Talk:Intelligent design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Emblem-important.svg
Please read before starting

This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Help-browser.svg

Important pointers for new editors:

  1. This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses.
  2. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said.
  3. Please use edit summaries.
  4. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR.
    • If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia.
    • To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue.
    • If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Wikipedia talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point.
  5. Please peruse the FAQ and the partial index of points that have already been discussed, and use the search box below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID).

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Featured article Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles
Four groups


Should a Wikipedia Article be a Debate?[edit]

I believe that those who denigrate Intelligent Design or Evolution should not contribute to Wikipedia articles. Both are theories that deserve consideration. The "mine is right and yours is wrong" kinds of expressions are distracting at best. High-voltage controversial subjects would perhaps be better addressed if only proponents of the somewhat conflicting theories would author the articles on the respective theories. Let the readers decide for themselves after reading what the proponents have to say about THEIR theories. Of course any statement that can be PROVEN to be false should be discovered by the Wikipedia editors and properly dealt with. Dfwlms 21:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfwlms (talkcontribs)

Dfwlms, unfortunately that would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. ID is a fringe theory presented as science, but which fails to adhere to scientific standards and methods, and is therefore classified as pseudoscience. These policies state that "[t]he pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such" and, "when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You may also want to look at WP:WEIGHT. --69.157.252.247 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dfwlms. It's against policy for WP editors to be choosing a side and then trying to put their side in WP's voice in the article. To comply with WP:NPOV, the reader should not be able to tell which side WP is taking as they are reading the article. It should be neutrally phrased so that the reader can make up their own mind. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:PSCI is part of WP:NPOV and is wikipedia policy - you would have to change WP:PSCI first, before you could make this article look as you want it to. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has chosen sides. It has chosen the side of mainstream science. --NeilN talk to me 06:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
When Conservapedia allows evolutionary biologists to edit its articles, then we can look at this request again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Pretty worrying when an experienced editor doesn't understand one of our basic policies as well as the nature of Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Par for the course. [1] --NeilN talk to me 15:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everybody can edit. Samsara (FA  FP) 10:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Any other arguments besides, "I'm right because my view of what science is agrees with me?" What's wrong with allowing the reader to decide for themselves? Cla68 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
We've got WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE both of which apply - we don't give equal time to every point of view. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that intelligent design is given virtually no consideration at all outside the USA should also be taken into account. As a European, I am not sure how many people take it seriously across the pond. In any case, Wikipedia certainly should not choose sides and therefore a Wikipedia article should be a debate. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As I wrote above, you guys are pushing on how Wikipedia deals with pseudoscience. The place to discuss that is NOT here, but rather on the relevant policy page, which is WP:NPOV. I will say it one more time - you need to first change policy to shape the article in the way you suggest. There is nothing more to discuss here. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Jyt - we've been here before, seem grossly exaggerating what wiki guidance says ...
  • (1) NPOV asks for fairly stating the views of the adherents not deciding a winner;
  • (2) ID is more commonly related to creationism (when not being accepted) so putting the phrase pseudoscience into the article seems a UNDUE/FRINGE position;
  • (3) PSCI saying to not state as if it is science is not directing edits of vague slurs be top-area in the article;
  • (4) these are guides only see WP:NOTAPOLICY; and
  • (5) claiming right until and unless some imagined condition X is a bit silly - and if we cannot abide by the guides now why would they see a reason to make new ones to confuse things further ?
Meh. I'm still at this seems unretievably biased anti-ID ranting but so long as it's obviously so folks can tell and a discredit to anti-ID is harmful to both sides is kind of almost fair if not admirable. Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of these statements are off. First of all while NPOV does call for fairness it also calls for the views to be published by reliable sources. Most reliable sources do not call ID a legitimate science so NPOV is not vilolated as per WP:WEIGHT. Also, ID being a psuedoscience is not a fring view because if that was the case it would mean that the vast majority of reliable sources consider it a legitimate science. I also don't see undue as relevent here either. NPOV may not be about declaring a winner but it's clearly not calling for the idea that every viewpoint is equal. The comparison to creationism does not work either since while many creation accounts do not present themselves as science (therefore are not called pusedoscience) ID has been treated as a science by its proponents. WP:NOTPOLICY is an essay recommending against citing essays as policy so it has nothing to do with dissmisding guidelines. Also even if that was the case I don't see any policy that would forbid using the term anyway. I am not sure what the lasr point means but I don't see the vast majority of reliable sources considering ID not to be a legitimate science as an imaged condition in any way.--76.65.41.36 (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
ID has been treated as a science by its proponents. Pseudoscience is usually treated as science by its proponents. Samsara (FA  FP) 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that you misread what I wrote. What was quoted was part of a larger sentence the comparison to creationism does not work either since while many creation accounts do not present themselves as science (therefore are not called pusedoscience) ID has been treated as a science by its proponents and was in response to the suggestion that ID being called a pseudoscience is Fringe and undue weight because it is similar to creationism. I believe what they meant by that is the suggestion that since the creationism article does not call creationism itself a pseudoscience ID being similar should not be either. The problem with that is that while not all creationism beliefs are claimed to be scientific ID has been presented as such by the proponents so the suggestion that creationism is not a pseudoscience does not mean that ID can`t be. Also to address the undue weight claim in more detail I don`t see the response of the scientific community to an idea that presents itself a legitimate science as undue weight in any way.--76.65.41.36 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
76 -- 'the pseudoscience label is a FRINGE view because it is not common in the RSS material and prominent events on this topic, the main views are 'true' or 'creationism'. So any rationalizing over how another label could fit seems just WP:OR. Feel free to have this opinion, I won't say it's unreasonable but suggest you recognize that the majority of material concluded otherwise, see also Creationism#Intelligent_design, and that this article did not even present ID making such. Again, having unsupported assertions then claiming that right unless some condition X is silly -- it's more that Y shouldn't be in a Wiki article unless it can be supported. But Meh -- let's be real after having having seen how this came in and gone thru this umpteen times already -- this was just a bit of vague name calling word-smithing someone came up with earlier this year to be more anti-ID, it was not based on some prominent new event or cite or substantive change to article having occurred, and talk has not helped. I'll suggest just leave it rotten is the best course available. Markbassett (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It matters not how many times you repeat the same BS, it remains BS. ID falls squarely within the criteria for pseudoscience as defined in policy, if you wish to change that you will need to get the policy changed and the place for that is not here. - Nick Thorne talk 08:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Never feed the trolls.

Everybody, please see WP:NOTFORUM. My recommendation, FWIW. Just let this discussion on this page go. Jytdog (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Jyt - we seem in violent agreement on that -- though we think each other has the fringe, this one seemed really asking if what's been seen before was worth talking over or showing the debate and consensus seems NO NO NO, again for opposite reasons. Markbassett (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 :) Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)