User:Mann jess/ANI

Article

 * November 7
 * N: Undo change in place for months when similar discussion had showed consensus
 * N edit warring over last change
 * AL: wading into an existing edit war.


 * November 5
 * AL: Change to lead likely to have been unsupported by current discussion (check discussion at this time)
 * AL: edit made after objections posted on talk, according to Gaba in subsequent edit summary.


 * September 5
 * AL: Place tag on sentence under discussion. Likely to be contentious from talk (check).
 * N: place "failed verification" tag on def. Consensus on talk was for the current def.
 * N: edit warring over tag
 * AL: continuing war. Places tag on next sentence again.


 * September 4
 * AL: Institute changes opposed to consensus on talk (according to Dave)
 * N: edit war over AL change


 * August 22
 * AL: goes beyond sources to imply ID is old.


 * August 7
 * N: CN tag on 'older uses of ID are unrelated' sentence (DV points to exact quote in source subsequently)
 * N: warring to replace CN tag
 * N: after cn removed, change sentence meaning to imply multiple versions of modern ID
 * N: after reverted, add cn tag again


 * September 13 (2012)
 * N: reinstitute content about historic usage long since removed from article
 * N: war to keep it in

Talk archives
1 Slanted article 2 Time to update the Peer-Review section 3 Moved "Controversy" section to its own article (finally) 4 Clean up Discovery Institute description at beginning of article 5 They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula 6 Denialism category 7 Excluded Middle problem 8 Rewritting Lede 8.1 Lead length 8.2 Ascribing motive 8.3 Grammar fixes 9 Denialism category 9.1 Comments 9.2 Threaded Discussion 9.3 Show me the empirical data 10 This definition is wrong 11 I think that I may have found the problem 11.1 Amend the disambiguation page
 * 67

1 Hatnote text 2 thanks and comment on falsifiability 3 Undirected meaning in article 4 A religious proposition 5 ID and the traditional design argument 6 "Part of a series on Philosophy of religion"? 7 Monton on Behe 8 WTF? 9 Use of weasel words 9.1 Page protected 9.2 Proposed changes 10 Promulgated 11 Use of weasel words 11.1 Page protected 11.2 Proposed changes 12 Promulgated 13 Scope-defining statement 13.1 Origins of the term 14 ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations 15 "Creationism" is an inappropriate term for intelligent design 16 Explanation to IP user 98.200.227.100 17 First sentence 18 Wikipedia at its worst 19 Unaffiliated publications 19.1 Discrimination 19.2 ID re creator 19.3 Deja vu
 * 68

1 Absolute Chaos 2 Promulgation link 3 Polls 4 Non-Neutral POV 5 "Article-specific editing notes." Request 6 Hypothesis 7 What North8000 advocates 7.1 Discussion on what North8000 advocates 8 Editors available for help on sources 9 Bill Nye 10 Help with Natural genetic engineering 11 Plantinga reviewed 12 "Redefinition" of Science 13 Peer Review of Flying Spaghetti Monster 14 comment 15 why are my edits being reversed? 16 a good example of bad writing 17 Revert 18 More changes to odd phrasings 19 more odd phrasing 20 requested response 21 making a sentence clearer 22 "The leading proponents" vs "All leading proponents" 23 Origin of the Concept 23.1 Arbitrary section break 23.2 Reminder about signing
 * 69


 * 70

1 Non-Religious ID: Needs a Separate Name Then 2 Thinking of Non-Religious ID 3 New external links 4 Earliest use of "Intelligent Design" and "Intelligent Designer" 5 Featured article 5.1 From the Oct. 3 version 5.2 The ID brand 6 Add Definition Section ?? 6.1 History 7 FWIW--A scholar refers to ID 8 Revert warring on intro 9 History sections 10 Removal of the citation needed tag 10.1 "Discover Institute usage"? 11 comment 12 Alternative draft 13 Missing links 14 Move the article 15 Source searching 15.1 Proposal and question 15.1.1 Subsection for sources: the teleological argument presented as science 15.1.2 End subsection: discussion resumes 15.2 Titles 15.3 One idea 15.4 Side issue: IDM claims which secondary sources see, but the IDM do not admit

1 νοητικός 2 The Scope of Intelligent Design and the Discovery institute in this Article 3 Concrete proposal discussion 4 the sourcing for our lead 5 Origin of the concept 6 comment 7 So where are we at? 8 Returning to what is now the "Subsection for sources" 9 Just a request 10 Core concerns 11 What this is actually about 12 a sentence which does not fit 13 Suggestion to Andrew
 * 71

Andrew joined at the very end of archive 70


 * 72

1 A new attempt at analogy to seek some perspective 2 Encyclopedia of Religion 3 Second sentence revert 4 MOS:INTRO 5 Historic intelligent design material 6 Pre-DI ID 6.1 search for modern secondary sources 6.1.1 Some examples of use of the phrase 6.2 Providing sources for discussion 6.3 Thaxton choosing term ID 6.4 Issues with common names 7 Workshop for proposed new/restored text about the origin of the concept and term 8 Proposal to change lead 8.1 1. FIRST SENTENCE CHANGES. 8.2 2. SECOND SENTENCE REVERTED CHANGES. 8.3 3. SECOND PARAGRAPH REVERTED CHANGES. 8.4 4. EXPANSION OF ORIGINS SECTION. 8.5 LAST POINT.

1 Update question 2 Proposed clarification of first sentence 2.1 The institute's definition 3 Culture warrior sources cited in the article 4 The origin of concept section 5 Lead first para: suggestions for rearrangement 6 (For fun) Let's mix descriptions into definitions! 7 Back to lead drafting 7.1 Modified proposal 7.2 Rethought proposal 8 Yet another draft: please be thoughtful 8.1 The origin of concept need for copy edit 9 Just the last part in isolation
 * 73


 * 74

1 What's the problem with "theory" 2 draft proposal for the opening 2.1 Sources relevant to first paragraph 2.2 More sources 2.3 categorization as an argument from design 3 Drop the NASA 4 A reminder of those sources for the lead 5 We need to be able to work on two things at once 5.1 Various options 6 The hat 7 Reverting anti-evolution 8 Possible change to lead sentence 9 A source for reference 10 The bigger picture - content of closely related & potentially overlapping articles 10.1 List of closely related articles, not clearly a sub-article, where major overlap with this article is present or very possible 10.1.1 Considered but excluded 10.2 Discussion and ideas 10.2.1 The hat 2

1 Help with a reference please 2 Should we shrink the talk page "header" 3 ID is "not science" not "pseudoscience" 3.1 Let's see where we're really at 4 New opening sentences 5 Europe 6 Protected 4 days 7 Edit request 7.1 Sub-discussion about validity of edit request 8 RFC development 8.1 RFC notifications and duration 9 Does rarely mean never? 9.1 Outsider comment 9.2 Second outsider comment and proposed RfC
 * 75
 * 76

1 Proposed version after page protection 1.1 Procedural note 1.2 Suggested conclusion for now 2 May we also discuss copy editing? 2.1 looking at opening 3 Scope of this article


 * Current page

1 Attempt to place finger on a source of controversy 2 Possible reorganisation 2.1 Concern that sentences should not imply all 3 Principles for lead writing 3.1 Second draft shortening 3.2 Third draft 3.3 Shortened version of current draft 3.4 Next round of drafts for this Q/A 3.5 Arbitrary break 3.6 Arbitrary break the second 3.7 Revert: please define "controversy" 4 Change the hatnote 5 Offer to help 6 Source question 7 Sourcing question 8 Pseudoscience demarcation 9 Sources requested 9.1 Results of archive trawl 10 I think everything that can be usefully said has been said.