Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Intelligent design

Dealing with bad faith and clueless objections
ID, being a hot-button topic, is an irresistible magnet for pov pushers, cranks, and trolls. The previous FA attempt was scuttled by ID advocates making bad faith objections to prevent a fair description of the agenda of the ID movement. Until an ad hoc method is agreed upon here this will be the likely result again. Since only relevant, good faith objections are going to be meaningful as to whether the article actually meets FA criteria, I suggest any objections that are vague, do not map to specific policy/guideline violations, or baseless be removed to this talk page in order to give the article a fair chance at being judged on its merits. FeloniousMonk 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a pity that you didn't propose the same sort of thing for a vote regarding an article that you wanted deleted. Philip J. Rayment 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're trolling the wrong page. FeloniousMonk 16:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was two years ago - ancient history in Wikipedia terms. Isn't that a big long to stay mad?  Guettarda 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not when things haven't changed. Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that Philip J. Rayment's "strong oppose" and subsequent comments are rooted in neither policy nor a genuine interest in an accurate and neutral article, and thus fit the bill for "bad faith and clueless objections." If other credible long term contributors to the subject concur, I suggest that they be removed from consideration in the final tallying of opinions counting toward the article's FA candidacy. If this is carried, we should consider removing them from the page beforehand as well. FeloniousMonk 22:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonble to me. Rayments comment's have been disputatio pro gratia disputationis, they have no legitimacy.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be quite clear that I'm objecting mainly on NPOV grounds and the rest on the grounds of accuracy, so it is rooted in policy and "a genuine interest in an accurate and neutral article". I have listed specific problems with the article, and the two posters directly above have made no attempt to respond to any of my points beyond trying to dismiss them out of hand.  It is  therefore clear to me that the opposition to my comments is rooted in the anti-POV of those opposing, and removal of my comments will amount to censorship and a blatant attempt to suppress opposing viewpoints. Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It’s quite clear that you’re objecting on POV grounds. The amount and placement of criticism in the article is what makes it NPOV; to remove that or to add ID counterarguments would create undue weight. The peer review issue is sufficiently well explained in the article and your argument from semantics is far-fetched. As for accusing others of censorship, have you read Tendentious editing yet, comrade? —xyzzyn 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read it, but when people are proposing deleting my objections in non-article space, I believe that I have grounds for claiming censorship. Philip J. Rayment 11:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As a supporter of evolution, & the opposite view from PJR in all respects on this general subject, I still think he has a point and more space should be allotted. Perhaps he will add something. Everyone involved should AGF. Accusations of trolling are not appropriate here. The section heading for this part of this discussion was perhaps not the best  choice for an admittedly contentious subject. DGG 06:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To repeat: AGF is not a suicide pact. If someone torches your house, do you invite them over for dinner at your new house?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. People who cite AGF seem to think it means "pretend you don't see what someone else is doing" and it does not mean that at all. Accusations of trolling are highly appropriate when there is trolling. If I walk in and see a dead body on the ground, and a person standing over said body stabbing repeatedly with a large knife, should I AGF? I mean, maybe the person didn't kill the deceased. I should AGF. They might have walked in and just seen the body and been so distraught they started stabbing with the knife that the actual murderer left there without realizing how it would look. Yeah, that's it. I'll AGF, because clear evidence is so very unreliable. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And Felonious Monk has already been cited for tendentious editing. He should certainly not be moderating articles in which he has a clear bias.  There was nothing wrong with Philip Rayment's comments, unless FM thinks he is above Wiki policy on NPOV, or can redefine it to sui himself. 60.242.13.87 04:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that you Sherri? Or is it Jonny? Do yourself a favor and avoid making personal attacks. Conversely, you can continue to make them and be doing me a great favor. Take your pick. FeloniousMonk 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Along with that of Rayment, the objection of our anon friend here, User:60.242.13.87, appears to have no basis in actual policy or FA convention, but rather personal animus and a bias in favor the topic that precludes any accurate and balanced airing of the topic and its reception by the scientific community. So I propose it also be categorized "clueless or bad faith" and not be considered in the final tally, and moved to the talk page beforehand. FeloniousMonk 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)