Talk:Of Pandas and People

Chart:
I've seen charts which show the change from Creationist to Intelligent Design language in the editions of the book. Example here. A visual is a better way of explaining this than just pure text. That individual chart is likely copyrighted and can't be used. But if we were to get a hold of the raw data, we could reproduce the chart and then cite the source for the data. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very good idea. Perhaps the data will be in one of Barbara Forrest's books or some such. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nick Matzke created that graph, and likely would be happy to release a copy for use. -Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in the first sentence of the article
I am concerned that using the term pseudoscientific adjective to describe Intelligent Design sets a tone for this post that may reflect to some people that Wikipedia is interested in presenting biased opinions and not a neutral point of view as per Wikipedia policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

It seems appropriate to move that particular term to the main body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:FRINGE. ID is an archetypal specimen of pseudoscience, and explicitly cited as an example of such in the guideline. Wikipedia presents the opinion of mainstream science, that's what NPOV means. See also WP:GEVAL in particular. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am NOT advocating the removal of the term pseudoscience from the entire article. I am just advocating that it should be moved from the first sentence of the article to the body of the article.


 * Besides the link provided can you demonstrate that the majority of the scientific community would be comfortable applying the word pseudoscience to the concept of intelligent design.


 * Also ID is completely valid in other areas of science such as forensics, anthropology, history, cryptology and SETA research. So to claim that it is not valid without fleshing out these distinctions seems overly heavy handed. Especially when it appears in the beginning of the article.


 * But if you are happy with making this article appear biased right out of the gate, then that is fine, I just think that it is important to know how this opening sets the tone for the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been multiple, similar attempts to water down the lead of intelligent design, without success; see for instance Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_84. See the intelligent design article itself for the position of the scientific community on the matter, which is quite clear. ID is completely valid in other areas: now that is complete nonsense. ID is a specific claim about the origin of life/species/the universe, summarised as certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection, that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the areas you mention. It would be helpful if you actually took the time to understand what ID is before proposing edits on related topics. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I just checked the source for the pseudoscience as it applies to ID. They do NOT refer to ID as pseudoscience in any of their position statements. That was quote mined from the NSTA website and is from one member in a press release that was talking exclusively about whether ID should be taught in public schools.


 * It is also interesting to note that the Discovery Institute holds the exact same opinion, that ID should not be taught in public schools.


 * By the logic that is presented here every Wiki article about president Clinton should be read impeached president Bill Clinton.Mathezar (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you would think that the NSTA would consider ID to be pseudoscience when discussing classrooms and ... magically *not* pseudoscience when discussing something else. Anyway since actually reading the intelligent design article -- where your complaint really belongs -- seems to be too much to ask of you, I have brought here some of the sources from there. You are welcome. The DI's teach the controversy policy is not relevant to whether ID is pseudoscience -- and certainly not an argument against it being such. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Gamall, your previous statement makes no sense whatsoever and barely even addresses my point. Your claim that the belief that ID is pseudoscience and it is so ubiquitous that ID needs to have that pseudoscience adjective attached to it whenever it is mentioned does not make sense.

I have also checked the NCSE's website and their used of the term pseudoscience is also very limited and does not appear in "About" section of the website.

I think that specifically attaching pseudoscience to the beginning of ID is a fringe view. And I think that you have to produce a lot more evidence that a selective statement quote mined from one website to support your contention that this isn't the case.Mathezar (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "I think that specifically attaching pseudoscience to the beginning of ID is a fringe view." Uhhh, no. No, it's not. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mathezar; you will notice that it is done as a matter of course in the related articles I linked, intelligent design and teach the controversy. Did you read the discussions I linked? Did you see the sources? For information, I posted the issue on WP:FTN, since this article attracts less attention than more central ones, such as the main ID article. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Gamall Wednesday Ida - Mathezar is correct that label is not what is commonly or prominently used for ID outside of Wikipedia, that would be "creationism" in the opponents and general public. (There seems a local enthusiasm for the word in WP starting a few years ago.)  You can find this too in the ID archives.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * (e/c) OP&P presents ID, which is the a prototypical pseudoscience. This is mainstream opinion.  Describing it as such is consistent with WP:FRINGE.  Given that you say above, that your only objection is where in the article OP&P is described as pseudoscience, and again that you qualify that you object to calling ID pseudoscience in the beginning, it is unclear what definition of 'fringe' you are using that would make calling something pseudoscience at the start of an article 'fringe', but calling it pseudoscience elsewhere in the same article would not be.  Agricolae (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I rarely edit this article but do watch it out of general topical interest and to help counter POV pushing problems. So perhaps I'm missing some nuance that's arisen in previous conversations that I've missed. But I'm confused how describing ID as pseudoscience would be even remotely a fringe view; it is literally the predominant scientific consensus on the topic. Searching the internet for both terms together produces numerous articles from both academic institutions and major media outlets discussing ID as pseudoscience (with no potential WP:SYNTH problems as the sources flat out state it). Can you please explain the rationale for calling it fringe? Millahnna (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Searching the internet for both terms together produces numerous articles from both academic institutions and major media outlets discussing ID as pseudoscience"


 * When I did a google search, the first page produced exactly one opinion article from a professor at UCLA and one other opinion article from the NIH. The NIH uses the term in its title but does not use the term in the body of the paper.


 * So it seems that the term pseudoscience is not a commonly used term to describe ID even in academia.


 * I think I have demonstrated pretty clearly the level of intellectual honesty (or dishonesty) the editors of this article use to defend their ideas.


 * I will not try to improve this article in the future. You "WIN" and by win, I mean you have successfully defended the keeping a crappy article from getting even a little bit better.Mathezar (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I provide this, not so much for the current departing editor but for the next one who makes the same claim. Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia has an extensive article on ID. Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk: How to Tell the Difference places the irreducable complexity underlying ID "in the realm of pseudoscience".  Advances in Nature of Science Research: Concepts and Methodologies asks whether students "become proficient at recognizing and rejecting pseudosciences like subluxation chiropractic and intelligent design." I could go on.  There are pages and pages of similar citations, but this gives the general idea. Agricolae (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that the dispute here is over. Please let this go unless it revives. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Were you deliberately distorting the facts when, three times in a row, you said "first sentence" to refer to the second sentence? Also, stop edit-warring: technically staying within the bounds of the three-revert rule doesn't make what you did appropriate. You really should edit some other articles on unrelated topics: single-purpose accounts that edit-war and push fringe theories tend to get topic-banned fairly quickly. (This is friendly advice, not a threat; I'm sick of drahma at the moment so I wouldn't be the one reporting you anyway.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"Its authors espouse ..." → "It presents ... which its authors espouse"
I came to this article acause I was just on FTN for something else and went down a rabbit hole, but since the sentence in question has apparently been subject to controversy recently I figured I should ask first before doing anything BOLD. What do people think about changing

Its authors espouse the pseudoscientific[1][2][3][4] concept of intelligent design—namely that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent which is not named specifically in the book, although proponents understand that it refers to the Christian God.

to

The book presents the pseudoscientific[1][2][3][4] concept of intelligent design—namely that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent which is not named specifically in the book, although proponents understand that it refers to the Christian God—which its authors espouse.?

My reasoning is that the current wording appears to put too much emphasis on its authors' views too early on for an article on the book, when what we are really saying is that the book presents this view and that is why it is notable. Its authors almost certainly espouse a whole bunch of views that aren't presented in the book, and mention of those doesn't belong in this article.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Although I wasn't a previous editor of this article, I don't see a problem with your suggested change. —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 05:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no fundamental problem with this, though I would then drop the "—which its authors espouse". What do they espouse? ID? Or the Christian God? I would also replace "present" by "endorse" or "promotes", or "advocates for", or whatever: a book can present intelligent design by explaining clearly that it is, in short, bunk. And since that is the default view, it's not terribly interesting. What is interesting about this one is that it promotes ID. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You see, I added the last bit because I thought someone (me...) might get picky about whether the book "presents" ID or "advocates" for ID. If it was a social studies textbook, presenting ID would not necessarily be a problem. Maybe The book espouses...? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Shit. Missed the last part. Replacing with "endorses" works for me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the current version. Shifting focus to the book is an improvement. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 10:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Article timeline image contains unsourced claims
No comment on the objective veracity of the claim, but I wanted a bit more information on the "Banned Book of the Year" claim, and was disappointed. Nothing should appear in the timeline image that isn't also included, and sourced, in the article text. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it that DI post? It's not terribly interesting in itself, but the rest of the timeline seems informative. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 10:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)