User:Andrew Lancaster/ID RFC idea

This is a draft of a proposal that has been discussed in the past but never yet made seriously. What would it look like?

Proposal After working for some months to try to help improve the Intelligent Design article, examining its past, and then watching the article since, '''I propose that I see that no other solution which editors on this subject could work with in practice is likely to be consistent with the aims and policies of Wikipedia.
 * (1) it should be merged into Intelligent design movement, and
 * (2) the search term "Intelligent design" should come to a dab page, or a short article with disambiguation as its aim as per WP:BROADCONCEPT, and the search term "Intelligent Design Theory" should go the merged article.'''

Full disclosure:
 * I am an atheist, sceptic, and a Darwinian, completely opposed to the teaching of creationism in science classes. But I work a lot on articles about the history of western philosophy and science, and see that explaining the links between ideas in different periods is a critical but difficult encyclopedic subject, where I have been able to help some articles. I came to the article in late 2013 because I noticed that the article is one of the few WP:Philosophy project articles with FA status, and I wanted to see what that would look like. (I soon came to realize that it should not have this status.) I saw problems, and spent several months trying very hard to get a rational policy and source based discussion, but that quickly got bogged down. The article shows a long history of similar bogged down discussions with other Wikipedians involved.

Reason 1.
 * See WP:MergeReason, which is applicable here in a very simple way. The current Intelligent Design article has only ever contained material which is clearly about the said Intelligent Design Movement, and from extensive talk page discussion the regular editors of the article will never work in any other way. Examination of the two articles, and past versions, show no clear difference in subject matter. A merging of these two articles will allow better focus and less distractions coming (as now) from the need to be defensive against the frequent expressions of concern that visiting good faith editors make.

Reason 2.
 * See WP:Walled Garden, WP:BUILD, and WP:POVFORK. The talk page shows that it is not simple accident that there are two articles, but rather this results from a conscious effort by its regular editors to make sure readers searching for discussion of the search term "intelligent design" will NOT easily link to any discussion of the ancient (but still very influential) philosophical position known on Wikipedia as the teleological argument, which (outside Wikipedia) is also widely known by other terms such as "the argument from design", the "argument from intelligent design", and "intelligent design". (Indeed after spending time looking at the sources used, while the term often also refers to the intelligent design movement, it seems likely that reference to teleological arguments is the most common, clear, and consistent use of the term "intelligent design". See for example this archived discussion about what sources really say, as opposed to how Wikipedia is using them.)

Reason 3.
 * See our Core Content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VER. Stemming from Reason 2, there is a conscious effort being made to block readers from seeing a continuity between ancient and modern versions of the concept known in reliable sources as "intelligent design", which reliable sources insist is real. (Again see for example that archived discussion of sources.) The same aim also apparently drives other battle lines in the article such as twisting sources to imply that the concept of intelligent design only goes back to Thomas Aquinas (a Christian), and not earlier. (Proving that the intelligent design movement is a Christian movement was important in the legal debates in America.) In conclusion, Wikipedia is currently taking an original position, for political reasons. The talk page is full of quite open explanations by its regular defenders of the need to avoid giving the Intelligent Design Movement too much "respectability". I believe that we can not leave it this way, but I also believe that the proposal made here resolves the problem neatly, giving the possibility to WP:PRESERVE whatever good work has been done.

Comments about possible objections.
 * 1. The talk page of the article in question sporadically contains a difficult-to-follow claim that the article is not about the Intelligent Design Movement, but about its "strategy" in its efforts to get creationism taught as science. The problems with this should be obvious to any experienced Wikipedian:
 * There seems to be no source available at all for the term "Intelligent Design" being used to refer specifically to a "strategy". This appears to be purely Wikipedia WP:OR.
 * There is nothing in the Intelligent Design article making it clear that it is about a strategy, and no one has ever proposed any version in this direction. Apparently this is only intended to be between the lines.
 * Concerning reasons for merging articles, explanations about subtle differences on the talkpage are not relevant if they have no effect on the article overlap. See the second "reason" in our WP:MergeReason, which tells us to look at the article overlap in practice, not theory. "For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability."
 * 2. The talk page also historically shows use of a peculiar sourcing argument to try to justify the "wall" being built between the term "intelligent design" and the subject of our "teleological argument" article. The argument is that the Intelligent Design Movement itself (or at least the Discovery Institute) claim to have invented the term. Obvious problem with this:
 * This means Wikipedia is rejecting every other source to follow a "virgin birth" myth which is made only within a body of sources which Wikipedia itself describes as deliberately misleading propaganda. As can be read on Wikipedia, the movement made the claim for the very specific reason of trying to prove they were not just a using an old religious argument. Apart from what reliable sources say, editors can confirm for themselves just by using google that the term has a history associated with arguments for the existence of an intelligence which orders nature, and the term not only continues to be used this way, but appears to be used increasingly this way.

Another idea
RfC.

I make two related but potentially independent proposals to improve the Intelligent Design article, and remove a source of long term controversy.

1. Proposal: The introduction (and other relevant parts) of the Intelligent Design article should include include clear reference to the fact that "Intelligent Design" is a term which frequently has a meaning that includes, but goes beyond, the subject matter Wikipedia is covering under that title.

(a) explicit reference in an introduction to an overlapping meaning for the article title (something found in many sources covered together with our topic, but which we have chosen to handle under a different term) is potentially acceptable on Wikipedia and (b) whether deliberately going out of our way to avoid such clear reference, with an aim of our readers not being exposed to a controversial but common association of two related subjects, is acceptable on Wikipedia.
 * More generally the community is asked to comment on whether

2. A moving around approach:-
 * The article title should be changed to "Intelligent Design Creationism" (which by the way, should probably also have several other articles about the same subject merged into it, such as Intelligent Design Movement, and Neocreationism).
 * The article called "Intelligent Design" should become a WP:BROADCONCEPT article which allows readers to trace which meaning they are seeking. One option they should be given is our article about the so called teleological argument, sometimes referred to, like the movement as "Intelligent Design".
 * "Intelligent Design Theory" should redirect to the article about the creationist movement. (It currently redirects to "Intelligent Design" simply.)

Background.

The current Intelligent Design article is supposed to be about the "Intelligent Design Creationism" of the "Intelligent Design Movement", but the two words (when on their own) are also very commonly used to refer to very closely related concepts, which however also have commonly broader application beyond that movement. Most notably they are a common term for a very obviously encyclopedic concept, the teleological argument, which is relevant to not only the creationists of today, but also the longer term history of ideas in religion, philosophy and science.

While even the sources the current article uses, and also most sources in general, use the terms in multiple inter-connected ways, the current article has been written in a way which deliberately aims to avoid mention of other usages, in order (according to years of talk page discussions) to avoid creationists gaining "respectability" by being associated with well-known philosophers from the past who held similar beliefs. This has led to long term controversy and this in turn has made it a very difficult article to improve or even discuss.