Talk:Trotter Prize (Texas A&M)

Dembski's known for being an ID proponent
Dembski is known for being a proponent of intelligent design. In fact, that's pretty much all he is known for. Intelligent design is pseudoscience, this is well-know, recognized and accepted - and sourced. It is noted that Crick won a Nobel prize, the others should similarly have their major accomplishments noted - but Dembski is unique for being a pseudo, rather than real, scientist and promoting a nonsense idea. This isn't a BLP violation. BLP doesn't say "never, ever be critical of a living person". It says have strong sources for the criticisms. Creationism's Trojan Horse is such a source, and it is not a fringe idea that intelligent design is nonsense. The only people who don't think so are the Discovery Institute and their poor, deluded, lied-to followers. Science (and the judicial system) is united in finding ID to be worthless pretend science. Not a BLP violation. Plus, it's noted in Park's comment about the prize and Dembski - hardly making this notion unique. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about Dembski or intelligent design, it's about the Trotter Prize. If you want to note that Dembski is a proponent of Intelligent Deisgn theory that's fine with me. If you want to note that intelligent design has been criticized as being a pseudoscience, find a source that notes that in relation to this prize. But sticking in your preferred characterizations to denigrate the award and the individuals receiving it is inappropriate and violates the policy on synthesis and OR. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Context. ID is pseudoscience, and should always be described as such. It hasn't been "criticized as pseudoscience", it is pseudoscience. Dover v. Kitzmiller was explicit on this if you read Jones' summary, not to mention the extensive criticism it has received in the scientific and educational press plus the utter lack of scientific publications on the topic. ID is a political strategy, not a scientific theory. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this isn't an article about Intelligent Design, it's about the trotter prize. So while your opinion or the judge's from that ruling are interesting, they don't belong here in this article. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Context. For one thing, Dembski needs context - why is he famous? Others' got nobel prizes, are theoretical biologists, Dembski promotes pseudoscience (religion masked as science). If we're mentioning intelligent design, it should be contextualized. We could use "specified complexity" but that still gets noted as pseudoscience. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge
At the AfD discussion it was suggested that this article be merged to Texas A&M College of Science. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me, though doubtless the institution gives away many prizes and it couldn't have as much detail compared to its standalone page. I'd basically just mention the prize and leave it at that, not even bother with a list of winners. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The weight issue is a good point. Perhaps it should jus tbe mentioned there with a link here. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about merging the page, what weight issue are you talking about? Merging this page to TA&M would leave a redirect here and all text would be included in a section on the institution's page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The weight issue related to including details about this prize in that article without covering other prizes and aspects of the science program. You convinced me that it's better to just mention it there and leave this as a stand-alone. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So now you don't support the page being merged? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "the institution gives away many prizes and it couldn't have as much detail compared to its standalone page" and I agree. I think it's better to keep the full article as a standalone and mention it in the parent article. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you originally suggested discussing merging it and now you don't think this is a good idea. I think the page is better merged as a single-sentence summary in Texas A&M since it's hardly a prestigious or notable prize. How would you like to settle this disagreement? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)