to re-discussing it, it was claimed to have already been resolved. Yet, despite this, no clear fair-use rationale (that does not stray into original research) has yet been provided for why this images are appropriate for this particular article. Their fair use on other articles does not mandate universal fair use.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it
The Time magazine cover is completely superfluous to the article as well. There is no need to see the cover in order to understand that ID was discussed in the magazine. Per long-standing consensus with respect to magazine cover use, they can only be used when the actual cover art is the subject of discussion, such as in More Demi Moore or the OJ Simpson covers in photo manipulation.  howcheng  {chat} 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Time cover is one of the few images that does meet NFCC/NFC standards. The article includes limited discussion of the cover content, and a Time cover is a fairly immediately recognisable context of importance: ZOMG its on the cover of TIME, This is serious Mom.
 * Further discussion of the iconography could be included in the main text, discussing the use of The Creation of Adam etc. This would enhance reader-gained knowledge, but can be much more easily be replaced by the image at hand.--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's so not sufficient. You don't have to show the actual cover to make the point that the controversy appeared on the cover. Verifiable discussion of the iconography is required for its inclusion; if you don't have anything in the text that the reader needs to see, then you don't need the image. It's that simple. Just so you know, this is not the first time anyone has tried this argument before, and it's shot down every single time. The article needs to discuss the cover in and of itself in order to be included. See WP:NFC images #8: "However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover (or book) does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." There is nowhere in your blockquotes above where the cover itself is the subject of discussion.  howcheng  {chat} 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Unacceptable use I8 is specifically about the use of an picture as the main image used to illustrate a person, because we want people to come forward with free images of people. That is not the case here.
 * A substantial theme of the article is about the cultural presentation of the ID debate. The detail of the Time cover helps illustrate that.  Jheald (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you really going to wikilawayer about the exact wording of the prohibition here? The spirit of it is clear: Don't use covers unless the cover art is under discussion.  howcheng  {chat} 18:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon my interjection here please. Howcheng, having interacted and debated with you before, I respect your views, and have told you so in the past-- even notwithstanding our sometimes directly opposing viewpoints. However, after habitual advocates of maximum possible removal of what is very misleadingly termed "non-free" content from WP prove wiki-wide that they are well in the habit of quoting "book, chapter and verse" (read that: "wikilawyering") to local article participants as they roam the wiki on their mission to purge WP of the scourge of "non-free" images to the maximum possible extent within the language of the NFCC (the guideline) and NFC (the policy) -- of which neither the policy nor the guideline truly achieved consensus but rather was a hard-fought compromise, a product of a long fight at WP:NFC and related pages -- for you to accuse participants here of engaging in "wikilawyering" in defense of the presence of the cover images is, frankly, a good bit of a stretch to me. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, "wikilawyering" is the act of quoting and abiding by the exact terms of the policy/guideline/whatever all the while ignoring the spirit of it, which is exactly what Jheald is doing here. Just because the guideline in question specifically calls out people doesn't mean its application is limited only to people. And I don't see how the term "non-free" is misleading. "Free content" is that which meets the definitions elaborated at, written by the Deputy Director of the WMF. "Non-free" is thus everything else. It's a pretty bright line.  howcheng  {chat} 06:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Howcheng, also with all due respect, the "spirit" of WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline is very much the topic of the current set of arguments. Fact is, it's quite plain that anti-NFC advocates are hard at work here at the moment, and it's very evident what the anti-book-and/or-magazine-cover advocates think is the "spirit' of the policy. As it turns out, there isn't even any semblance of consensus among those arguing against the presence of these images in the article on intelligent design[[ about what is the justificatiKenosis (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Verifiable discussion of the iconography is required for its inclusion" -- please quote the passage in WP:NFCC/WP:NFC that states this. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the sole rationale for this claim is I8, then I would point out that it is off-point. This is not a case of its use solely to "illustrate the article on the [topic] on the cover" -- it is to demonstrate "wide public attention" by demonstrating that the issue made the cover of a highly prominent magazine. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is 100% on-point. The magazine article is about the ID debate, and you want to use the cover to make to illustrate the fact that the debate appeared on the cover, which has been disallowed time and time again.  howcheng  {chat} 18:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "use the cover to make to illustrate the fact that the debate appeared on the cover" (as being illustrative of "wide public attention") is not mere use to "illustrate the article on the [topic] on the cover" -- so is not covered by this exclusion. You have therefore established no policy basis for your "Verifiable discussion of the iconography is required for its inclusion" claim and I can only conclude that the fact that this "has been disallowed time and time again" has its basis in an aggressively conducted over-policing that has no basis in policy. Do not expect such illegitimately expansive interpretation of exclusions to gain much credence here. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "use the cover to make to illustrate the fact that the debate appeared on the cover" fails this part of WP:NFCC: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" It's perfectly adequate to state in text that ID made the cover of some magazine, or was the subject of some book. There's no need to show the actual cover in order to convey this fact. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a sufficiently narrow interpretation of this criteria, and a sufficiently broad definition of "adequate", you can exclude any use of NFC. Is it adequate to "state in text that ID made the cover of some magazine"? I would suggest that this loses the visual impact of a Time cover (an aspect that Time staff probably spend a great deal of time crafting). As to "was the subject of some book", ID is to a large extent a campaign that has been fought through books (and, to a slightly lesser extent, opposed through them). Books are therefore very frequently the major characters in this narrative. The covers of many of them would be far more recognisable than their authors. Is it possible to rewrite this article to merely talk about rather than show these aspects? The answer would be yes. Would such a rewrite be an adequate portrayal of them? I would, as somebody with considerable experience with this controversial subject, argue no. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is interesting and, if CBM's interpretation is correct, would indicate that the NFCC are quite self-contradictory, a veritable enforcer's paradise. The policy demands that the cover image be discussed in the body text in order to be included, yet if it can be discussed in the body text, it isn't needed (sorry, "needed" isn't in the policy language, but was among the dictates put forward by present advocates of deletion of these images, and I suppose is therefore in the "spirit" of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC). ... Kenosis (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a sufficiently narrow interpretation of this criteria, and a sufficiently broad definition of "adequate", you can exclude any use of NFC. Is it adequate to "state in text that ID made the cover of some magazine"? I would suggest that this loses the visual impact of a Time cover (an aspect that Time staff probably spend a great deal of time crafting). As to "was the subject of some book", ID is to a large extent a campaign that has been fought through books (and, to a slightly lesser extent, opposed through them). Books are therefore very frequently the major characters in this narrative. The covers of many of them would be far more recognisable than their authors. Is it possible to rewrite this article to merely talk about rather than show these aspects? The answer would be yes. Would such a rewrite be an adequate portrayal of them? I would, as somebody with considerable experience with this controversial subject, argue no. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is interesting and, if CBM's interpretation is correct, would indicate that the NFCC are quite self-contradictory, a veritable enforcer's paradise. The policy demands that the cover image be discussed in the body text in order to be included, yet if it can be discussed in the body text, it isn't needed (sorry, "needed" isn't in the policy language, but was among the dictates put forward by present advocates of deletion of these images, and I suppose is therefore in the "spirit" of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC). ... Kenosis (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no self-contradiction here. Just a misunderstanding from your part, Kenosis. Discussing the cover-image is one thing. Discussing the fact that some topic made the cover of Time is another. While the first asks for an illustration (and the policy allows it), the second can be done with text only (and thus, can't be illustrated with non-free images). --Damiens .rf 12:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do indeed understand the policy, quite well in fact, including a fairly intimate awareness of the positions taken by the divergent camps while this policy was being intensively argued (to say the least) on the way to its present policy-within-a-guideline status and its present language. I was illustrating a point about how stretched the arguments were becoming against the use of, as we say on the wiki, "non-free content", particularly when those arguments viewed as a whole. Nonetheless, I'm not the first to have noted how quirksome the language is and how the language was built to facilitate the kind of barrage of varied reasoning against the use of the images such as is currently being rendered on this page. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all nitpicking; they're low res images which enhance the article while doing no conceivable damage to the copyright holders. If images are only used when absolutely necessary, why have pictures of (eg) people in biographies etc. which do nothing to further the understanding of them? Pictures are to increase the article's whole appearance and "consumer appeal" surely. "Not necessary" is something that could be said about much of many articles on WP but such things make articles readable. As long as no law is broken or unfair advantage taken by their inclusion they should be permitted. The whole reason for the existence of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge and anything which makes the reading experience better (such as images) should be encouraged, not bickered over. (-Just my 2 cents) TheresaWilson (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Theresa, our policies are not designed to cover our asses from a legal standpoint. This is the primary misunderstanding of the non-free content policy. The main goal is to minimize the amount of non-free content material in accordance with our mission of being a free-content encyclopedia.  howcheng  {chat} 06:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Howcheng, what you've said here is substanitally wrong. Fact is, the issue of "who's been sued by whom, and for what?" was a major aspect of the arguments put forward in favor of the most restrictive possible language in WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, arguments which AFAIK were highly influential in arriving at the hard-fought compromise manifested in the present form of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. To further point out part of the absurdity of the situation here, since the policy says an image must "significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the topic", all images should be deleted, because pictures are not for readers, but rather are for viewers ! ... Kenosis (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ... Sorry, what I just said is true of "non-free" images that are freer-then-"free", that is, freer to use for virtually anything except putting on your own book, magazine or website in a way that it would mislead people into believing that the product is yours rather than that of the holder of the copyright, freer than many of the permissions actually granted by many or most holders of "free-licenses" today, and as such it's not true of "free" images which commonly have more restrictions than "non-free" images. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is kind of a tangent, but Kenosis, you really do not understand copyrights. "All rights reserved" means that only the copyright holder has the right to do anything with it, including reproduction, dissemination, etc, except what they allow you do or what is permitted by fair use (in countries where fair use or fair dealing exists). Although our usage here probably is fair use under US law, our policies are deliberately stricter than that because our free content mission, as I explained to Theresa above. "Free content" is stuff you can do anything you want with. There are few restrictions like always attribute the source (CC-BY) or always attach the license (GFDL) and there are other laws you have to contend with (trademarks, personality rights), but you don't have to ask permission, you can plaster it all over the place, you can completely subvert the original intent of the work if you want, because it's free.  howcheng  {chat} 06:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not "kind of a tangent" Howcheng. Though peripheral to the present debate, it's right smack in the middle of the core of the extremely misleading "non-free-content" paranoia on the wiki. In fact, there is not, AFIAK, one lawsuit for displaying a low-resolution cover image that hasn't been dismissed as frivolous, "frivolous" meaning that a defendant in such a lawsuit would thereby be allowed the defendant to recoup costs, attorneys' fees and in occasional instances punitive damages against the party that filed the frivolous lawsuit. In reality, copyright holders of book, magazine-- even album-- cover images actually encourage display of such cover images, because it gives their product public exposure, even if the enterprise that displays that image is for profit ! If there's an instance where somebody or some organization had a legal judgment levied against them for reproducing a low-resolution cover image without purporting to be selling their own product in such a way that might confuse people into believing that the person or organization displaying that image on their product is the person or organization that holds the copyright, please show some reliable sources that point us to such real-life results of displaying a low-resolution cover image without pretending to be the proper proprietor of such an image. The notion that this might happen under any real-world circumstances is ridiculous. Fact is, cover images such as the ones used for the past couple of years in the article on intelligent design are, within every rational and legal standard in the civilized world, free to use as WP users wish so long as they don't pretend that the images belong to WP or to any WP user other than the copyright holder of that cover image. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, this has nothing to do with "getting sued" etc. There are hundreds of thousands (I am not exaggerating) of images we could use throughout Wikipedia without fear of legal action but choose not to. Not out of "copyright paranoia" but because we are a free-content project. CIreland (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. As I said, the notions of "free content" and "non-free content" are at minimum highly misleading from the getgo. What we have here is a largely irrational compromise, not by any means a consensus, about what are the policies and what are the guidelines, w.r.t. proper use of such images in widely divergent topic areas around the wiki for which one centralized set of rules is not rationally defensible short of strictly eliminating all copyrighted images, period. More to the point, what we have here at the moment is the current presence of a roving group of "anti-NFC" advocates who are good at --pardon me here-- "wikilawyering" in support of their preferred POV w.r.t. the presence of NFC files, of which this present argument is only a current manifestation. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * &larr; Arguing that the entire NFCC policy is misguided is fine, but needs to be done on the NFCC talk page. Such an argument does not provide a rationale for not meeting the current NFCC requirements. "The policy itself is wrong" is an argument of last resort, after all, which in my experience is only raised to argue in favor of keeping non-free images that cannot be justified under the policy as it is worded. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Arguing that those advocating in support of the position that the images meet all NFCC are somehow "wikilawyering" is similarly misguided-- more than misguided-- patently absurd under the circumstances. So are, frankly, most of the arguments to remove the images, particularly taken as a whole. We have opponents of the images, most or all of the small group of which are regulars at WT:NFC, and/or regulars around the wiki when there's any argument standing in the way of removal of such images, quoting "book, chapter and verse" of the present form of the NFCC, finally settling on a subjective criterion (NFCC#8) when all else fails and bludgeoning that one to death, arguing that there's no consensus for the inclusion of the images, repeatedly focusing on the meaning of various single words picked out of the policy language as desired in order to further one's arguments, in several instances making up their own standards that aren't even in the policy language, then arguing on top of it that somehow there's a "spirit" to the policy?! And then on top of it that the images' defenders are wikilawyering? ... Kenosis (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ... Carl, I believe I've said my piece here, for now at least. I've already advocated for ditching the book-cover images due to that it seemed completely predictable that this was going to become a potentially lengthy new clash of various ideas about what properly belongs where on the wiki. Talk with you later on, hopefully about something else more productive than this particular issue of whether the use of these three (or is it four?) cover images is a proper application of the policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The cover, and its appearance is discussed: "The cover of this August 15, 2005 issue of TIME reads...", " The cover poses the question". NFCC does not demand the image be necessary, but that it give the reader significantly enhanced understanding. The manner in how the cover poses this question is information that enhances the readers understanding of the concept at hand. Describing this, and its classical iconography would be permitted in the text, and would not constitute OR, however it is much easier to use imagery. This is stretched fair use, but much more acceptable than mere use of book covers when discussing book content (here we are showing a cover while discussng cover-content).--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the books have their own articles: Of Pandas and People, Darwin's Black Box. So if wa say, "The cover of Of Pandas and People has a panda on it", readers can click the link to see the cover image. See NFC #5. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that these covers identify the subject of the article much at all. They belong on the books' articles.  Nor do I see how the covers are needed to identify  the books cited in this article.  The TIME cover seems to be a perfect fit to the requirements of #8, however.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 14:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard is not whether they're needed . Whether they're "needed" has absolutely nothing to do with the policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy-speak: I mean they are not needed to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Nor are they needed because the textual description of the books "adequately convey[s]"..."the subject without using the non-free content at all."-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 15:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kenosis: it's not wikilawyering that's going on; it's more wikifilibustering. I reiterate the point I made some time ago: these images make the article readable. TheresaWilson (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes they do, particularly for early high-schoolers which were the primary target audience for "intelligent design". The position that the images enhance readers' understanding of the topic was virtually unanimous among regular participants who are familiar with the content of the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would trust outsiders to be a far better judge of that- not only do they not become overly involved with the text, but they can view it with an impartial eye. Plus, as non-writers, they are closer to the readers that you make so many assumptions about. The covers may be pretty, but that's not a reason to include them, they're simply not illustrating anything or aiding understanding in any significant way. Further, I find your insistence that people unfamiliar with ID (of which I am not one) to be unable to judge this rather ridiculous. The images should aid understanding of the article- if a non-expert can read it and not find their understanding aided, what does that tell you? J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Sure, an appropriate sample of reasonably objective outsiders might do the trick there. Ordinarily such a sample doesn't go 'round the wiki in search of NFC to delete with quite the same appetite as I've seen among some of the anti-NFC advocates. I find the assertion that obvious anti-NFC advocates are in a position to make this judgment "with an impartial eye" to be extremely farfetched, to say the least. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not anti-NFC by any means. I supported the inclusion of non-free sports logos and non-free alternate album covers.  But both of those actually had a direct relationship to the subjects of the articles:  the sports logo is the logo of the subject of the article, such as Texas Longhorns football, and the alternate album covers were alternates in the articles about the albums themselves.  But here, the images of the books do not directly relate to (or, to use the language of the policy, significantly increase the understanding of) the subject of the article.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinion is duly noted. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also not anti-NFC- a lot of my articles contain non-free images. Having respect for our policies does not make us anti-non-free content, just as you advocating deletion of an article that reads "John Smith is 12 years old, and goes to Example High School. He's really cool!" doesn't make you an ardent deletionist. However, 2008Olympian is far, far from anti-nonfree content. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto; I've got quite a few articles that use non-free content, and I've uploaded a bunch too. And I'm perfectly capable of changing my mind as well. When I nominated File:Stonewall riots.jpg for deletion because it wasn't being used properly in Stonewall riots, User:Moni3 rewrote the article to talk more about the photo and I withdrew the IFD. AGF that we really are honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia here, please.  howcheng  {chat} 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words (please correct me if I'm wrong), J Milburn and Howcheng presently assert that the images at issue do not meet NFCC#8? Howcheng, additionally, asserts above that the use of these images is not in keeping with the "spirit" of the NFCC? ... Kenosis (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it a nutshell. I can see no reason that the images are adding to the informative nature of the article in themselves in any explicit way, and so I do not consider them significant enough for use. That is my primary objection to the images' inclusion. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. And does J Milburn have any secondary or tertiary objections to the images' inclusion? ... Kenosis (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

←Where are you going with this? I could also see an argument that the covers are replaceable, in that a free image of the authors or someone else linked with the book could replace them, but my main concern is from the point of view of the significance of the images themselves. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, J Milburn argues that the images at issue are not in accordance with NFCC #1 and #8? Correct me if I'm wrong about this. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Primarily, I am arguing that the images are not suitable per #8, but I would also point tot he spirit of the policy, past discussions on the issue in general and other things. Where are you going with this? J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just trying to get some of the facts straight. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protected
Page sysop protected due to edit warring. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection Not Working
Just an FYI, for one reason or another, it allowed me to make an edit even though I am an anonymous user and the page is protected. I did a very quick misspelling changing the word teach, in one spot to teech. Then I changed it back to teach. It should not have let me do any of this.
 * Odd. I had a better retort, but some might find it offensive.  <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; dissera! 19:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The protection worked, and then it expired.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sic transit gloria Vikipediae. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to explain this again
The main argument seems to centre around WP:NFCC which says
 * Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Bear in mind that's a pretty subjective criterion. What is a significant increase in readers' understanding of the topic?

Of Pandas and People Pandas was originally written as a creation science textbook, but after the Edwards verdict it was converted to an "intelligent design" textbook (yielding the famous "cdesign proponentsists" transitional fossil). Although it pre-dates the Wedge document, Pandas is the Wedge personified - it was made to look like a biology textbook, but was actually a trojan horse, designed to slip creationism into the classroom.

The cover design is a key part of that. The panda is the symbol of the WWF. It's an icon of the conservation movement. It's also a symbol of evolution - The Panda's Thumb is not only the title of an important evolution-education website, it's also the title of Gould's book from 1980. Simply using the title of the book only conveys half of the double entendre that is Pandas. Seeing the actual cover image significantly improves the reader's understanding of the role of the textbook. It conveys both a sense of inoffensiveness generally, and also plays on pro-science images. To any reader who is a visual thinker, this conveys significantly more information that could be conveyed in its absense.

Darwin's Black Box Taken most charitably, DBB is a call for the restoration of wonder and the rejection of faceless reductionism. It seeks to call people back to God. The image of human and chimpanzee together contemplating the heavens is something of a Rorschach test - we read it differently, based on our preconceptions. And that is at the heart of DBB - people who look for God in a materialistic world, who believe that God must have a hand in evolution, are told what they want to hear - that evolution is a "black box", that scientists don't understand what they are saying. To them, the man is as foolish as the chimp in thinking he can understand the world. To someone who sees evolution differently, the man and chimp contemplate the heavens in brotherhood. The are less likely to agree with the book, but the presentation makes it more appealing, less defensive.

The solar eclipse with the words "Black Box" across it, on the other hand, convey a sense of foreboding, a warning, a call to wariness. There is danger in "playing God". There are dark forces out there.

All of this is part of the intent of the book which cannot be conveyed without the use of the images. Thus, the book cover significantly enhances the understanding of the reader, and of how the intelligent design movement was built by Behe's book.

Darwin on Trial The cover of Darwin on Trial shows an elderly, angry-looking Darwin crushed by the huge letters of Johnson's book. It shows a defeated-looking Darwin, obviously headed to jail. To the Darwinian, the image is spirit-crushing in a way that the title is not. To the anti-Darwinian, the image is triumphal. This conveys the tenor of the intelligent design movement throughout the 90s up until Kitzmiller.

This is just a weak attempt to explain "significance". Sadly this isn't my strong suit...I'm not good at converting visual images into words. But it's a shot at trying to explain what seems obvious to me. Hopefully this is a little more clear what "significant understanding" is all about. Guettarda (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, please. This is, IMO, a praiseworthy attempt at explaining what an image might convey to a reader, but appears to me to neglect the fact that your argument has no genuine audience among those determined to delete free images around the wiki (sorry about my misuse of words here: within WP they're presently termed "non-free" images despite that images such as low-resolution book and magazine cover images are far freer to use for virtually anything than are many or most "free-licensed" images-- you could hardly make this up in a dream, but it's presently a fact on the wiki). .... Kenosis (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say about the significance of the covers. However, I do not feel that this reflects the need for the covers in this article- put simply, it's entirely original research. If that kind of discussion of the covers was included in this article, then yes, 100%, I would agree with their inclusion. However, it isn't- this article is about the theory of ID, not the books, and so there is not really any place for that kind of in-depth discussion in this article. Your arguments are compelling for the significance of the covers within the ID debate, but not particularly compelling for the inclusion of the covers in this short summary article. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Editorial decision-making, including on inclusion and placement of images is all (and quite legitimately) "entirely original research", as is assessment of whether images meet WP:NFCC criteria. If we had RSes to state what Guettarda just did, we could indeed include them in the article (though lengthy discussion of them would be off-topic here). We don't have such RSes, so we simply let the covers speak for themselves, as emblematic 'visual summaries' of the rhetorical devices underlying this contentious topic, alongside critical analysis of the rhetoric itself. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Query: why is it that the above intepretation of the covers isn't sourced and in the Intelligent design article, the books' articles or the images' Fair-use rationales? CIreland (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This defence is rife with wild speculative OR that would not be permissable in text form. Panda = WWF, Panda = cute and cuddly, Panda = S. J. Gould, Panda = website/meme. (I'll accept the connection to the panda's thumb meme is more tangible than the others). Panda's are also linked to China. Is the Disco Institute making an attack on communism, too (wouldn't put it past them). Even if we were to accept this as an acceptable rationale (without references) for the "significant increase in knowledge" for the reader, can we really establish that the reader would actually interpret the image as such.
 * It's funny that Rorschach has been invoked in this debate in this, because that is precisely what is happening. Subjective interpretation of images by a reader.
 * And further is this relevant to intelligent design, the idea/theory/notion/argument. This sort of false marketing ploy and tactics by the Wedge strategy are far more pertinent to the intelligent design movement, and specifically the articles these textbooks and their publishers/authors. They do not enhance any significant increase in understanding the topic at hand on this page, the argument that an unknown intelligent agent created life in more-or-less the form it is today.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by CBM
There are two issues: is there consensus that the images meet the requirements of NFCC, and is there consensus to use the images in this article? The answer to the former is certainly "there is no consensus that the images meet the NFCC requirements". For example this was discussed at Non-free_content_review/Archive_2. However, some editors who frequently edit this page are very vocal in defense of the images, which has led to the images remaining in the article despite the lack of sound rationales to include them. At least that is my overall summary of the situation. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

comment by DGG
I think we need them all. Thumbnails are generally a fair use. (Legally, they are always fair use, at least in the US, but WP is for its own reasons stricter). As a general rule, I advocate that the WP criteria for fair use should be used in their fullest and broadest interpretation, and our NFCC criteria should go as far as the law and the foundation permit us to--our purpose is the communication of information. Images that have some plausibility should  be removed only if there is an actual consensus to do so. I won't go over the arguments why they add intellectual comprehension, but even the time cover shows the level of the public discourse better than any words could possibly do. Comprehension is more than intellectual: one needs to understand why this topic is considered so uniquely important and so emotional. Showing this is uniquely the specific role of images--it is for this very purpose that the ones here were created--to add emotional meaning. DGG (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Foundation has set limits: "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." This is non-negotiable, so you have it backwards -- The default action is to exclude non-free content; they can only be added when there is consensus to do so.  howcheng  {chat} 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Covers
I think we should delete the image of "Darwin on Trial" from this article. The book has almost no discussion in the text, and the caption is a particularly tenuous link (one of many!) with concepts discussed. One problem with the covers is that ones with very tenuous links are included, which makes the ones with strong links - Of Pandas and People, and perhaps Time - get treated at the same level. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed to some extent about the Darwin on Trial cover. That cover image is perhaps the least informative of the three book cover images if we are discussing the images per se. Nonetheless it's of definite information value as a callout to the title "Darwin on Trial", where the title itself is very informative. The image brings the title out front in a way that a simple callout box couldn't accomplish without being trite. It's not as important to the topic as are Pandas and the Time cover image. Darwin's Black Box is a bit different-- the cover image itself is more informative but the title is significantly more oblique. Here the title doesn't need a callout though the image is self-standing (the ape and the man back to back pondering the heavens). If we needed to prioritize (which we don't IMO, having provided valid rationales for all four cover images), I'd personally advocate that Darwin on Trial and Darwin's Black Box are less important to the article than are Pandas and the Time cover image. FWIW. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shoemaker. There's no good reason to have this cover. The cover image is highly generic and the justification is strained. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm concerned about "balkanizing" the WP content about intelligent design, I'm going to take the liberty of being a bit bold and delete the Darwin on Trial cover image. I've been unable to find a free-licensed photo of Philip E. Johnson (remember he's also notable as the "father of the intelligent design movement") Such a photo, if someone is able to find one, could conceivably serve as an alternative callout to the Darwin on Trial title as well as to his being regarded as the "father" of the "movement". If no one is able to find one, I trust Mr. Johnson will not be particularly displeased about it. AFAIK none exist to date. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how any of these covers meet NFC criteria, per my above comments.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 05:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per your "above comments": "I don't see that these covers identify the subject of the article much at all." I have already explained this: "ID is to a large extent a campaign that has been fought through books (and, to a slightly lesser extent, opposed through them). Books are therefore very frequently the major characters in this narrative. The covers of many of them would be far more recognisable than their authors." <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the books are significant, does not mean that the covers are, and certainly does not mean that the covers are required in this article. The point of contention is that these covers are simply not illustrating anything at all- why is their inclusion required? In what way would the article be less informative if they were removed? J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see, the Time cover shows that the debate has reached the masses. Seems pretty important to me on a psychological level. The other covers, have, of course, the same value.  They show the success of the Wedge strategy, no? <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; dissera! 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to show the Time cover to communicate that fact? It can just as easily be stated in (free) words. As for the other covers, can you explain how the covers of the books show the success of the the Wedge strategy? And, furthermore, how including them shows that success in a way that words could not? CIreland (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLP and note how it relies on US law. Under US law covers are treated differently from other images.
 * Secondly, people are by and large far more influence by images than by words. Of course, as pics are worth a thousand words, feel free to remove the image and write the thousand words. <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; dissera! 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy sees two different types of images- free, and non-free. There's no middle ground- even material not free for modification or commercial use, but still basically free, is considered non-free. The covers are non-free, and so must be treated the same as other non-free material. Your argument that covers are somehow more free than other images is not at all supported by policy. Also, maybe the picture does say a thousand words, maybe it doesn't. This image only says one. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing that really bothers me is that WP:NFC is a guideline, not a policy. To me, given that ""Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." is subjective, the fact that we are talking about a guideline, not policy, seems to raise the level of subjectivity. <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; dissera! 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NFC is a guideline. WP:NFCC, the ten non-free content criteria, have policy status and are transcluded from WP:NFCC onto the WP:NFC guideline page. Thus, there is adequate warrant for opponents of the cover images to argue the merits of any of these criteria on the basis of enforcing policy. AFAIK, thus far, objections based upon NFCC #1, NFCC#8 and NFCC#10 have been raised. The NFCC #10 objection turned out to be erroneous at the outset, leaving on the table a debate about NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. Other objections raised thus far have been based either upon the guideline part of WP:NFC (the entire page except for the NFCC), or upon other justifications that are not presented in the guideline portion of WP:NFC. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And folks think gov't bureaucracy is bad. Sheesh. <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; dissera! 17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Logic? Rationale?
A comprehensive rationale for keeping the images was made. To date, I don't think anyone has addressed any of the points in any substantial way. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid rationale, nor is "I can't be bothered to explain my position" or "I don't understand that topic". Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The arguments against using the images have been made repeatedly, since at least a couple years ago, and were stated again above. You can read them there. But, in the end, the strongest argument against using the images here is that there is no consensus for including them, and there has not been any for a while (see link). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the end, the strongest argument against removing the images here is that there is no consensus for deleting them, and there has not been any for a while.
 * This is the same logic used in any WP:AFD discussion for deleting articles: If there is no consensus to keep or delete, the article is kept by default. I don't see why we should ignore that long-established precedent with respect to these images. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Because we have a specific policy for non-free images, WP:NFCC, and images need to pass this bar before they can be used. The fact that so many people remain unconvinced after numerous attempts to justify the images can be taken as evidence that the argument in favor of inclusion is not particularly strong. The reason that the images have been in the article for a while is simply the edit warring of people who re-insert them into the article, sometimes with incivil edit summaries     that chase away editors who ask why this article does not comply with the NFCC policy.&mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The NFC images presently in use have indeed passed the "bar" w.r.t. NFCC #1 and NFCC #8, repeatedly. Plenty of substantive reasoning has been given in support of the proposition that the images have no free equivalent (NFCC#1) and significantly enhance readers' understanding of the topic (NFCC#8). No substantive reasoning that bears directly on the issue of these covers has been given in support of the proposition that the three images have a free equivalent and/or do not significantly enhance readers' understanding of the topic. Among editors who were actual participants in this article -- that is to say, those who have shown in edits and discussion that they possess an understanding of this topic -- the consensus for inclusion was virtually unanimous. Those who've argued against it are, thus far at least, regulars at WT:NFC, WP:MfD, WP:IfD, WP:FFD etc. I will admit it's an interesting tension that's presently occurring here and will be interested to see how this tension--actually more like a direct conflict-- is ultimately handled. But it's long and widely acknowledged at this point in the wiki's development that WP:NOTVOTE applies very strongly to the consensus process in WP. It appears to me these images have been included by strong, substantial consensus. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN?
I don't see how WP:V is relevant to the inclusion or non-inclusion of longstanding images. Please discuss this rationale for removal here, rather than attempt to do it via edit summaries. <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a general principle:The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. This is only a "general principle" in the context of WP:V.  You need to raise an objection relevant to that policy.  "The burden of evidence" is trivial here: the images are verifiable as authentic thumbnail reproductions of their respective subjects.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Silly rabbit -- the policy in fact states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." At most, and assuming that there is some dispute as to the verifiability of the material (which there clearly isn't, as the debate has purely been in context of NFC, which assumes that the material is the verifiable original), then the only requirement that WP:BURDEN would create is to place an inline citation to the book/magazine that the picture is a cover of. Invocation of WP:BURDEN in this case would therefore appear to be wholly specious. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that verification of the significance to the subject of the Pandas cover has been supplied, with text in the body of the article summarising the cited source. In general principle this is going over and beyond the requirements of image policy as I read it, but it gives added weight to the contribution this image makes to a reader's understanding. . dave souza, talk 13:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What is real objection to including these images?
What is the real objection to including these images? I'm new to this discussion and issue, but all I see here is a smoke screen.


 * Carl wrote: "the strongest argument against using the images here is that there is no consensus for including them". That's not a reason to not include them. I mean, "because consensus is for (against) X" is no answer to the question, "why are you for (against) X?", except maybe for a sheep.
 * Whether NFC#1 and NFC#8 are met here is, at best, a subjective judgment call, more likely influenced by something else. What is this something else?

What is the real objection to including these images? Can someone explain this, or point me to a clear explanation of it? Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the claim that they violate NFCC #8 is some kind of smokescreen. They clearly do, and must be removed. It's unfortunate that the habitual editors of this article fail to see that, and mount such a vigorous edit-war whenever anyone removes them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Kindly note that there are always two sides to "edit wars". ... Kenosis (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * However, if you look at WP:3RR, you will note that removing images that violate our image use policies is exempt: the removers can remove all day long, and the adders can only do it three times before they get blocked. I don't generally advise testing that policy out, but the deck is clearly stacked against the people adding the images.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The exemption is for content that "unquestionably violates the non-free content policy," not for content for which there is substantial question from established Wikipedians.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 03:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I don't advise testing it. The images being discussed do unquestionably violate the non-free content policy, and the question would be whether an admin would recognize that the people arguing for inclusion don't have a leg to stand on. He might, or might not, making it pretty dicey to rely on that exemption.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But "an admin" has already recognized "a leg to stand on." So your threat clearly betrays a lack of familiarity with the present debate.  Shall we make a straw poll of who happens to be an admin/bureaucrat/steward here?  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 03:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say kww is wholly incorrect. The images most certainly do not unquestionably violate the NFCC. Significant substantive arguments have been repeatedly rendered in support of the cover images' inclusion in this topic. No significant reasoning that bears directly on these cover images has been rendered in support of the images' removal. Arguments have been made entirely on other grounds such as that they're not needed, that they're obvious violations [of the subjective criterion #8], that "we" don't use cover images that way, that "we" don't use NFC files of stamps, logos, etc. in this manner, that they "violate our image use policies" [italics mine], etc. etc. These are not evidence or argument in support of a conclusion about NFCC policy such as is being asserted by the advocates of deletion of these images, but are mere conclusions without evidence or substantive argument. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I made no threat, and don't plan on starting. I simply observed that no valid arguments have been made supporting these images, and that they have to be removed. That remains a true statement. Despite Kenosis's statements to the contrary, no substantive arguments have been made supporting inclusion. They've ranged from WP:ILIKEIT to pieces of original research to essays deprecating WP:NFCC. Kenosis is unquestionably wrong, and the images unquestionably violate NFCC. Is there an admin or two or ten that would block people for edit-warring if they repetitively removed them? Certainly, which is why I don't advise removing the images repeatedly. Still, it would be nice if people would respect content policies and stop adding them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that no valid arguments have been made, but are unaware that admins have made (presumably) valid arguments. It seems unlikely that you have read the arguments, on this very talk page and elsewhere, that have been made one way or another.  Instead, as many others, you have made up your mind already, and the material "unquestionably violate[s] WP:NFCC" regardless of what anyone says.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 04:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kww, even if it were true that no valid arguments have been made supporting these images, so what?  Wikipedia is replete with non-free images for which no valid argument have been made supporting them.  Are you trying to get all of them removed?  I'm assuming no, of course no.  You're obsessed with these images.  Why?  Why these images and not the myriad of others that arguably violate NFCC and for which no valid arguments have been supporting them?  What is your true objection here?  --06:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent choice of illustrations for an article. The intelligent design movement has attempted to wrap their arguments up as literature for the consumption of the masses and these two particular books are iconic representatives of these attempts, for their authors, their titles, their intended purposes, and the publicity surrounding the books. I'm impressed by how appropriate they are to the article, which is not usually the case for controversial subjects on Wikipedia, particularly in an article monitored by what I refer to as the pseudo-science hit squad, which seldom ever gets it so right. Very well done.

In my opinion you should fight tooth and nail for keeping these puppies in the article. --KP Botany (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that the time magazine cover and the Of Pandas And People should be used. I disagree as to the use of Darwin's Black Box. I find the William Dembski one irrelevant. but that is just me.--LexCorp (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ican live with that, But ditching the other two is like tossing one's two front tyres on the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)

Kww, you wrote, "I don't think the claim that they violate NFCC #8 is some kind of smokescreen. They clearly do, and must be removed". Can you point to any other example where anyone here who feels so strongly about NFCC #8 being violated in this case also feels it is violated in some other case? That's what I mean by this argument being a smokescreen for what the real objection is. If it were a legitimate objection, if that's what the objection was really about, then the same folks would be raising the same objection against similarly questionable images all over WP. Now, I see say this without doing any research at all. I'm only surmising. But if I'm wrong, you or someone else who agrees with you should be able to quickly find several examples of images being contested so vociferously per NFCC #8 by these same people. But, assuming I'm not wrong about that, my question stands. So, what is the real objection? Keep in mind that I'm not saying anyone is intentionally being deceitful here. Everyone may have convinced themselves that what this really is about is a NFCC #8 violation. But pardon me for having a hard time believing that such a violation could be so important to anyone. So, absent some kind of evidence that this is a normal type of objection for the folks raising that objection here, I'm sorry, but there is no way I can buy that. So, what is the real objection? --Born2cycle (talk)


 * Images = evil. I guess. <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; dissera! 06:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I remove a lot of images because of NFCC violations. I typically edit music/pop culture articles where the violations are rampant. Usually, we don't have the problem of editors disruptively restoring the images, so it doesn't explode into this kind of controversy. I take them out, they stay out. If they get restored, I have a chat with the editor, they are reasonable, and they stay out the second time. If it happens a third time, it is usually a trivial matter to get the editor blocked until he agrees to stop. There are only occasional issues where a clump of editors group together and decide that they can willfully violate NFCC if they simply scream and shout long enough. The editors that have chosen to do so on this article are otherwise responsible and good editors, which makes it difficult to get a consensus to deal them the editing blocks that their behaviour has earned.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. This is what NFCC #8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."  "Significantly increase readers' understanding"? Can any image do that? By what standard does one decide? "Its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? Detrimental? What constitutes "detrimental"? This is not a cut and dried definition. Almost any non-free content could be challenged by this, if one really wanted to do that for some ulterior motive. So in this case, absent any other stated serious objection, this sure seems like wiki-lawyering to me. A smokescreen, perhaps unintentionally, covering up the true objection to including these particular images in this particular article. Come on folks, dig down deep into your hearts. Tell us the real reason you object, because this NFCC #8 argument cannot be taken seriously. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My objection is that we consistently try to use music album covers in a certain way. They go on the article on the album for identification purposes of that album, and due to minimal use and FUC#8, they do not appear in galleries, or on artist pages or on discography pages, except in a few cases where the actual visual appearance of the album is discussed in the article content and tied to notable coverage in sources (i.e. the Load album cover in the Metallica article in the part discussing how they changed their image, cut their hair, and how the visual look of the album cover was associated with that change). So it is really weird for someone familiar with how cover images are GENERALLY USED EVERYWHERE ELSE on wikipedia to see them used here for decoration, something which is forbidden basically everywhere else, and there has been very little justification that would fly on those music articles. Since you asked... IMO, we need sources that say that the way the way these covers look is important to the general topic of intelligent design. Someone above last week tried to discuss this topic, except a) none of it was found in the article and b) none of it was tied to notable sources (it was all original research). I'd be entirely fine with non-free cover images used, if the visual identity was discussed in the article in a non-trivial manner, and tied to notable, reliable sources. It's what we do elsewhere, and while it seems to be the case, I don't like the idea of different consensuses being reached on different articles.-Andrew c [talk] 06:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * --RE "we consistently try to use music album covers in a certain way" : I don't know who "we" is here. Perhaps it might be helpful to the discussion to explain who "we" are in this context. --RE: "They go on the article on the album for identification purposes of that album, and due to minimal use and FUC#8, they do not appear in galleries, or on artist pages or on discography pages, except in a few cases . . .  : This is a guideline. Please go read what a guideline is in WP:Policies and guidelines, which is a policy. That policy defines guidelines, essentially, as being inherently flexible. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew c: please cite the policy that states that editorial composition decisions (e.g. whether and where to place quotes and images ) require sources as to how "important to the general topic" they are (not the verifiability of the material itself)? More loosely, please cite examples to demonstrate that such a requirement even has any sort of de facto precedent. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, let me see if I understand what you're saying here. Your idea of a good fair-use rationale is File:Metallica - Load.jpg?

Straight off, it fails #10c. It is used in two articles, Load (album) and Metallica, but only a single rationale is supplied. So let's look at the rationale:


 * The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. In other words "it lets people know what album we're talking about".  OK.  Similar to, but weaker than, the rationale provided here.
 * It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. If you say so.  Too vague to be meaningful.
 * The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work,. Dear god, that's a rationale?  There's a space for it in the infobox?  I think that's the definition of "prettify the article".
 * and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Err, yeah.  We got that already.  First sentence.
 * Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the artist's providing graphic design services to music concerns and in turn marketing music to the public. True but trivial.  That applies here too.

In other words, the example you chose to highlight (a) fails NFCC 10c outright, and (b) has a much weaker rationale than we have here. "Makes a significant contribution"? That's purely subjective.

Secondly, you say the Load album cover in the Metallica article in the part discussing how they changed their image, cut their hair, and how the visual look of the album cover was associated with that change. Yep, that's true. End of the first paragraph here. Interestingly, the article only says that "The release marked a change in musical direction for the band and a new look with band members receiving haircuts." The release of the album. Not "the cover art symbolises". No. "The release of the album marked". Nothing about how the visual image of the album is in any way related to that change. Nothing. Nothing about that in any of the four supporting reference citations in that paragraph either. (Nor do any of them support the sentence I quoted either, but that's a totally different issue, albeit a major one in an FA).


 * IMO, we need sources that say that the way the way these covers look is important to the general topic of intelligent design. So explain this to me - why do you believe that we need sources here, but you don't require anything of the sort in the example you choose to cite?  Guettarda (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Because my memory was fussy, and it was too early in the morning for me to check my example with my recollection of it? Forgive me for failing miserably in my analogy.... (apparently the original image File:Load Metallicaalbum.jpg has been deleted and the original FUR was never transferred...) -Andrew c [talk] 13:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You miss my point. My point is that the fair-use rationale here is as good as most - above average, from what I've seen.  So why hold this article to an unusually high standard?  Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was trying to find an example where a non-free cover image was used appropriately (yeah, subjective term) in an article not dealing exclusively with the object. I don't mind too much if I failed at that. Maybe there isn't any valid example, and this article is the lone wolf. I was not trying to have a double standard, or hold this article up to an unusually high standard, so forgive me for appearing as such. -Andrew c [talk] 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Duly forgiven. .... Kenosis (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, your objection does not make sense. Even if there are no examples of non-free cover images used appropriately, that means all of them are inappropriate. Yet this is the one article in which they have been challenged so vociferously. Why? What's the real reason these images in this article have been so challenged? What's the real objection? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your constant insistence that people are hiding something is offensive. There are tens of thousands of examples of bad image use. I've taken care of hundreds personally, as have many other editors. I spend some time at it every week, and don't do it full time. These things take a lot of time: when I went to remove a bad record chart from Wikipedia once, it took me 7 weeks and over 4000 edits to remove the charts. Nine out of ten went cleanly, and one out of ten provoked howling and crying, and resulted in articles being protected and editors blocked. This is a similar situation. If the editors of this article showed respect for NFCC, this would have been over in the blink of an eye: the images would have been deleted, life would have gone on. Instead, they scream, they yell, they edit war, they hurl accusations at editors that are attempting to enforce NFCC, and wind up getting the article in full protection twice because of their tantrum. People can't move on because as soon as the article gets cleaned up, it gets messed up again. The article is becoming a war zone because people are attempting to evade guidelines and policies. Plain and simple.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Kww. It's just hard to believe that anyone could get so fired up about NFCC #8, but if NFCC violations is genuinely in one's area of interest, that explains it.  But even if the alleged NFCC #8 violation is the true objection, it has been explain repeatedly, including just below here, how that is a very weak objection, at best.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What aspect of intelligent design is it that a reader might have difficulty grasping, that, having viewed the book cover, they would then find easier to grasp? --John (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That query has already been answered. Read the previous comments.  Would drawing a picture help?  ;) <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; dissera! 23:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The question kww poses is not the policy w.r.t. NFCC#8, but rather is made up by kww. The policy, NFCC#8, states: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This has been asked and answered, addressed at great length, repeatedly. Of course there's no way to prove it definitively, but the substantive answers already given are not properly negated by "no they don't" or "that's not enough". ... Kenosis (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's that kind of answer that makes it so hard to take you seriously. How can the images significantly increase a readers understanding of intelligent design if there's no aspect of intelligent design that they help the reader understand? Your answers have been far from substantive ... they've answered nearly everything but the question asked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer this, I would just repeat what I wrote to Black Kite below, so please consider that an answer to your question as well. If you're not satisifed, please let me know.  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Aunt Entropy's short post below also addresses your question. Again, please let us know if you still think this remains an unanswered question. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your answer is that viewing a book cover helps the reader understand that ID is a popular movement that is well advertised? That it would be difficult for the reader to understand that without these particular two images? Can you provide some reasoning in support of that position? It really strains credibility that you think that people couldn't grasp that ID is a well advertised, popular movement without showing that "Of Pandas and People" has a picture of a panda on it, or that saying The cover of "Of Pandas and People" has a photograph of a panda on it wouldn't have precisely the same affect, whatever that effect may be.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my answer is that the image of the book cover helps the reader understand that ID is a movement that is driven by slick marketing (a re-branding of creationism) and that removing that image would be detrimental to some readers' understanding of that. Some reasoning in support of that position comes from this post, for example.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd love a pointer to the answer to that question: I've followed the debate quite closely, and have never seen it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no-one has yet explained what aspect of the subject of Intelligent Design would be significantly easier for a casual reader to understand if a book cover was included, especially when the contents of the book are already discussed in the article. All the covers do is show the reader what the book looks like, which is irrelevant (not to mention covered in the separate articles about the books). <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, so what? This article is not about the "subject" of ID - there is no "subject" of ID as there is for biology, math, etc.  This article is about the topic of ID, which explains not only the concept, but the movement and history.  And the images in question do help convey what that is about, and this has been explained before, because I did not think of this point.  I read it above.  Showing what the book looks like is very relevant.  It shows to what absurd lengths the proponents of ID were willing to go to appear to be legitimate science.  That's not only relevant, it's fundamental to understanding the topic of ID and why it has had the impact that it has.  It helps illustrate why ID is even notable, because on its face, the farcical "subject" of ID itself is  not even sufficiently notable to warrant an article in any encyclopedia.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe these images do inhance the understanding of the reader. ID is a slick political propagandic campaign, and imagery is very important to it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that would be a matter for the articles about the books themselves, in which the images are present and correct. Those articles are linked in this one. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Don't you agree that images that help explain why a given topic is even notable belong on the article about that topic? Further, I don't see how relegating such an image to an article that receives less than 5% of the traffic that this one gets would be an improvement.  Do you?
 * Of Pandas and People has been viewed 3231 times in 200901. 1
 * Intelligent design has been viewed 66476 times in 200901. 2
 * Of course, if one's intent is to obscure that critical aspect of ID, deleting these images from this article would be understandable. But that's of course a violation of WP:NPOV.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously attempting to claim that a dispute over use of non-free images is something to do with people's actual views on the subject of the article?? If you believe that, then there really isn't any point continuing to explain the issue. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you really just only respond to the last paragraph of my post, which was surmising about what some motivation might be for some people, and conveniently ignore the earlier, main point, of my post? How about answering the questions I asked you, instead of dodging them?
 * Yes, I do believe that this dispute over these images might have something to do with people's actual views on the subject, and your over-reaction to my mere speculation about that possibility, conveniently used to avoid answering my pointed questions, only makes it seem more likely. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party (I haven't edited this article and don't care to start now), I think I can at least answer the question of what aspect of my understanding of this article these images enhance. When I first come to this article, I see three such images: a book cover of "Of Pandas And People" next to a section heading "Origins of the term", a book cover of "Darwin's Black Box" next to a section heading "Irreducable complexity", and a cover of Time Magazine from 2005 in a section "Creating and teaching the controversy". I immediately and very visually get a grasp of three important bullets in the history of the subject: where the name came from, where one of its important subtoics was introduced, and its later introduction into the mainstream of American media discourse. The same information is buried in the text, of course, but much less accessibly, among hundreds or thousands of words that I'm unlikely to read in detail until I'm convinced (and I'm not convinced) that this is a subject worthy of my attention. Thus, in this case, the pictures significantly enhanced my understanding in a way that the words would not have. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As a previously-uninvolved admin, I will be happy to take action to prevent people restoring book cover art in violation of WP:NFCC. I like the suggestion of using some decent free images to illustrate the article though. But non-free book covers are not the way to go here. --John (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Was this responsive to anything in my comment or was it unrelated and merely placed below mine by some coincidence? Because my comment had nothing to do with restoring content, violating NFCC, suggesting replacement images, or my own admin status. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a response to this comment in the parallel discussion on the same topic at AN/I. Sorry, I should have made that more clear. --John (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear you do not have an understanding of the topic. If you did, you would immediately know that the flagellum example given by kww is not a free-licensed replacement for the iconography used on the book cover. As I mentioned in response to kww, it was a good catch that could very well be of use in addition to the cover image of Behe's book. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Panda book cover seems extremely relevant and communicative in an article on the (mis)use of propaganda in the teaching of science in the USA. Less relevant possibly is Kww's experience with images in articles on pop music and culture. John's warning messages seem to have driven away at least one experienced and valued science editor from WP . Might it not be a good idea for administrators to review content a little more carefully before templating regulars? Mathsci (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving Wikipedia because the rules about the use of copyrighted images are more stringent than one likes is the cyber-equivalent of throwing a tantrum. No one is trying to insert pro-id text, or make it sound like they are anything less than fools and frauds. We remain exactly where we were at the beginning ... people are making persuasive and sound arguments that images improve the article, and that images improve the article in general, but have failed at making credible specific arguments in favor of these specific uses of these specific images.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and while it's doubtless a sincere view, it's subjective. We've had too many tantrums here from people who think edit warring is ok because they don't see the informational value of images, even though that would be obvious to an educator. So, please assume good faith in those who've done their best to comply with the policies as stated, and hold a reasonable interpretation of how these images meet the requirements. A willingness to be patient and work with editors to achieve desirable high standards will be a lot more persuasive than "Idontlikeit" or assertions that people have "failed" because you hold a different view in a content dispute over the validity of rationales. . . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * However "relevant" some may think the copyrighted image is to the article, it's our policy to prefer free images over nonfree ones. File:Flagellum base diagram.svg is free, and is also a featured image. Kenosis, are you saying it is not free? It is. I've experienced frustration myself over "fair use" images being replaced by free ones; an example is on The Clash where a nonfree image I uploaded was replaced a good while back by a free image, when I thought the nonfree one was of far superior quality. However, as a project which aspires to produce freely reproducible content, this is how we work here. This is an essay which helped me to understand this. Perhaps those on the inclusion side of this argument would find it interesting to read. Finally, it is everybody's right to leave the project, temporarily or permanently, if they do not like the rules here. But the free nature of our project is more important than any one editor's amour-propre. --John (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're seriously equating a disagreement in an article about a rock band image with the present one? Please. .....As to the Behe image, I've no serious complaints about it, as the loss of the important iconography on the book cover is not a major diminution of the article's content--significant, but not major. As for me, I'm still looking for a free-licensed image of Phillip E. Johnson to replace the Darwin on Trial cover and awaiting word from a couple organizations that were involved in the ID brouhaha whether they can find one to freely license. I trust that should end the discussion, since the Pandas and Time covers obviously cannot be replaced in this fashion, or any other. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (&larr;) I disagree. The use of the Time cover can very easily be replaced by text, such as "Intelligent design was the subject of a cover story in Time magazine". There is nothing additional conveyed by the Time cover, which is truly generic even by the standards of Time magazine. There is no need to include the cover simply because it is somehow related to the topic at hand (otherwise every Time magazine cover could be used with a similar rationale).


 * Similarly, the Pandas cover conveys no information to the reader about the topic of intelligent design that cannot be replaced by text or a free image,. This is reinforced by the fact that the Pandas cover is displayed on the article about the book itself, which is linked from this article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Everybody who's followed this discussion knows CBM disagrees. These are not, however, substantive arguments, but rather are essentially saying "no we don't need the images". Fact is, they cannot be replaced by text and have equivalent information value to readers. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that repeating something will eventually make it true. It doesn't. Further, the fact CBM has already been involved in this discussion doesn't make his view any less significant- that's a strange argument. Focus on what is said, not who says it. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do not give a whoot what you think I seem to be. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * RE "Focus on what is said, not who says it" : What CBM said was: "I disagree", followed not by a substantive argument but rather by a restatement of Carl's (CBM's) own conclusion. There is one exception in his statement above, and I apologize for not noticing it the first time: Carl argued, for the first time AFAIK, that the Time cover is generic. That's a new argument, except that it's wrong. The Time cover is most certainly not generic but rather is quite specific and unique w.r.t. the topic of intelligent design, with highly original, iconographic imagery conveying and pictorially summarizing popular conception of this recent aspect of culture war in the United States. It's generic in only the extremely limited sense that it has the Time cover logo on it and in the sense that Time is famous for repeatedly capturing the public dimension of controversies in many of its cover imgaes--that is, summarizing an otherwise complex controversy in the form of an image on its cover. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Time cover
I have raised this point before. There are some Time covers that are well-known and historic, but this isn't one of them. Just because a Time cover is professionally made and graphically interesting does not warrant us using it. Indeed, every Time cover will have the properties that: Therefore neither of these points can be a particularly strong justification for using this Time cover, since every Time cover has these properties. What would need to be true is that the cover is particularly important as a work on its own, apart from Time being well known and apart from the story the cover describes. That is, we should ask whether any reliable source has commented on the cover qua artistic work, apart from comments about the Time story itself.
 * It is professionally made, visually interesting, and of high artistic quality. Time hires only skilled graphic designers, so we can expect nothing less.
 * It uses images relevant to the topic of the article that it describes. Typically this imagery will be (both topical and) somewhat generic, so that the broadest possible audience recognizes it, because this encourage broader sales of the magazine.

The main use of the Time cover in this article is simply to reinforce the fact, which can be stated very plainly through text alone, that the topic of ID was a cover story of Time. The only "critical commentary" about the cover that actually appears in the article is a restatement of the text from the cover. It is hard to find a more firm case where a piece of information can be replaced by text than when that piece of information is textual in the first place. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Carl, in your statement just above, you've neglected to mention the image on the cover. Of course the text on the Time cover can be conveyed in the text of the article, and it is. But one can't properly convey the impact of the image with text. (Similarly in Of Pandas and People too, saying "There's a Panda on the cover" doesn't replace the image with text.) Also of great importance here is that your other assertions have nothing to do with WP policy. The policy doesn't say anything about requiring critical commentary in order to allow the use of this particular NFC, but rather this is shunted off into the guideline part of WP:NFC. As a guideline (see WP:Policies and guidelines), it's a general practice expected to be subject to exceptions, and therefore is not a valid reason for forcible removal of the file from an article against the will of the local consensus at the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

comment: to me that particular Time cover is the single most important and historic. More so than the 9/11 one. Which may indicate that "well-known and historic" are subjective adjectives.--LexCorp (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point to any reliable source who has discussed this cover? That would be a reasonable way to test whether other people found the cover art important or historic. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. My point is that historic events are also subjective. And if your argument to allow/disallow some covers is one of historic relevance then it is a subjective argument. To clarify I neither support the use or not use of the covers. I have expressed opinions on the preference of the use of the pandas one and time magazine. But this is an opinion on the covers, no the policy to use them. If Wikipedia policy finds them inappropriate then I would support their removal. As things stand now the policy seems (not to me I hold no opinion on the policy) broad enough that both sides feel supported by it.--LexCorp (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article says nothing at all about the image of the cover (apart from quoting its text), and I have seen no sourced commentary that that image was particularly interesting, important, or historic qua a Time cover. What is the exact goal in displaying the cover? It appears to be this: "because we mention the Time article, and we feel the cover is important, we can include the cover image."


 * But this does not rise to the level of significance that we typically require for nonfree images. By way of context: we have a very well established practice that we do not include album cover art in every article which mentions an album, nor an image of a painting in every article that mentions the painting, nor cover art from a novel in every article which mentions the novel. What makes this particular image special enough to warrant inclusion, given that general practice? What reason is there to include this image that would not also justify including every Time cover image?


 * The case is even weaker here because the article is not about the Time article, it is about "intelligent design". Therefore, to pass NFCC muster, the non-free image of the cover needs to convey some piece of information about intelligent design that cannot be conveyed by text alone. What is this piece of information? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Under the WP:NFCC policy there's no requirement for discussion of the image in the article; rather, that's in WP:NFC, and this is an exception as we'd occasionally expect to happen in keeping with what a guideline is defined as in the policy WP:Policies and guidelines. W.r.t. your last paragraph, the piece(s) of information conveyed by the image which cannot be conveyed by text is/are the image itself ! ... Kenosis (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but that's no justification to include the image. Further, it's not tenable to claim that the norms of non-free usage that are used widely on other articles simply don't apply here because they are described WP:NFC instead of WP:NFCC.


 * However, to stick to NFCC, we have "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic,...". The topic of this article is intelligent design. How does the presence of the Time cover image significantly increase the reader's understanding of ID? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotta go for now. But for the moment, here's a fast summary of the proceedings thus far, along with a personal conclusion: The NFC policy says "meet these 10 requirements", and the editors of intelligent design did just that. A group of zealots comes along and says "not good enough".  Ignoring policy by fiat, and supporting that through edit warring and threats is a problem, a serious, long-term threat to the integrity of any content on the project. That's my honest take on it. Talk more later on.  ... Kenosis (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur; you did not answer the question that I asked. (In the course of doing so, you also managed to call some other group of editors "zealots".) Let's move back to the question at hand, which is how the Time cover image relates to the reader's understanding of the topic of intelligent design. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Carl, the answers to this question have been given before multiple times on this page and other pages. But I've been called to "real-life work" that requires my almost undivided attention for now. I need to attend to that first. After that, I'll get back to collecting the numerous diffs spread out among many threads giving reasoned substantive support to why readers' understanding is significantly enhanced by the image(s) under discussion here, then time to organize those diffs to present for the scrutiny of all concerned users. So it'll probably be a few more days, maybe later in the week. My apology about the delay. I'll try to post post them in some reasonably organized fashion as soon as I'm able-- most likely late this week or weekend. In the interim I'll try to check in briefly here and there as my schedule permits. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Holland
As the article is completely protected, I cannot make the following minor change myself: in the section "Status outside the United States", the last paragraph of the subsec tion on "Europe", makes reference to the situation in "Holland". Although the use of "Holland" as a name for the entire country is quite usual all over the world, "Holland" only refers to 2 out of the 12 provinces of the country that is properly named The Netherlands. I'd appreciate if someone could correct this. --Crusio (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can it wait until the article is unprotected? If so, I'll be pleased to make this change on your behalf promptly upon unprotection. Or do you think it should be done right away? If the latter, any admin can implement the change from "Holland" to "the Netherlands". Any admins around here care to do the honors? Andrew c? Guettarda? ... Kenosis (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothin hyper-urgent, but as the protection, as far as I can see, is "indefinite", I thought I'd bring it up here. Would be a minor edit in any case. --Crusio (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Change implemented.-Andrew c [talk] 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Pidgeon holing ID to a few American conservatives
This articles leaves the impression that the Discovery group, made up of a few Christian fundamentalists in the US, cooked up ID to serve their ulterior creationist motives.

Intelligent Design is an ancient concept and is the simple theory that a guiding hand is needed to explain the extraordinary unlikely survival of humans (or intelligent life in general) in our universe. This is widely subscribed to by scientists and thinkers from all over the world. The term itself has been used for more than a century as the article acknowledges, so why focus the entire article on the Discovery group? It seems like this leaves ID in a particularly negative light. Coincidence, or intelligently designed that way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypergiant (talk • contribs)


 * Hypergiant: any such movement will have its (looser or closer) intellectual antecedents. Where there is little continuity, it is not unreasonable to view it as, if not "cooked up", then certainly something that was 'reheated from stone cold'. Prior to Edwards, the usage was sporadic, it was after this case that the term entered widespread usage. This greatly increased usage has one common thread -- the Discovery Institute. The term's notability is almost solely on this modern usage, as is the vast majority of reliable sources. Therefore, per WP:DUE, the article concentrates mostly on this. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafri: Perhaps the term was coined in recent times by the Discovery group. However, that doesn't mean that the meaning of the term is new or limited to them, or even that it is popular only because of them. I, and probably many other non-Christians, use the term to describe our views without any association with the Discovery gruop.

An article shouldn't necessarily focus on the origin of the term. For example, the article on "corn", "big bang", "quantum mechanics", or almost anything else don't focus so much on the origin of the term, but its meaning. By the authors limiting the broad concept of ID to a small group with a particular agenda, it alienates people like me who appreciate the ubiquitious design in the universe but are not part of that group or even Christian.

<font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is on the term of art 'intelligent design', not every random juxtaposition of the adjective+noun.
 * 2) In this context, it is simply a rebranding of creationism, with 'intelligent designer' substituted for "God".
 * 3) It is not wikipedia's place to correct perceived injustices as far as appropriation by some group of a term ("Creationism" was itself appropriated, in the mid 20th century, by those formerly calling themselves "Anti-Evolutionists"). It merely documents each subject -- in proportion to its coverage in WP:RSs -- coverage which has been nearly ubiquitously about Neo-creationism, when used as a term of art.


 * What Hypergiant seems to be referring to is more encapsulated by Teleological argument. Perhaps he and his associates should more properly call themselves proponents of a teleological argument for God, because when most people think of ID, it is what this page covers, which is promoted by the Discovery Institute (and is of course a subset of the teleological argument.) Wikipedia must take into account the most popular definition of a term and I think this article does that superbly. Nowimnthing (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Hypergiant makes a very cognizant point, which essentially goes to the fundamental POV of this entire article. When you are writing an article on ID and the entire context of the articles is established up from from such sources as citations 4, 5, 6 and 21 then you obviously have an agenda. Considering ID is a relgious idea or an attempt to join religion and science, to utilize a humanist advocate to set the tone of the article is not exactly kosher in my mind. This article reads like anti-ID propaganda. There is an article on ID Movement, maybe discussion of conservative agenda would be appropriate there but here it is irrelevant diatribe as far as I am concerned. Discuss the theorey. Leave the politics at home.


 * There is no "theory" (as some ID advocates have admitted), just a few (generally retreaded creationist) anti-evolution arguments given a sciencey new gloss. The sciencey 'crust' of ID is very thin & very fragile -- and frequently lets the social conservativism/old-style creationism underneath show (e.g. as happened at Dover). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pandas cover
The Of Pandas and People cover was restored again, with edit summary "significance of image to topic of article fully referenced in caption and text, image increases reader's understanding of presentation of book". Nobody is arguing that the book is not significant to ID, but the book has its own article. The topic of this article is intelligent design, not the book itself. So while "image increases reader's understanding of presentation of book" is true, it is not relevant to WP:NFCC, which asks here whether the image increases the reader's understanding of intelligent design, and WP:NFCC, which asks whether this understanding can be conveyed by words. What specific information about intelligent design is conveyed by the book cover image, that could not be conveyed either by text or by linking to the article on the book itself, which already has a picture of the image?

As I pointed out above, we have a general practice of not using album covers on every page that mentions an album, not using novel covers on every page that mentions a novel, etc. We use the image on the article about the album or novel itself, for identification, but we don't use them otherwise. Why should this article be an exception to that well established practice? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't just mentioning the cover, it's making specific statements about the significance of the cover for ID as a political presentation of the view, and the cover increases a reader's understanding of that use of the book. You're going beyond WP:NFCC, in my opinion. dave souza, talk 13:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only thing that the article text says about the cover is that it was glossy.  But you also did not answer the question I posed: What specific information about intelligent design is conveyed by the book cover image, that could not be conveyed either by text or by linking to the article on the book itself, which already has a picture of the image? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree, by the way, that if the article were to discuss the presentational aspects of the cover and their relationship to ID propaganda then the use of the cover image would meet NFCC. But the present article text does not consider this issue, and NFCC is very concerned with the relationship between non-free images and the article text. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotta rush off now, but the article still includes "The book was packaged to look like a high quality science textbook, with a glossy cover, full-color illustrations, and chapter titles such as "Homology" and "Genetics and Macroevolution," with numerous professionally prepared charts and illustrations to give the impression that concrete scientific evidence supports the existence of the unnamed "designer", but from the view of eminent scientists such as Michael Ruse the contents were worthless and dishonest, described by an ACLU lawyer as a political tool aimed at students who did not "know science or understand the controversy over evolution and creationism."[67]" The cited reference was deleted by the editor in removing the image, see edit history if you want to look at the reference. . dave souza, talk 14:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that description, but it is not talking about the cover, it is talking about the book. I realize that you are arguing that any mention of the book warrants including the cover image, but since we can link to the article about the book itself to get the cover image, the standard is somewhat higher here. The only thing that has been said about the cover is that it is "glossy". Ask whether similar text about a music album would warrant including the cover art for the album. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not just "any mention of the book" it is a section on "the origins of the concept" -- whose first appearance is in that book. The image is relevant and eyecatching, so "would significantly increase readers' understanding" of the origins of the concept, and thus the topic. I have therefore re-added it. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Relevant" and "eye-catching" are not criteria that NFCC appears to recognize; such criteria are soundly rejected in practice for album and novel covers. NFCC asks whether there is some significant aspect of the topic that the image helps the reader to understand. The fact that a book was part of the origin of a field is not only something that can be conveyed by text, it is something that can only be conveyed by text. An image alone does not tell the reader that the book is part of the origin of a field. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Knowing what the cover of the book the term originated in looks like tells us nothing. The character of Hagrid first appeared in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but that doesn't mean we need to use the cover on the article about the character. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Behe picture
Even were Michael Behe a well known face, you'd have difficulty recognising him from the picture recently inserted into the article. Due to the angle & composition, it could be just about anybody with a roundish face, greying beard, receding hairline and glasses. The fact of the matter is that, apart from DBB & his KvD pratfalls (which unfortunately seems to have generated no memorable, let alone FC memorable, images of him), Behe could disappear from the ID debate and most probably nobody would notice. I really don't see what a picture of him lecturing semi-anonymously in the distance does for the article.

Contrast this with Dembski, whose face is relatively well known, is clearly recognisable in the photo, and has a wide-ranging (if not necessarily positive) impact on the debate through UD and shear strength of personality, an effect that far outweighs that of any one of his books (all of which tend to be, generally mutually-incompatible, re-conceptualisations of his Design Filter).<font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regulars at this article believe images help the readers to navigate the article, and find the information they want. If you have a suggestion for a better image, fell free to replace it. --Damiens .rf 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This misrepresents what participants in this article believe. Anyway, I've been called to more pressing concerns for a few days, and will get back to this when I'm able. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a bizarre thought -- how about the cover of the book that he's best known for, a cover whose artwork echoes the famous question and answer from the one of the first public airings of the issue of Darwinian evolution -- a motif that continued through Scopes & Dover. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle -- what a great idea. :) But seriously, replacing the DBB cover with this picture-that-we-only-know-isBehe-because-the-caption-tells-us-so is "detrimental to [the] understanding" of the article. I am therefore replacing it. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but we can't use non-free images to help the readers to navigate the article. --Damiens .rf 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't the prime justification for use of the images, though it should be considered as a benefit to average readers who aren't at a postgraduate level of reading skill. .. Pls see my comment above. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Damiens.rf: the image you substituted is "as useless as tits on a bull". It adds nothing whatsoever. It is both unrecognisable, and inconspicuous. It might as well be replaced by File:Replace this image male.svg for all the value it adds. A large number of arguments have been made for the DBB cover, and it clearly adds significantly more to the article than your unremarkable alternative. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you beleve Behe's mugshot is useless, go on and remove it. Just don't replace it by a non-free image, when the text can obviously be perfectly understood without the aid of imagery. --Damiens .rf 16:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Damiens.rf: you are entitled to your personal opinion that "the text can obviously be perfectly understood without the aid of imagery". This conclusion is however not obvious to a whole host of educators, book publishers, etc, etc, who are under the strange impression that relevant and eye-catching illustration significantly aids in comprehension (a general conclusion for which much of the above pro-image argumentation adds specific detail). If you would like to table a WP:RS study (we all know how much youlove editorial opinions to be backed by RSs) that states that their views are just old wives' tales, then we'd happily look at them. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, again, but the burden of proof is not mine. Please point us to reliable sources discussing the mischievous use of imagery by ID proponents. --Damiens .rf 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I was the one who initially added the Behe picture. I don't think it adds much to the article, but, as everyone keeps saying, it's nice to decorate an image with related images. The book cover doesn't add much to the article either, but it's not acceptable to decorate an article with a non-free image. There are no convincing arguments of why the book cover adds to the article- all assertions of its significance are entirely original research. If the appearance of the book is truly significant to the topic at hand, why is it not discussed in this featured article, which claims to be complete in its coverage? Surely, it can hardly be significant in a summary article such as this if it does not warrant a mention. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NFCC does not require the image to be significant, merely that the effect on understanding is. All editorial decision-making is "original research" -- so are all your arguments against inclusion. Any claim that "all assertions of its significance are entirely original research" is a complete and utter red herring. DO NOT USE THIS CLAIM AGAIN! <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there is minimal effect on understanding. The original research issue is not a "red herring"- claims have been made about the design and intentions of the cover- however, unless there are sources for that (and such discussion is worthy of inclusion in the article) it counts for nothing. Take, for instance, the comments here. What is said is all well and good, but, without sources, most of it has no bearing on whether the images should be included. Including the image because of what is said there would constitute original research. Making a decision about whether an image meets our inclusion criteria does not constitute original research. J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you determine the difference between "significant" and "minimal" understanding? Guettarda (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Massive reverts by Odd nature
User Odd nature for two times reverted a lot of recent edits, both related and unrelated to adding/removing images, and used as rationale the fact that the "changes are new" and he "been editing this article for over a year". This is ownwership of article and can't be tolerated. WP:CONSENSUS is not about freezing some preferred version. --Damiens .rf 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor seems to be purposely trying to force me into a 3rr violation: . --Damiens .rf 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, your tagging was a bit over the top: the statements paraphrase the source used as the source for the paragraph. I've restored the newer description, minus all the tags.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the semi-restoration. About the tags, the article is misusing the source. Just because the reliable source Rethinking Schools published Leon Lynn's opinion that "About Pandas..." was dishonestly intended to look like a science textbook, it doesn't follows that we can take it as a fact. It's just an opnion. A respectable opinion that I happen to agree with, as a matter of fact. But it's an opinion, and shouldn't be stated on the article as a fact.
 * The text should be changed to make it clear that that is someone's critic. --Damiens .rf 20:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection to the idea it should be phrased as "Rethinking Schools has described the cover as ...". Would be better if a few independent statements to the same effect have been found, or, better yet, a statement from someone associated with the cover design that indicated that he wanted it to resemble a textbook. Once that admission has been made, most of the rest can be presented unqualified.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need for the additional text in the caption. Just show readers the cover and let them draw their own conclusions, per WP:NPOV, whether it's "slick" or intended in good faith-- either way it looks like a high-school biology textbook but according to the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision it isn't a high-school textbook but rather a religious creationist treatise. Also, beyond the slick presentations, it actually was the intention of the authors for it to be a high-school biology textbook, not just to resemble one. .....Damiens, I responded to your last comment at the ANI thread that I'll try to summarize some of the existing relevant sources in the article that speak directly to the issue as well as try to find a couple more that speak to the strategy of packaging used by the intelligent design movement. It'll need to be later this week or over the weekend. I now notice that you've already come across one of the many references describing this dichotomy of slick packaging as purportedly credible science education but with highly unscientific content. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference I came across just says the book cover was "glossy". This is mentioned in the article, but I wouldn't need to see the book cover to understand that. Still waiting for your sources. Thanks, --Damiens .rf 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

FAR?
As this article still carries the little star indicating it is a featured article, but no longer fulfills at least two of the criteria (not stable and inappropriate image use), I wonder if we should consider reviewing its status? I am willing to initiate this myself but thought I would seek input of other editors first here. --John (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * John:
 * You are yourself participating in the edit-war that you are arguing is 'destablising' this article.
 * That the image use is "inappropriate" is neither a matter of unambiguous objective policy, WP:CONSENSUS, nor any binding resolution.
 * Your suggestion of FAR would therefore seem to be another attempt at intimidation (similar to your threat on AN/I to block opposing editors, followed up by templates threatening a block). AFAIK, this article has already survived a FAR with these images in place, so has nothing to fear from another superfluous FAR. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the article survived two FARs with the images intact. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. When was that? And just how did you get away with it?--John (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you haven't done your homework on the FA history of this article, how can you expect anyone to take what you claim seriously? FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was an unresolved problem at the last FAR. Things don't stop being issues just because they aren't being discussed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The lack of discussion, much less resolution tells me it was not seen as a serious problem at the last FAR. Issues aren't always legitimate problems just because they're raised. Often, and particularly at FARs on contentious topics, phantom issues are raised to discredit the article and its editors. This article has seen plenty of that over the years. FeloniousMonk (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This article sits quite nearly exactly as it has since it first gained FA status two years ago. It's been surprisingly stable for such a controversial topic. As someone who has been watching from the sidelines, the recent instability has come from your agitating over images here, prior to that, the only challenges have been found to be trivial and/or ill-founded. Any FAR on your part will been seen for what it is, sour grapes and disruption. I wouldn't advise it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The last FAR was just a few months ago. Give the overt threats a rest.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See my reply above. You seem a little... prickly? Do you have something to fear from a review of the image use on the article? How did the last review get around the noncompliant images problem? --John (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the thing, John. It wasn't a problem until you showed up. You appear to be trying to impose your own standard here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the December 2008 FAR and I see serious and valid questions raised about the image use, which were raised there and not properly addressed three months ago. I also note that the images were not, contrary to your statement, present at the first FAR in July 2007, nor were they present when the article was promoted. It seems the images were added by Kenosis shortly after the first FAR, and have been a bone of contention ever since, and quite rightly so. What were you saying about homework? And what are we going to do about these images if not FAR? --John (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We are going to continue following the guidelines as we have, not your personal interpretation of them. You've failed to convince many on the project that your interpretation of them is the right one, including me. And I don't even care much about the images -I've never bothered to support them. But what I do care care about is the consistent and fair application of the community's rules. The fact that the article passed through its last FAR with the images intact indicates a lack of consensus there for your interpretation of what the guidelines call for. If there were more support for your view then album cover images would not be seen in most Wikipedia articles about albums, which they are. Until which time there is a broader consensus on the guidelines or more consistent application of the guidelines (album covers vs. book covers) or revised guidelines, we'll be following the examples of other Wikipedia articles in how they are applied here. For that there is consensus, and I suggest you consider that and abide by it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. There is a consensus that book covers are fair use on articles about books, and album covers on articles about albums. This is not an article about a book or an album. The matter was discussed and not resolved at the last FAR. I agree that we need to have consistent and fair application of the community's rules, which is why I think we need to resolve this matter. Regarding your point about other Wikipedia articles, please make a list of other featured articles which use copyrighted images as decoration in this way. Your lack of acknowledgment of your misstatement above is also noted. --John (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that articles, including this one, regularly pass FAC and FAR whilst containing images that fail policy doesn't mean those images are OK, it only underlines how broken FAC and FAR actually are. Unless the violations are completely obvious, someone opposing a FAC because of an image issue is generally shot down, ridiculed and told that "they dson't have consensus", regardless of how correct they are (sound familiar?), and then someone else equally as clueless about image policy comes along and closes it as Promoted. It's a joke, really. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 14:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, your comment "That's the thing, John. It wasn't a problem until you showed up. You appear to be trying to impose your own standard here." is somewhat inaccurate. The images have been under discussion since 2007, and there has (to put it graciously) no consensus to include them for at least that long. The standard that John is referring to is not his own, but the standard commonly employed on other articles. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I note that at this point several editors in good standing have challenged the use of these images, and that no demonstrable consensus for their inclusion has been reached. I have therefore asked Raul as the closing admin at the last FAR to lend his opinion on the matter. I will now withdraw from this for 24 hours to see if a consensus can be reached, at least, about how best to resolve this. --John (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No Carl, the images were discussed in 2007, and again in the FAR last year, and consensus was to keep them. You disagreed.  But consensus was to keep them.  Guettarda (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The images were not "discussed" in the FAR [Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design/archive1|here]. I pointed out that the images violate NFCC, User:ZayZayEM agreed, nobody else mentioned them, and Raul seems to have ignored the issue when the FAR was closed. The consensus of the non-free image review in 2007 was to remove the images, so it's disingenuous to say that there was a consensus to keep them at that time. The editors who favored keeping them simply discounted the opinion of the non-free content review. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which is the standard mode of conduct on FAR and FAC at the moment. Yes, more people knowledgeable about images should be weighing in, but I have to admit I gave up on trying to comment on such reviews after an article was promoted with a non-free image of a living person in it.  It's still there, as well, despite efforts to remove it. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. So the whole system is corrupt and everyone is plotting against you.  Now I understand.  So when are you planning to actually address the fair use rationales?  You know, discuss the issue at hand?  Explain why the rationales are actually insufficient.  As opposed to making declarations by fiat.  Is anyone claiming the images fail fair use actually going to explain what it is about the rationales that makes the fail the requirements of policy?  Is anyone going to explain how they came to their conclusions?  What their standard is for proclaiming "not significant"...you know, something that actually addresses the policy, as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT which, mind you, is not policy.  Guettarda (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Apologies if someone has actually supported their dismissal of the fair use rationales. It's hard to find the gems among all the chaff, and I would appreciate pointers to anything that's actually useful.  Guettarda (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I would not describe the system as corrupt – that implies malice. It does appear that the FAR system does not give as much weight to NFCC objections as WP:FA? would imply, but there are many possible explanations for that.


 * Please see my long comments that start the sections "Time cover" and "Pandas cover" above. I go into detail about the rationales for using each image. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Is anyone claiming the images fail fair use actually going to explain what it is about the rationales that makes the fail the requirements of policy?", yes, I have explained it repeatedly. The images themselves are not significant, what the covers look like has no baring on the subject of the article. If the appearance of the covers was so significant, it would be discussed in the text. It is not- how can you then justify that it is important? J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actions on files
I would suggest that editors interested in current discussions place the files involved (File:Pandas and ppl.jpg, File:Darwinsblackbox.jpg & File:Time evolution wars.jpg) on their watchlists, as actions taken on those files may short-circuit whatever consensus is eventually reached here. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So they can edit-war by repeatedly removing valid concerns over fair use as you have done, you mean? Oh dear. --John (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * John, you have edit warred; you have threatened those with whom you are edit warring with blocking or banning, which is threatening to use your tools in a content dispute; you have violated NPA; you have stridently insisted that your interpretation of a guideline is policy; and now you are forum shopping. Take a break. Step away from this; you have gone beyond disruptive at this point. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement is noted, as it already was. Your allegations regarding my conduct are as demonstrably false as FeloniousMonk's claim that the article passed two FARs with the images intact. That you are experiencing this dissent as disruption says a lot about your ownership of the article. Please instead contribute (accurately if possible) to the substantive discussion above. Thank you. --John (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your misdirect combined with your personal attacks is not helping. I'm not in your edit war over the images. You ABF as well as fail to demonstrate the falsity in my concerns. My concern is over your misuse of your position in an edit war. I have made no comments other than that; I have no interest other than that; and your attempt to change the subject does not dissuade me from my position. I am instead even more concerned that you persist in framing my concerns about your inappropriate threats to use Admin tools in a content dispute as me being part of that dispute. Please take the time to re-read my post(s), and if I have made an error, I will be appreciative if you post difs and civilly disagree rather than attacking a fellow admin who is counseling you not to violate policy regarding use of your tools and threats to do so. Your behavior is alarming. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why this conflict can not be resolved through a new IFD, if there are valid concerns about their fair use rational? If images are deleted they will be removed, or alternatively IFD discussion can limit their use to the book's articles (this was the result of the old IFD). Ruslik (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IFD is the wrong venue for this, because the images shouldn't be deleted; they are being used correctly on the individual articles about the books, even if they aren't here. It shouldn't need an IFD to restrict the images to their correct usage. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 16:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit protection
Since one editor was blocked and another warned, I shortened the protection to 3 days. I hope everybody stops this edit war and engage in a dialog. Ruslik (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? There is a dialog here; indeed there has been an ongoing dialog here pretty much since the copyvio images were added. As there is no consensus demonstrable here for inclusion of the images, they need to be removed. Please see the "FAR" section above for a suggestion on how to take this forward. --John (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * John, your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" position is exceedingly unhelpful. Your arrogant dismissal of every position but your own is counter productive. If you cannot discuss this civilly with your fellow editors, I suggest you take a wiki-break until you can return with a more productive and civil attitude. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * John is right that there has been constant dialogue, and is right that if there is no consensus for the image's inclusion, they cannot be included. Whether there is a consensus for the inclusion is subjective I suppose, but, seriously, do you think there is? At this point, I'm not asking you to make a judgement about whether the images should be included editorially, I'm asking you to judge the consensus here. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice with a jaundiced eye that User:Damiens.rf was blocked for edit warring with an account that mysteriously appears out of the ether (it hadn't edited for three months this time) whenever there is some reverting to be done on this article. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 16:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I notice with a jaundiced eye that this is User:Damiens.rf's fourth block for edit-warring in 5 months. A serial offender. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of all the people reverting, I'm surprised that Damiens.rf was considered to be the source of the problem.      looks far more like edit-warring than Damien.rf's two reverts. I thought he went overboard with the tags (see the description above), but edit warring?&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with KWW- the tagging may not have been great (I didn't really review it, I didn't want to get involved) but he was certainly no edit warrior. This seems to be a poor block. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Two reverts? There were far more than two reverts.  It was a clear - if complex - 3RRvio.  While people like to pretend that the image deletions are "permitted", if you actually read the exceptions to the 3RR, this sort of warring over images isn't permitted.  Damiens.rf's response to warnings was to claim that he had the right to edit war.  And in his post here he says that ON was trying to "force" him to violate the 3RR.  When you combine his attitude with the fact that he had been blocked for edit-warring three times before, I can't imagine how one can make the conclusion that it's a bad block.  It's an obvious block.  Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with content of Damiens.rf's edits, I am inclined to also agree with his being blocked, albeit it is a borderline case. I once said to Betacommand, whilst he was still around, that those supportive of the idea of a free content encyclopedia consider that support to have an ethical as well as pragmatic dimension and it damages our case if we relinquish the high ground by engaging in poor behaviour. CIreland (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In reference to User:Hrafn, the plain and simple reason he was not blocked was because he stopped reverting after receiving a warning. A block at that point would have been clearly punitive. Also, a few of the diffs provided above were from last month, and while they may paint a larger picture of longer term edit warring, they are not recent enough for me to act on. (To be honest, with the page history as it is, I did not even see them until now.) As for Damiens.rf, here is what I saw:, , , , , , , , , , . Those edits (mostly reverts) along with the continued warring after a warning on his/her talk page was what lead me to a block. That said, as always I welcome a review of my actions.  Tiptoety  talk 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, your explanation seems sound. I trust your judgement, and I know that you're more experienced than I am with regards to edit warring. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may add a minor chronological correction to Tiptoety, I actually ceased edit-warring well before I was warned. My last edit was this one, approx 2 1/2 hours before the warning, and the edit war continued thereafter for 9 edits. In fact there was only 1 of those 9 edits between the warning and the article being protected. This rendered the warning largely superfluous as well as partisan (coming as it was from another participant in the edit-war). Oddly enough, John did not bother to warn any of the editors who were actually still edit-warring at that stage. Go figure. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Time cover image history, in brief
I'm largely occupied off-wiki at the present time, but here, organized in somewhat hurried fashion, are the important stages of the WP history of the August 15, 2005 TIME cover image. The history below does not include the discussions on Talk:Intelligent_design. The consensus among participants in this talk page was strongly in support of the use of the image. Perhaps needless to say, it was more contentious among participants in IfDs (FfDs), though significantly more favorable in support of keeping the image at DrV, and somewhat more favorable in support of keeping the image in the second IfD. The history below also does not include several other forums which advocates of removal of the image chose as venues to advocate on various grounds against the use of this NFC image (e.g., Fair-use review, discussion(s) at FAR, image page edits, WT:NFC, etc.). image log for File:Time evolution wars.jpg First uploaded 23 December 2005 by administrator User:Jossi,.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&diff=32496072&oldid=32494334 Added to article on 23 December 2005 by User:Jossi

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&diff=next&oldid=107768991 Time image removed 13 February 2007. The file was subsequently deleted 12 May 2007 by User:Misza13 based upon the CSD as an unused NFC file.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Time_evolution_wars.jpg&action=history Time image uploaded on 18 August 2007 by User:Kenosis and placed back into the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_19#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg Immediately, the following day, the image was nominated for IfD (presently FfD). It was closed on 28 August as a "delete" despite a 15-9 majority of users advocating "keep"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&diff=163967200&oldid=163966989 12 October 2007 Intelligent design initially featured on main page w/NFC cover images except for the Time cover image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_6 DrV "... clear consensus that the IfD was improperly closed..." That DrV was closed by User:GRBerry at 02:41, 12 October 2007 here with directions to subject it to a new IFD. Image file restored by the closing administrator.

The second IfD was opened by User:GRBerry at 02:51, 12 October 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&diff=163970208&oldid=163969916 03:39 12 October 2007 TIME cover image re-inserted (by User:Kenosis) concurrently with the second IfD beginning 12 October 2007. This IfD was closed as a 'keep on 17 October 2007 by uninvolved User:Alasdair. For the text of the closing admin's statement--scroll up to the top of the IfD.

... Kenosis (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. Could you now answer the questions I asked higher above, namely: Rather than changing the topic or changing the question, I'd like to stay focused on these questions for the moment, since they're so central to determining whether the image passes NFCC requirements. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes this particular image special enough to warrant inclusion, given that general practice of not using non-free covers in this way?
 * What reason is there to include this image that would not also justify including every Time cover image?
 * To pass NFCC muster, the non-free image of the cover needs to convey some piece of information about intelligent design that cannot be conveyed by text alone. What is this piece of information?
 * The questions are reasonable IMO (which might be the first time I've been able to honestly say that in these discussions). As I indicated a short while ago on Raul's page, I need to get back to my real work, and am now a bit late for my today's obligations. But the questions are duly noted and I will respond as well as provide a history of prior statements that can also serve as responses to these questions, not later than this weekend. I imagine others may also respond in the interim. Bye, for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Having just read the article and noticed the interesting debate about book covers, I'd like to say that the Panda book cover did help my understanding of the subject. Being able to see that the book was visually presented in the way it is, helped me to form my own opinion about how the proponents of intelligent design want it to be viewed (i.e. I think it shows the author wants it to be viewed as a science). However this could not be conveyed in the text instead of the image because it is an opinion I formed from the image. I accept somebody could look at the image and come to totally different conclusions from mine, however I would argue that by thinking and forming conclusions from an image they would be increasing their understanding. I'd also like to say that I think it is a bit unfair to demand a single piece of information an image conveys. The NFCC policy use the word 'understanding' and not 'information'? Sometimes an image can convey an understanding that is more than raw facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.182.30 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We could very well say in text, "The author wanted the text to look like a respectable source on science". However we can also link to the article about the book itself, where the image is displayed, for those who want to see it for themselves. So this article can get by without the image.
 * The NFC does say "understanding", but it's understanding of the topic, which is intelligent design here rather than the book itself. This is why it's pertinent to ask what about intelligent design is conveyed by the cover that cannot be conveyed in text. (I also think you forgot to log in before posting here.) &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I accept you could write a description of the cover in the article instead, but I think this would have been detrimental to my understanding of the subject. If the text included the assertion that "The author wanted the text to look like a respectable source on science" like you say I might just have written it off as somebodys opinon / original reaseach and not taken it seriously. Being able to see the evidence myself in a picture and make my own mind up is actually quite powerful. (sorry about lack of login yesterday, and also writing about Panda's in the Time cover image section - I'm new 83.100.182.30.)Everest100 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The text indeed currently includes the assertion that "The author wanted the text to look like a respectable source on science", and you're right to believe it sounds like "somebodys opinon / original reaseach". I've tagged that as such recently, but it was reverted and, after some discussion, I was explained that it was indeed someone's opinion (Rethinking School's opinion) being wrongly used as a fact, and some of us came to agree that the text should be fixed to avoid the misrepresentation of information.
 * The book cover image itself, though, is no evidence that Rethinking School's opinion about the book author's inner motivations is correct. --Damiens .rf 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly you are arguing that the book cover is not an on topic part of the article and hence does not help understanding. I would disagree, in fact I think it's core. In my opinion A key understanding of intelligent design is the concept that most of its proponents wish it to be passed off as a science in schools. The book cover provides evidence of this wish. I'm also a bit sceptical about your argument that a description of the image could be writen in the article, therefore it is not permitted on the grounds it is unnecessary. You could make the same claim about any/all none free images in wikipedia (out of interest, do you want to remove them all?). The point I was trying to make yesterday is that you can sometimes get a better understanging by evaluating an image, rather than reading a description. In my opionon this is the case with the Panda cover.Everest100 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The book cover itself can't be taken as evidence of the author's motivations, and our article shouldn't be speculating about the authors motivations (the article currently parrots an outside opinion on this matter). See my reply to your comment above for more about this. --Damiens .rf 17:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree that it would be inappropriate to take the book cover as evidence of the author's motivations anywhere in the text. The point I am making over my last few posts is that as I reader it is acceptable for me to look at and think about the image and form any conclusions I like. Removing the image would deprive readers of the chance to do this.Everest100 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the image is useful because it help our readers to achieve a conclusion that can't otherwise be supported by reliable sources? --Damiens .rf 19:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we have to make a judgement about whether it is necessary to allow the reader that chance when it conflicts with our aim of being a free encyclopedia. With a free image, sure, go for it. With a non-free image, it should only be added if we can determine that the image itself is definitely of interest to any readers. A book cover that is not mentioned in the text is not guaranteed to be of interest- if it wasn't there, very few readers are going to come away thinking "I wonder what that book cover looks like...". J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the fact that this story was on the Time cover received mention in: I don't know if this adds to the 'significance' of the cover-image or not -- but I thought it was worth noting. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Anthropology News (American Anthropological Association) November 2005 (in a short piece titled Science under Siege)
 * Montana Law Review, 2007 68: 7 (in a pro-ID article titled Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover)
 * Georgia Law Review 41 (2007): 453 (in an article entitled What Should We Celebrate on Constitution Day? -- I haven't been able to track this piece down yet)


 * Apart from discussing the cover-story, what aspect of the cover-image do these source discuss? Are they relevant enough to be included in our article (since we currently do not discuss it)? --Damiens .rf  20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary of dispute
See here. Any comments or suggestions? --John (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In your summary at User:John/Intelligent design image use summary you've managed to neglect the numerous editors who actually participated in the article who supported the images' use. What do we need to do, contact every one of them for a repetition of their view? These discussions are in the talk archives-- links to many of the relevant talk sections are provided several sections above. This article has been quite stable for well over a year since it was featured on 12 October 2007. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder how much of this "stability" is due to your personal persistence in dismissing guidelines and exploring the corners policies. --Damiens .rf 15:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A few other observations
 * "[A] long-running dispute on whether it is appropriate to include nonfree images ... on the intelligent design article">
 * It's equivocal as to whether there is a "long-running dispute" or a couple distinct disputes
 * There's a dispute as to whether it is "appropriate to include nonfree images" in the article? Interesting.  I thought there was a dispute about specific elements of the fair use rationales of specific images in specific contexts.
 * "In" the article, not "on" the article.
 * "The argument revolves around whether the use of these images on the article satisfies Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, namely 3a Minimal usage and 8 Significance."
 * There's also the issue of 1. No free equivalent
 * Nonfree images used: File:Pandas and ppl.jpg, File:Time evolution wars.jpg
 * The discussion has also been about the use of File:Darwin on Trial.jpg, File:Darwinsblackbox.jpg and in at least one case, File:Dembski head shot.jpg
 * "Summary of consensus on the use of nonfree book covers on the article"
 * This is not a summary, this is a list. These terms are not synonyms.  Summaries carry more information than does this list
 * This is a(n incomplete) list of opinions/votes. A list of votes isn't a "summary of consensus".  Please consult WP:CON, for starters.
 * The initial discussion did not include File:Time evolution wars.jpg, so it's impossible to speculate about how many of these opinions/votes relate to that image. It simply wasn't discussed.
 * The use of File:Pandas and ppl.jpg has changed substantially over the course of the discussion. It's impossible to speculate about how many of these opinions/votes relate to the current use of that image. Guettarda (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some good points there. I don't intend to respond to them in detail, for now. Would you say there is currently a good strong consensus that the use of these images in the article is justified? --John (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Boggles the mind. I say "your fundamental premises are flawed".  You say "Some good points", but do you agree with me? Wow.  No.  No I don't agree with you that there's no consensus to allow any non-free images in this article.  Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously arguing that there's a consensus to keep these images in the article? --Damiens .rf 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Damiens, please read the discussion before spouting off nonsense. John's "summary" discussed the assertion that no non-free images were allowed in the article.  Since no one discussed that, I find his conclusion mind-boggling.  Do read what was said instead of making such ridiculous and inflammatory statements.  Try figuring out what people are saying, why don't you?  Guettarda (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did it? Please show where you think it said that. I wrote it and know it doesn't say that. (snarky comment redacted) I suggest actually reading what I wrote; it's intentionally very clear to avoid just the sort of misinterpretation you just made. --John (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:John (or someone else in control of that article wrote) ["There has been a long-running dispute on whether it is appropriate to include nonfree images" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John/Intelligent_design_image_use_summary&oldid=269956835]. You, or someone else in control of you account, then attempted to "summarise" the "consensus" by producing a list of editors, most of whom had discussed some aspect of the actual use of 1–4 specific images in this article.
 * You just lost even more credibility with me, something I wouldn't have thought possible. My heart be still!  Actually, you know, John/Guinnog, I think I'll take that as a compliment.  But seriously, I warned you] about your personal attacks already in the last few days.  Please focus on the content we're trying to discuss, not your personal opinions about other editors.  Thanks.  Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The only comment I can find for Mathsci ("The Panda book cover seems extremely relevant and communicative in an article on the (mis)use of propaganda in the teaching of science in the USA") suggests that he has ended up in the wrong column
 * ZayZayEM's position can only be called equivocal. While he appears to opposed the use of the book covers, he appears to believe that the Time cover is acceptable ("The Time cover is one of the few images that does meet NFCC/NFC standards"). Again, that's why listifying is a poor way to represent consensus.  Guettarda (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Do you plan to answer the substantive question I asked above? It seems to me to be the key one at the moment. --John (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? Your question about whether your misrepresentation of the debate is supported or not?  It seems to me that the discussion on the Time cover has just started, and that there has been limited opposition to Dave's modification to Pandas.  Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. See Kenosi's links here. The discussion on the Time cover started 2 year ago. --Damiens .rf 16:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And you're trying to say that everyone in John's list read that discussion, and were expressing their opinions about the Time covers? Interesting assertion.  Flat-out wrong, IMO, but interesting.  Guettarda (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please point out any misrepresentations that you see. Again, would you say there is currently a strong consensus for the inclusion and current use of these images? --John (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * John, I already did. Higher up on this page.  And immediately below in this section.  You even replied to Some good points there when I pointed out your misrepresentation of the situation.  Surely you remember posting this?  Don't you?  I discussed your misrepresentation of the situation.  You replied to it just one hour before.  First you claim that 17.4 hours is more than 24 hours, now you claim that you haven't read a post that you've replied to.  Bizarre.  Guettarda (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See here. I appreciate the detailed critique, by the way. --John (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I'm having a slight wikibreak because of my teaching in Cambridge, I would appreciate it if people didn't try to speak on my behalf in an ongoing debate. I still think the Panda image is appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I see it. It doesn't seem to support your assertion.  But again, as I said, that's the problem with using a bare list as a "summary of consensus".  Can't work.  Doesn't work.  No way.  No how.  Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * However a list of people who dissent from a position can be a valid demonstration of a lack of consensus, as in this case. --John (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "People who dissent from a position"? And what position would that be?  That any non-free content can be used in this article, as you allege in your summary?  That the NFCC are met for the use of the Time cover?  That ZayZayEM was expressing to the use of all non-free images in this article (which your "summary" seems to imply he is, since you included him in the "Against" column) when he said "The Time cover is one of the few images that does meet NFCC/NFC standards"?  That the NFCC are met for the use of the cover of Darwin on Trial in this article?  That the NFCC are met for the use of the cover of DBB in this article?  That the NFCC are met for the use of the cover of Pandas was met in the way it was used in this article last month?  That the NFCC are met for the use of the cover of Pandas was met in the way it was used in this article at present?  Lack of consensus for what?  Consensus isn't a general sense of being, like harmony.  Consensus applies to something specific.  And that's true no matter what you think of me personally.  Seriously.  Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if I want to be a dick, I could point out that TIME is not a book. So, John's summary is techncially correct. And I've explained before why I think the Time cover qualifies for NFCC#8, the cover is directly discussed in the article and the caption, moreover it's significant increase in understanding is not dependent on speculative Original Research that would not be admissable in the article. The main problem I take issue with is that if this is to be considered a Feature Article, Wikipedia's regulations need to be applied strictly. --ZayZayEM (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The cover image is not discussed in the article. The article mentions the cover story, and quotes the cover-image-text. There's no discussion about the imagery of a bearded man pointing to a philosophical monkey. Indeed, it the cover image were to be something completely different, our article's text wouldn't have to change a bit (thus, the image itself is irrelevant) --Damiens .rf 12:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Widespread media coverage"
Letting the image-issue aside for a moment, I question the phrasing of the passage mentioning the Time Magazine story in regards to the provided sources.

The Wikipedia article says that the "public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States", but the only media coverage mentioned is the Time Magazine story. While I wouldn't doubt that a Time Magazine cover-story is enough to bring any subject to public attention in the U.S.A., I don't think that this is enough to establish "widespread media coverage" as put on the text.

Indeed, the only source mentioning the Time story, ""The evolution wars" in Time", by the National Center for Science Education, ironically supports the opposite: It says the story was "the first cover story on the creationism/evolution controversy in a major national newsweekly in recent memory", what implies that media coverage was anything but "widespread" at the time.

I'm not a follower of U.S.A. news controversies, but from the above, and from the article's text, I believe that probably "widespread media coverage" about the ID controversy followed the publication by Time Magazine. The point is, our article needs sources to support this, like references of some number of mainstream media news articles about the controversy. If that can't be done, the "widespread media coverage" text must be fixed to avoid saying what couldn't be sourced. --Damiens .rf 15:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, "Time" would be the most widely-read, and best-known of all of the thousands of media outlets covering the "controversy". Shall we include links to the NYT, The Phila Inquirer, the LA Times, Pensacola News Journal, Punxatawney Gazette, South Succotash, IA Gleaner and local neighborhood papers within 200 miles of Dover PA? <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; dissera! 13:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Either cite many news source or remove the "widespread media coverage" claim. But as I said above, the Time story may still be enough to justify the "wide public attention" claim. --Damiens .rf 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, so we should work toward creating the first WP article with 300 refs? Impressive -- especially given that people bitch that there are too damned many refs already. <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; dissera! 19:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you seen "Media articles" under "External Links"? Pretty impressive: Seattle Weekly, The Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, The New Yorker, New England Journal of Medicine and NPR. Any further questions? <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; dissera! 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder...
why it was that TV supplanted radio. Could it be that images help folks understand and remember things? And what about the declines in newspaper circulation since the dawn of the internet? Sure, the net's faster and easier, but now every article can have one or more pictures on the on-line versions of newspapers. Hmmmm. But, more to the point, this current kerfuffle is so ridiculous it could make one scream. NFCC#8 is so bloody subjective as to be utterly meaningless. And much of the argumentation by the deletionistas reminds me of someone answering the question, "is broccoli good for you" with statements about its taste or what foods it goes well with. <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; dissera! 14:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not arguing about whether the images are attractive, we are arguing about whether they fulfill our requirements for inclusion. Feel free to focus on and contribute to this discussion, rather than to introduce further strawman arguments about whether or not you like them. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Err...that's what Jim is saying. Information can be conveyed through images that cannot be conveyed through words.  Significantly more information. Hence sayings like "a picture is worth a thousand words" or "show me".  Humans are highly visual species.  We don't devote such a large portion of our brains to the visual cortex because we like pretty pictures.  It's because images convey information.  These images convey information and enhance the reader's understanding.
 * Perhaps that's the root of the problem here - some editors who see all images as merely "pretty pictures", missing the whole idea that they convey information. Significant amounts of information.  Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that many of us just aren't seeing the significant amounts of information that these convey, and no one seems willing to explain without going into analysing the pictures for their symbolic value. At what point, when reading the article, will a reader think "Hmmm, I wonder what the cover of [insert book] looks like?" If there was discussion of the cover in some way, then they would. At the moment, there does not seem to be any reason that the covers are conveying useful information that is required by the article. Can a reader know the basics of intelligent design without seeing a cover of the books? I think so... The majority of texts I've read discussing intelligent design are illustrated only (if at all) by very old works for decorative purposes, or perhaps to display the initial reaction to Darwinism, or with simple diagrams. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strawman arguments my arse. As Guettarda pointed out, these images were chosen because they convey a hight amount of information re the top.  Note, that in the above section I typed a reason why the Time cover is important, and have typed similar responses a few times since this current phase of the "we don't dig pix, man" campaign began.  Really -- you just have to read.
 * J "I think so...", hence the reason I have repeatedly said that NFCC* is subjective: you are offering your opinion (probably based on your own reading preferences), and that is all. <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; dissera! 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows what I'm saying is my opinion, just as what you say is your opinion. That's why we say it. I don't see why you feel the need to point that out. I am basing my opinion on evidence, past interpretation of policy, my own interpretation of policy, what has been said here, what is said in the article and logic, as are the majority of people here (some favouring certain elements more than others). What's your point? J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Evidence"? "Logic"?  The second can be used either subjectively or objectively in arguments, so could you explain the logic that drives your opinion?  As for evidence, I'd like to see precisely what you mean, sans interpretation.
 * My point, however, was (sotto voce and tacit even) that you removed the image based on your opinion, much contrary to the opinions of many others. <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; dissera! 19:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And others add them back based on their opinion, much contrary to the opinions of many others. The fact that there is a dispute about this shows that there are different opinions, I really fail to see the point of this. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So it goes. <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; dissera! 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

TIME cover nominated for deletion
I've nominated the TIME cover for deletion. The discussion is here. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read the history of this image first? This image has already been through two IfDs, noted at Talk:Intelligent_design. Both had a significant majority of participants in support of keep. In between, there was also a DrV where the first IfD was deemed improperly closed. A third IfD (FfD) on the same file would IMO be tendentious. I assume it was a simple oversight... Kenosis (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion here and at the IfD, I have added some (sourced) discussion of the Time cover to the article text. The text discusses the composition of the image, and the fact that it parodies Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam. Inclusion of the cover helps the reader understand the discussion of its composition. It also allows the reader to compare the parody with Michelangelo's original. Guettarda (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Whither?
I'm thinking at this stage that we have an intractable dispute here. I've seen enough to convince me that there are strong feelings on both sides about the use of nonfree images on this article. I've tried to impose my own (and others', I believe the community's) view of our policy on this article, and probably caused more heat than light in the process. For that I apologize. I've been accused of all sorts of things in the process. I accept that those who hold that these images are vital to the article hold those views in good faith, even though I disagree with them. However, what I don't want to see is this dispute dragging on for another year. I'm inclined to think that per here and here, an RfC is the next step, followed, if that is not successful, by a visit to Arbcom. These are the recommended next steps in our dispute resolution process, and I honestly can't see any other way forward. We might still consider FAR but I didn't see much enthusiasm for that when I raised it here, and it didn't really address the image use issue last time, which is a shame. I've contacted the closer of the last FAR to ask his opinion, but I understand he is traveling until the 16th.

So, what do you want to do? Because we can't go on this way and I don't think we're going to solve this without some kind of outside help. --John (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbcom will not accept the case, as they will view it as a content dispute. It's not unusual to hit this "where on Earth do we go from here" stage in NFC disputes- I doubt a RfC will solve anything, but I suppose that is the next reasonable step. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be so sure that arbcom wouldn't accept the case after an RfC. The question "Do these image uses meet the NFCC" is a content dispute which they would likely reject but that's not what we ought to ask of them or an RfC. The fact is we cannot and probably never will agree whether the image uses meet the NFCC and so the only question worth asking is "If there is no consensus that an image use satisfies the NFCC, should it therefore be removed or should the status quo, whatever that may be, be maintained." CIreland (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What can be done in an RFC that hasn't already being tried here? --Damiens .rf 12:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe attract more uninvolved opinion? And, per CIreland, I think there is a wider issue here about how decisions like this should be made in the future. --John (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean an RFC not about the use of these images, but about how to deal with year-long NFC disputes? --Damiens .rf 16:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You could of course recognise that this article is contentious enough without this argument about images, and just go away and leave it as it has been for a long time. Enough time has been wasted without dragging it on though RfC and ArbCom.-- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could simply remove the images in order to have more time left to deal with those that would corrupt the article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is another uninvolved opinion. KEEP the images. I'm not going to rehash the arguments above, except to say I find the arguments to keep persuasive. So I agree with Bduke, let's stop wasting time. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with BDuke and Michael Johnson, but that's hardly surprising.
 * KWW -- your comment is simply bizarre. <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; dissera! 21:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not bizarre at all. If you're so concered about the amount of time you're wasting, just remove the images. If it matters to you so much to keep them, you won't mind "wasting" the time. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, "in order to have more time left to deal with those that would corrupt the article" refers to what? Rather unclear.
 * Your second and third sentences make no sense to me as I didn't say that I was in any way concerned re time.
 * Ever seen A World of His Own? Note the fireplace. <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; dissera! 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming Kww is referring to those who would try to slant the article in favour of ID. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I'd not assume that: Kww has a whopping two edits on the ID article, both in the past week and both dealing with this issue. <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; dissera! 23:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I wouldn't assume that this debate should be restricted to the "regulars". Getting more people involved who haven't been regular editors should be a good thing. --John (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was indeed referring to pro-creationism editors. Someone has done some history deleting in this article. I clearly remember a period of a month or so in 2007 where there was a big burst of vandalism in this article that I helped revert (which is why the article is on my watchlist). If you checked my edits to Michael Behe and William A. Dembski my attitude would be obvious.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was banned from Conservapedia for this edit as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As Marge Simpson says, there's no shame in being a pariah. Particularly not from an encyclopedia that makes Wikipedia look almost reliable. Spotfixer (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See also section
I assumed that junk science and pseudoscience had been inserted into the see also section under 'Related topics in creationism' by a vandal, hence marking my edit as minor and saying I was removing them for 'obvious reasons'. Since the edit summary placing them back was 'Not minor, not neutral, not acceptable', I do apologize for that.

While it is true that ID is by virtually all accounts not science, having these links under such a heading is unnecessarily incendiary. How exactly is it NPOV to have junk science alongside creation science and abiogenesis in this section? Natural Cut (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The see also section needs major cutting down:
 * Creation science needs to go because it's already mentioned in the article prose (First line of the "Overview" section)
 * Psuedoscience because it's already mentioned in several places, including the lead
 * Patton t / c 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. we've been through this numerous times: both junk science and pseudoscience are descriptive of ID. It pretends to be4 science, but is not: it is, as has been noted in various fora, "Creationism dressed in a cheap tuxedo". <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; dissera! 23:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you not read what I just said?-- Patton t / c 23:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See Natcut's edit summary -- I was replying to him but didn't interpost. The cutting down of the see also section is debatable, but I'll live with consensus on this one.  <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; dissera!

I'll space my reply further down to avoid confusion. To the part about things already mentioned in the article (which is actually a different argument from the one I was trying to make), creation, pseudo and junk science are all mentioned in the introduction.

As for the 'to call a spade a spade' argument, I agree completely that it's been discredited. My primary concern about neutrality was based on the junk science article, which says: 'The term conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives.' Having that in the see also section on top of pseudoscience is more like 'calling a spade a bloody shovel'. Natural Cut (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Junk science didn't used to say that, and to me it's poorly written. Note, however, that ID was (and still is) motivated by political and ideological motives. See Wedge Strategy. <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; dissera! 23:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very valid point. I'd like to again apologize for the confusion with my initial edit, and while I still think pseudoscience is strong enough, in terms of 'consensus' I suppose one wishing to take out pseudo, one wishing to take out junk and one wishing to keep them both has a net result of leaving it as-is. Natural Cut (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All of these terms still fit, and for consistency we should mention them at the bottom even if they're linked somewhere in the text. Spotfixer (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone moved them out of the creationism category and put it as 'Pseudoscience/junk science'. I'm fine with that. Please just archive this conversation unless someone has another issue to raise. Also - very well done article, I enjoyed reading it. Natural Cut (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No we shouldn't taht's completely the opposite of what the guidelines say; you should incorporate links into the text.-- Patton t / c 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I intend no rudeness, but it seems the guidelines say this is no place to discuss Intelligent Design itself. Surely making blanket statements discrediting it falls under that category? A good many scientists do call it science, many of whom are not Christian and some of whom are not religious (Antony Flew). But I am rather new to the wikipedia editing arena.Aleitheiophile (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Flew is not a scientist, he is a philosopher. And it is not at all clear that he supports Intelligent Design as outlined in this article, rather he states, while referring to cosmology, he finds the argument for intelligent design is now "stronger". --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Phrase placed back in Pandas image caption
RE this edit: I undid it here. The almost countless reliable sources that are critics of Of Pandas and People include expert testimony and the judge's decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and many others including but not limited to those in the current footnote #s 6, 20, 21, 25, 28, 64, 65, 66, 67, 97, 108, 109, and others. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Please point that as references nearby the text, otherwise it sounds like peacock terms. --Damiens .rf 18:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And, next time, just raise the issue here instead of canvassing other editors to edit war for you. --Damiens .rf 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go again. Please note the respective times of submission. As it happens, I posted my comment on OM's talk page after his edit. I should also mention that it's a heck of a stretch to refer to a revert of your personal, uninformed POV about this topic as an "edit war". Of late there's been only one blatant edit warrior around this article, and that is Damiens.rf. So please desist. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Before you invent things out of thin air, do you not realize I watch this article, and I would have reverted your edits mainly because they are POV? I thought so.  You may apologize to me here or on my talk page.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines
I apologize if I seem ignorant, but I posted a contribution to the Introduction of this Intelligent Design article and now find it is gone. To my knowledge, I used documented sources easily available through the links provided as references. My contribution did support the Intelligent Design movement, pointing out that non-Christians such as Schroeder and Flew advocate ID. I provided references and, in conformity with the NPOV policy, stated facts without any emotional bias. Surely the lack of aesthetic quality my contribution possessed was not the reason for its elimination?Aleitheiophile (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a featured article, and a controversial one at that. Any major contribution, especially one changing the tone of established passages, should first be discussed on the talk page. Your contribution contained at least one factual innaccuracy, as Antony Flew self-identifies as a deist, not as a theist. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but that contribution actually wasn't neutral in tone because it violated the guidelines Avoid weasel words and Avoid peacock terms with phrases like "Many evolutionists, a great many of whom are reputable". ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your contributions. I, too, wish to present a valid and balanced article concerning intelligent design. I have attempted to correct the problems addressed while still communicating the facts. Aleitheiophile (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have undone the edit by Kenosis, this time including a summary of my changes. I always try to abide by the rules.Aleitheiophile (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your attempts to present a valid and balanced article are marred by your failure to read the word "leading", or to notice that poor old Flew et al are, at the most, followers. You're also giving undue weight to relatively insignificant instances. . dave souza, talk 13:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * RE this edit. Taner, Schroeder and Flew are at most minor commentators on the issue of intelligent design. Although it may be counterintuitive to those who don't fully understand the workings of interest-group politics in the United States, it is nonetheless the case, according to numerous reliable sources, that all the leading or primary advocates of intelligent design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute or one of its direct offshoots the Center for Science and Culture and the ISCID, all of which share the same funding sources. In other words, ID isn't a product of independent researchers at separate independently competing academic or research institutions, but rather is solely a product of a group of persons all affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank headquartered in Seattle, a "movement" drawing the vast majority of its funding from Howard Ahmanson, Jr.. Sorry to disillusion anyone.  ... Kenosis (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What failed to meet qualifications in the latest edit?Aleitheiophile (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The American Association for the Advancement of Science and others have written that... Main problem is that phrasing it like that creates a misleading sense of the veracity of the statement. Why does that statement need qualification?  Have any reliable sources (or non-reliable, but notable ones) challenged this statement in any real way?  Forrest made the statement under oath.  No one has accused her of perjuring herself when she did so.  It seems like a simple factual statement on the face of it.
 * However, Michael Behe, who created the concept of irreducible complexity, is not associated with the Institute, nor is Michael Denton, author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Denton's book was called "influential" by the I.S.C.I.D. <p.There are quite a few problems with this bit. To begin with, Behe is (or was, last I checked) a Senior Fellow at the DI's Center for Science and Culture, and Denton is a former Senior Fellow.  Denton is apparently no longer a Fellow, but neither is he actively promoting ID.  So that argument is a bit of a wash, however you look at it.  More importantly though, your use of references is inappropriate.  Neither of the references that you cited supported the assertion that Behe and Denton were not associated with the DI.  In fact, both of the refs came off a DI website.
 * However, not all its supporters are Christian. The contributions of Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder have been called "acclaimed" by Mark Perakh on the evolutionist website www.talkreason.org. No one is arguing that "all" supporters of ID are Christian.  It's pretty apparent if you read the article.  But support outside of evangelical Christianity is limited, and outside of Christianity very limited.  So there's no need to counter broad, notable, supported statements, with what's in effect trivia.  Again, sourcing issues are a major problem.  Your first ref does not support the statement, it illustrates it.  And it illustrates it poorly.  Schroeder doesn't exactly come down as an advocate of ID, he suggests that it may turn out to be true.  Mind you, by "true" he means 'true in the sense that the Big Bang shows the Genesis story to be true'.  The second ref is more problematic.  Yes, Perakh described Schroeder's books as "acclaimed".  Unfortunately, there's nothing here that ties Schroeder's books to ID.  In fact, trying to harmonise the Bible and science would probably be specifically forbidden to an IDist.  Finally, "evolutionist" is a weird slur used by creationists to describe people who disagree with them.  And if you meant to use it as shorthand for "evolutionary biologist", then it makes even less sense, since Talk Reason is about philosophy of science and anti-creationism far more than it's about biology.  Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Michael Behe is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I must confess I was unaware of their connection with the DI, though I did research on the subject. However, being badly informed is not perjury. Nor does a judicial decision determine a scientific issue. Cf. the Scopes trial. Regarding Schroeder, to say "Not all are" is not the same as "Detractors claim that." It is correct that not all its supporters are Christian; this has nothing to do with what "no one claims." Please don't jump to conclusions. But thank you for pointing out my errors; I'm sincerely glad you did so.Aleitheiophile (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite a common argument "Nor does a judicial decision determine a scientific issue." and while each judicial decision must be assessed on its merits, the memorandum opinion gives a carefully reasoned assessment of evidence under oath, which itself is available to view, which shows the scientific consensus as stated by reputable sources. As always, scientific theories are provisional, no doubt crack ID teams of palaeontologists are digging for fluffy precambrian rabbits right now in the hope of overturning the current consensus. . . dave souza, talk 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)