![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Carl Sagan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering that it has only minimal content and no recent activity other than a recent merger, I was wondering whether the members of this project would consider merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Origin of life and related debates into this project. Badbilltucker 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Of possible interest to members:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution Please comment. -- ScienceApologist 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are the three templates related to the creation-evolution controversy. Any two of these may appear on the same page. I have used {{clear}}, which has poor text-friendliness, but points out the necessary information.
In short, these templates are not the same width, so they can't be put into a holding infobox together. If they aren't put into a holding box together, then the popular solution of putting one next to the TOC... breaks hideously simply by clicking the hide button on the TOC.
We need to make combined templates, or standardise the width. Which is preferable?
Adam Cuerden
talk 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Part of the Biology series on |
Evolution |
---|
![]() |
Mechanisms and processes |
Research and history |
Evolutionary biology fields |
Part of a series on |
Intelligent design |
---|
![]() |
Concepts |
Movement |
Campaigns |
Authors |
Organisations |
Reactions |
|
Creationism |
Part of a series on | ||||
Creationism | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | ||||
History | ||||
Types | ||||
Biblical cosmology | ||||
Creation science | ||||
Rejection of evolution by religious groups | ||||
Religious views | ||||
|
||||
I would greatly appreciate input in discussions surrounding content of Jewish reactions to intelligent design. My interference appears to have gotten this and Jewish opposition to evolution blocked. I apologise. But I think both articles need serious attention less they waltz into OR and essay gray areas.-- ZayZayEM 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the members of this project would want to keep the portal above active or not. However, it is currently being considered for deletion here. If the members of this group would like to keep the portal active, and would be willing to do so, please indicate as much on the page linked to above. Thank you John Carter 16:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have asked that discussion be brought about Category:Anti-creationism. CFD ENTRY.
I would appreciate input as to how best to define or deal with this category.-- ZayZayEM 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Category:Creationism contains several more, generally directly related, articles than Category:Intelligent design does. Right now, the articles within the latter category have all gotten the project banner and been placed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design/Articles list. Would the members of this project like to expand the project's scope a little to include the Creationism category as well? John Carter 20:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Somebody tries to mock the name. Please comment for speedy deletion [1]. Thanks.-- יודל 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
She is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
The RFC concerns whether it is appropriate or not to include a disclaimer noting that Picard is outside of her speciality, and that the petition was an absolute failure of an appeal to authority.
There have been no supplied WP:RS that utilize this argument. So it has been argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:NOR-- ZayZayEM 09:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be permissible to add a section regarding the controversy of introducing intelligent design to the education system, including but not limited to science curricula? It can be tied to arguments on pseudo-science, and maybe a have a section for people who have tried to introduce intelligent design into school systems. Karl23 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The project currently has two Top-importance articles that are only B-class:
...as well as seven articles that are High-importance and only Start-class:
(There are also 6 Mid-importance articles that are only stubs)
Would it be worth while creating a task to take a closer look at them to:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to ensure that everybody knows that the Intelligent design article is the featured article on the Main Page today. Congratulations and thanks to everybody who worked to get the article there! John Carter 13:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Could anybody tell me if there is any reason why, unlike some other projects, "List" isn't treated as a valid classification within WikiProject intelligent design's assessment scheme (articles tagged as such are classified as "Unassessed"). I've scanned through what documentation is around, but have seen nothing to as to how this class was turned off, or how it might be turned on. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
For some not-readily-explicable reason List-Class is now working. I've given the couple of lists within this project that I've got on my watchlist this classification. If there's any I've missed, others might wish to re-classify them. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Now that Hrafn has started to evaluate our articles for importance and rate them, which I applaud, it might not be a bad idea for us to organize our articles listed on the front page here a bit better. I also think the list is missing quite a few of the articles we have written, actually. If we were a bit more organized, we could see what we are missing, and what we should be working on to improve. -- Filll ( talk) 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just my 2 cents here, but I think we have some systemic POV issues in this project. Almost every ID page I go to, there's an immediate push to show that ID is discredited, unscientific, creationism, etc. in the first paragraph. Look at Irreducible complexity, teach the controversy, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. In the opening paragraphs, we're saying ID IS creationism (even though this is disputed by proponents of ID), we're citing a court case, and making appeals to the consensus of the scientific community. Is this appropriate for the opening paragraph of multiple articles? GusChiggins21 ( talk) 10:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 11:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's step back here and think about this. Now, there are a bunch of principles in WP that are relevant: WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT etc. ID purports to be a science, right? Its supporters claim that ID is a science. However, this is a minority position in science; in the relevant fields, it is a fraction of 1% or even 0.1% or 0.001% (see level of support for evolution). NO ONE credible believes it is a science or that it has anything to say in the relevant fields. Get it? It is a fringe belief, like people who believe in the Easter Bunny or Space Aliens. No one believes it, except for a few cranks. Nobody. Therefore, if we talk about irreducible complexity, and it is part of ID, and it is supposed to be a scientific principle, we have to examine it in that light and state what science says of irreducible complexity as a scientific principle as part of the science of intelligent design. When we start these articles, we often do not have much more than just plain statements about intelligent design. For example, we state that it is not widely supported by scientists or many scientists think it is a type of creationism. Invariably, people such as yourself come and complain and want citations and more and more and more information. So we have to armor ourselves with citations and references. We have to beat the living $#%^&* out of the concept, because otherwise people like you complain. So if you do not like it, I am sorry, but that is why these articles are written that way. People who support intelligent design challenge every statement, even though it is obvious. They challenge that it is not supported by scientists. They challenge that it was ruled to be creationism or that it is thought to be creationism. They challenge that it is a religious idea. THey challenge that it is not part of science. So, in reasponse, we are forced, over and over and over and OVER, to answer people like you, to put a huge amount of material in every article. And if you look, with time, the articles get more and more of this stuff. Exactly because of people like you. Because you cannot leave well enough alone and want to pick fights. So we have to protect ourselves and defend the truth. Ok? So if you dont like how they are written, blame yourself and people with your kind of attitude, because that is why they are written this way.-- Filll ( talk) 23:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We are applying the principles and rules of WP. If you want to change those rules, you are free to argue the changes at policy pages. Otherwise, you are on the wrong page.-- Filll ( talk) 23:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing. What exact policy did we violate, and how? I do not understand.-- Filll ( talk) 02:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
In any article dealing with a component of ID-as-science (eg. core models irreducible complexity; and campaigns teach the controversy) scientific and judicial criticism of ID-is-not-science is completely warranted. In non-core topics that are merely related to ID without presenting it as valid scientific/education model (such as describing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, other media releases, and specific DI fellows) - criticism and dissection of claims should be specifically directed towards claims presented/popularised by the article topic.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 04:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly, the film makes claims such as:
And your claim is, the question of whether intelligent design is or is not science and the position of the science and legal communities on this issue are irrelevant? Even though these charges of unfairness are often legal questions? And the opinion of the experts in the science community and court decisions are not germane to this? Cannot even be mentioned? That the validity of this argument about the Holocaust cannot be exhibited with both sides presented, in fact with several times as much on the creationist side as on the scientist and historical side? These materials you want to exclude cannot even get a footnote? That is your claim?
I am afraid I do not find your arguments very convincing or very compelling. Sorry.
I will note that we have not examined the claims about Newton and Galileo and Darwin and Einstein, which are all pure lies and misrepresentations. We are only presenting a tiny amount of material; a couple of sentences and a phrase or two to get the other side in. That is all. For balance. For WP:NPOV. We are not rebutting all the nonsense in the film, or the trailers or on the website. We are just helping the readers understand what the actual situation is; the courts and the science community have a certain position that is at odds with the claims of the film. Now, it could be because of a huge conspiracy. That is the claim of the film. We present both sides, and let the readers decide.-- Filll ( talk) 06:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I am afraid you are quite confused. " Phrenology" is an awful article. It is rated as a "start" class article, so it almost the lowest ranked type of article on Wikipedia. If you want a highly ranked article, look at intelligent design which is FA rated. Intelligent design is rated 4 levels higher than " phrenology". Phrenology has all of 5 references. It is uncited. Unreviewed. It is a piece of crud. No one has worked on it. No one cares. It is abandoned, for all intents and purposes, and should not be held up as a good example of anything. It should be used as an example of what to avoid on Wikipedia.-- Filll ( talk) 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You are still confused. This violates
WP:LEAD,
WP:NPOV and several other WP policies.
Template:Criticism-section indicates that criticism sections are frowned upon, according to the principles of Wikipedia. This even is reflected in statements of Jimbo. So if you want that to change the principles under which Wikipedia operates, you should go to one of the policy pages and endeavor to change the policy there. This is not the place to do it if that is your goal. You are on the wrong page if that is the case.--
Filll (
talk) 23:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, a review a few months ago of alchemy was extremely negative and it was delisted: [2]. Also "please address the point instead of trotting out articles to make the point." What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?-- Filll ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
There are only two ways to write the article:
Last time I checked, the article was trying harder to do #1 than #2. Unless NPOV forbids it, I'd prefer us to start putting more effort into #2. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 13:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A reason ID opponents frequently give for their opposition is that "intelligent design" implies the existence of an Intelligent Designer. I wonder if the ID article provides this point with enough emphasis.
Also, could you talk more about how Wikipedia contributors who have strong feelings one way or another about ID might object to a more neutral treatment of the subject? Who do you think might "object to the inclusion of this analysis"? I thought our neutrality policy "contemplated inclusion of all points of view". Am I misremembering something? Misinterpreting it? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ed, last time I checked, weren't you banned by ArbCom from ID articles? Whether or no, please stop fishing and wasting Hrafn's time. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"prior commitment" to materialism or atheism or some similar nonsense.-- Filll ( talk) 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This template is meant for articles with Criticism, Controversy or similar sections that segregate all the negatives into one place and leave the other sections overly positive.
Although present in many articles, and sometimes appropriate, this style of writing is in some cases not recommended. In such cases, it should be considered a temporary solution until the article can be structured more neutrally. This does not imply that criticism should be completely removed from the article; only that the current organization of content on the page results in an unbalanced presentation.
The fact that you want to selectively read policy means you really have discredited yourself. I am afraid the arguments you are making are not very convincing or compelling, at least to me and many others. And you have to have consensus to do anything here. And it does not appear to me that you do. Sorry.-- Filll ( talk) 17:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to be nice and to help him understand so he could be productive in the future. -- Filll ( talk) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had several citation needed tags simply reverted, because the editors believed I was somehow violating policy by asking for citations. See Objections to Evolution and Michael Behe. This is quite disruptive to achieving verifiability. GusChiggins21 ( talk) 10:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)