Talk:Michael Behe

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Michael Behe article. 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. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Behe in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of Behe 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: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". 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.

Notes to editors: 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#Theory. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Michel Behe 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. Please use edit summaries.

Michael Behe's Religious Belief

Can anyone find a reference confirming Behe's religious belief? He's listed as an "American Roman Catholic". This is particuarily relevant as I have heard him described as an atheist (or at least a stated agnostic), giving extra weight to his intelligent design stance (as it minimises confirmation bias). A reliable reference to his religious history would be pertinent to this article, I think. Confuseddave (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Behe is a Roman Catholic..." as mentioned in Page 80 in the book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson. I guess the claim that he is agnostic is just another rumor that is flying around.Margulis 88 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Knowing the family, they are strong Roman Catholics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.236.211 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Last year I attended college with two of Professor Behe's children. Behe and his family are Roman Catholics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.97.34 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Article continues to be biased, libelous, childish

WP:NPA-ridden, histrionic WP:SOAPboxing that made no attempt to make any substantiated discussion of the article's content userfied to User talk:GusChiggins21. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

PZ Myers quote

I respect PZ Myers, but think we're better quoting the actual judge's words, rather than his summary of them. I've tried to format the reference correctly, but legal documents are arcane things... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, I hate formatting court docs too :) WLU (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Expert witness?

Someone just added Category:Expert witness. I'd say it's a bit of a stretch. WLU (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Too large a category to be meaningful, I would have thought. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Timmer article on Behe

Molecular Machines: Michael Behe, a Discovery fellow, has advanced the argument that some aspects of cellular life are analogous to machinery, and thus must have required the same attentive design that a machine does. This proposal is flawed on a number of levels, and has not gained enough traction within the biological community to rise to the level of anything beyond a distraction. But items Behe might consider molecular machines did appear in the talks, and their role was informative.

The proteasome is one complex of dozens of proteins that was mentioned in a couple of talks. Despite the enormous complexity and large number of specialized proteins in a proteasome, evolution readily explains its origins through gene duplication and specialization. Simplified forms, with fewer proteins, exist in Archaea and Bacteria. Not only are these simple versions of the proteasome an indication of its evolution, the gradual increase in its complexity allowed researchers to use it to infer evolutionary relationships among the three branches of life.

Similar analyses were performed with actin and tubulin, essential components of the complex skeletons that support Eukaryotic cells. Structural relatives of these genes appear in Bacteria and Archaea, where they appear to act to separate cell components even in the absence of a complex skeleton. An essential component of some Eukaryotic RNA interference systems also shows up in Archaea, where it does something completely unrelated to RNA interference. In all of these cases, parts of the supposedly designed machinery exist elsewhere, where they perform more limited but often related roles. Their use in determining evolutionary relationships didn't so much as elicit a blink from an audience of scientists.

[1] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem of focus

Hi, I'm not a wikipedia guy, so I'll just state my thoughts here. Capable wikipedians can change the article if they agree.

As of June 1, 2008, this article is less about Michael Behe than about what people think of Michael Behe. I came here to learn about Behe's teachings, his biography, etc. What I got instead was a well-crafted response, a polemic against Behe in careful encyclopedic language. Something's not right here.

I read the warning at the top of this page. I guess my complaint is the same one that's always raised. But at least for me, this is different. I have no stake in the Intelligent Design controversy. I'm a guy who checked out this article out of sheer curiosity. Meaning: I'm curious about who Behe is and why he's important. I already knew that he was controversial, and that the scientific community is overwhelmingly in favor in evolution. That's not why I came here. This should be an article *about* Michael Behe, right?

Consider, for a radical and patently unfair comparison, that even the article on Hitler (say) is devoted almost entirely to Hitler's life (ie., Hitler's beliefs, his actions, his legacy, etc.) and not the consensus on what a horrible person Hitler was. ID is pseudoscience, fine. Say that and move on. There are other pages devoted to that anyway. As it is, this article on Michael Behe reads like a hit piece. 116.232.31.250 (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Behe is (in)famous for:

1. His advocacy of ID
2. His claim of irreducible complexity
3. His paper with Snoke, which had to effectively 'eat' under cross at Dover
4. His ineffectual testimony at Dover and in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns -- both of which cases ended with the judge citing his testimony as lending support to the oppositions' cases.

As far as I can see the article covers this rather well. Behe's life-story (unlike Hitler's) isn't noteworthy (or well-documented), so we don't give it detailed coverage. His notable beliefs are covered. As are his only noteworthy "actions" -- testifying on these cases. It is unclear whether he will have any lasting "legacy", so this cannot be covered at this stage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a hit piece. Welcome to the Intelligent Design project. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the poster of the original comment listed under "Problem of focus." I am not a source of knowledge on either creation or evolution, and I don't know much about the creation-science debate outside what I've learned from my friends and TV. I'm an evolutionist (by default, I guess) with friends who are creationists. I came to wikipedia to learn a little more about ID and creationism.

Here's my complaint, again. The pages about creationism are bloated with criticism and almost uniformly negative. I could cite a specific example, but I might as well cite any example at all: the Behe article, Young-Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, Expelled, etc etc... Generally, when people use encyclopedias, they are trying to find information on a particular subject--that is, *on* that subject, and not on the critical response to the subject. For instance, if I were to look up the Protestant Reformation in an encyclopedia, I wouldn't expect half the article to be about the Council of Trent. You get the idea.

My original complaint was that the Behe article reads like a hit piece. It still does. Hrafn replied to my original comment, and appears to believe the article is well-balanced and fair. How do I argue against this? I don't know. It seems really obvious to me that an inordinate amount of time is given to dismissing Behe as a pseudoscientist and untrustworthy. Which he *very well may be*. But this should not occupy such a prominent place in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not apologetics. Hrafn objected to my comparing Michael Behe to Hitler. Well, I acknowledged as much in my original post. My point, however, was not addressed, which is that the focus of the article is way off. For a different kind of example, take a creation advocate who actually is infamous in his personal life--say, Kent Hovind. This guy is a wacko and was put in jail for bank fraud. So why not devote an article to his life and thought and influence, instead of half an article to his life and the other half to his detractors? As with Hitler, all articles on bad people should acquaint the reader with biographical infamy in neutral fashion. Instead, this too reads like a hit piece.

I'm sorry that I don't have much time for debate here. As I said, I'm not really a wikipedia guy. I'm also not hip to the wiki rules, which seem too many and too complicated for me. I'll say this much: I'm not a scientist or a wikipedian, but I am an academic. I work in the Humanities and spend a lot of time in encyclopedias. These creation articles are not encyclopedic. Creationism may be silly and pseudoscientific. I'm inclined to think that it is. But these articles are not helpful--not to me, and I'm sure not to many people like me. They seem less encyclopedic than agenda-driven. Surely other people must see this too. 116.232.28.208 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The article accurately reflects the balance of viewpoints in WP:RSs, per WP:DUE -- which ranges from disapproving to scathing. Even his own department very publicly distances itself from his ideas. As an example, here is what a recent book by a local reporter is described as saying about his testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:[2]

The plaintiffs’s expert witnesses awoke interest and respect from the journalists, while the defense’s primary expert, Michael Behe, managed to turn off almost everyone present during his direct testimony. Lauri’s description of the abrupt return from boredom as Eric Rothschild cross-examined Behe is worth the price of the book, laying bare the platitudes and sound bites Behe had come to rely upon as a facade resting upon, well, nothing. And here one encounters something that Lauri exposes through the book, and that is the obliviousness of the Dover school district’s “intelligent design” advocates and their chosen defenders to how their statements and actions were taken by others. In Behe’s case, Behe left the courtroom apparently well-convinced of having given a sterling performance, though later Lauri filed her story and was remonstrated with by her editor to lead with something positive for the defense’s case that day. “No, they did nothing,” she said, “Rothschild eviscerated them.”

"No, they did nothing" pretty much sums up Behe and the ID movement. Behe went from being an obscure but worthy biochemist to being a notoriously incompetent and clueless ID pseudoscientist. He wrote nothing before he jumped on the bandwagon that anybody remembers, and has written nothing since that hasn't been repeatedly eviscerated by experts who know far more about the subject matter than he does himself. So, unless and until you can find a WP:RS that actually has something noteworthily positive to say about him, the coverage will remain negative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Woe is me, this article does need updated but I'm overcommitted on other articles at the moment. The Timeline of intelligent design#Johnson's first book, Darwin on Trial mentions Behe's public debut as an IDer at the Southern Methodist University in March 1992, and shows subsequent events not shown in this article. The invention of ID in 1987 independently of Johnson should also be shown, and more recent events (still to be added to the timeline) include Behe's finding in The Edge of Evolution that HIV and malaria had to be specially Created by The Designer to kill lots of children etc, a finding rather destroyed by ERV. Will try to come back onto this sometime, but if someone can help out, these linked articles provide sourced statements. . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, have added some info. Still to do – The ERV affair began here, with an update here showing that Behe, having found an example that "couldn't" have evolved, did nothing. While the "pathetic just-so story" of science led to a brand new avenue of research for immunologists and virologists all over the world, including tetherin's role in influenza, ebola, EBV and herpes, with the potential to help treat all kinds of viral infections. Bit more work needed on that. . dave souza, talk 09:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

neutrality on scientific community.

The scientific consensus on this issue: List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design‎. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The current article says that the scientific community has rejected Behe's position. This is not a neutral statement and it is dubious. Behe is a part of the the scientific community and there are hundreds if not thousands of other highly trained scientists who hold similar positions to Behe's. Regardless of the minority status of this view, it is held by people who are functioning members of the scientific community therefore the scientific community does not have a consensus on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.167.79.34 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Behe's scientific publication (and by implication his scientific research) has dropped to virtually zero since becoming an ID advocate, and his own department has disavowed his efforts -- which are in any case well outside his field of expertise. So in no meaningful way is he still part of the scientific community. And the existence of a single (or a small number of) crank(s) does not disestablish the consensus. HrafnTalkStalk 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC) So those are your criteria. I'm not convinced that these are the only ways to participate in the scientific community. Also approximately 300 signers of the discovery institute's "Dissent from Darwinism" are all in the biological sciences is not a small number to scoff at. That's just an estimate based on number of those in the biological fields on one page of the list. Furthermore, it is only the tip of the iceberg. Only one proffesor from my college signed the list and I know there are at least two others who are sympathetic to or are of the ID perspective. So no, the scientific community is not unanymous against Behe. Others who disagree with it take it seriously. As for his efforts being well outside his field of expertise, well that's outside my field of expertise to judge and I'm willing to bet it is outside of yours as well. I don't know why a biochemist can't make scientific claims about the complexities of biochemical structures. And your willingness to call Behe a crank just underscores the lack of neutrality here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.150.31 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC) ROFLMAO. Oh Purlease! The DI's Religiously motivated and scientifically-ill-qualified 'Dissent' from faux'-Darwinism is worthless, even ignoring the fact that it represents a microscopically tiny proportion of the academic community (hundreds as opposed to hundreds of thousands). Your "300" would appear to be an over-estimate of the number who have a relevant qualification. And what is your professor's field of expertise? Advanced basket-weaving? Unaminity is not required, merely a scientific consensus. A few dissenting cranks can be found on any topic in any academic field. Behe (who is a moribund biochemist) bloviates on a wide range of subjects -- virology, immunology, parasitology, etc, etc, etc -- on which he has no expertise, has been contradicted by legitmate experts, and on which he imploded under cross-examination in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎. I see nothing wrong with calling an individual who has absolutely no scientific credibility a "crank". It is a bit informal for the article (where the appropriate word would be 'pseudoscientist' -- which category his article is in a subcategory of), but quite acceptable for talk. HrafnTalkStalk 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC) "ROFLMAO. Oh Purlease!" I get it, you don't take this NPOV thing seriously which you seem to be commited to continually demonstrating. It's only a wish for wikipedia I geuss.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.5 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC) No, you most certainly do not get it -- as you appear to be supporting the demand that we give credence to an ill-qualified (and thus unreliable) "tiny minority" -- in direct violation of WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV. HrafnTalkStalk 18:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I get it that what you think constitutes a scientific consensus is subjective and unestablished. I get it that the criticx of Behe are far less objective than they imagine themselves to be. And your responses to me are a non-stop advertisement of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.150.31 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone in here from the BLP enforcement section?

It looks like this page needs heavy re-editing, despite the huge notice banner above.

Discussion, support for and refutation of the idea of ID should take place on the pages dedicated to that subject.

This page should be a biography of Behe and explain his beliefs in a straightforward and unbiased (in either direction) manner.

This article is seriously flawed. I think by the confusion of the confounding of a philosophical/religious idea (Intelligent Design) and the issue of "whether or not it can be discussed in a scientific way".

At a quick glance, as is the case with many "hot topic" talk pages, there seems to be a single 'primary' editor that enforces his POV on this page, which makes a mockery of the informational banner at the top.

I am afraid I agree with the editor that pointed out that this is a "hit page".

KipHansen (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To ignore the scientific position on ID would be violating the Due weight policy. How does this violate BLP? Is there unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content? Reliably sourced criticism is certainly allowed in a BLP.

Also, dozens of editors have come to consensus on this article. This is not the work of one person. Your comment goes against the AGF policy. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is unbiased relative to his beliefs: it reports them, and reports what reliable sources say about them. That nothing Behe says is taken seriously by anyone that understands any of the topics he discusses is Behe's fault, not the article's.—Kww(talk) 00:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kww - your comment represents what is wrong with biographical article. "That nothing Behe says is taken seriously by anyone that understands any of the topics he discusses" does not bode well for your being a dispassionate editor. The controversy exhibited in these Talk pages make it obvious that at least some people think he might have had something important to say and that some people take him seriously.

The pages on 'ID as a subject of debate' are elsewhere and are where all the anti-ID ranting belongs. The idea that just because "dozens" of editors have finally agreed how to get away with discrediting ID on Behe's BLP page does not make it right. Editors wishing to discredit ID should do it on that page, not on the BLP of Behe, that's the simple point here. It is fair enough to state that "others", or even "everyone"--if you can support it-- disagrees and thinks ID is idiocy, but that doesn't change what should go on his BLP page. Link the the ID page and leave the attacks on ID out of Behe's BLP page.

Read a print encyclopedia, say Enc. Britanica, on some controversial scientist who had some 'crackpot idea' (like Linus Pauling for instance) and see how they handle it. It will give you an idea on how to do this properly. If you actually make this little experiment, get back to me, I'll check back here to see if you found that interesting or not.

KipHansen (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that no one took him seriously ... only that no one that understood the things he discusses take him seriously. That's a significant difference. No one is ranting on this page ... simply reporting what reliable sources have to say about Behe's statements.—Kww(talk) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kww - That's just the point....apparently you didn't try the little experiment I suggested.

"....reporting what reliable sources have to say about Behe's statements" belongs on the pages about ID no the BLP page about Behe. Putting those things HERE turns this page into an "ad hominem" attack [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ].... it becomes "attacking the man" instead of the idea. I see little here that is really about Behe and a lot here is is "against" or "counter to" one of his ideas--ID.

I offer again the suggestion that your see how EB handles something like Linus Pauling's crackpot phase and see if there isn't a better way to handle Behe's "crackpot" idea -- at least in Behe's biography.

KipHansen (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The comparison with Pauling is misleading. Behe is only notable in the context of ID. Guettarda (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The BLP policy does not isolate a heavily-criticise subject from the reporting of that criticism, it merely requires it be sourced, and proportionate to the reaction. Behe is a scientist, so we report what scientists say about his work - which is almost universally negative. BLP does not eliminate undue weight: Undue weight is part of WP:NPOV, which BLP requires us to follow, and hence we CANNOT give undue weight to Behe's fringe theories. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was checking the references and outside sources to this artcile, and alot of them come from atheist apologetic sites. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a small minority to me, and anyway, so what? NPOV means showing the range of views, not just views of supporters. Of course ID is claimed to be science, which is a secular viewpoint, and Behe is presented as a scientist – or are you arguing that because ID is really a religious view, only religious people should be allowed to criticise it? . . dave souza, talk 07:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

The subtopic about Darwins Black Box seems very biased. For example, what role does the interview with Richard dawkins have anything to do with the book(In the interview it does not even talk about the book and is only critical of the contents of the book)? The subtopic should be about the content of the book and also the critical reception of the book, not arguments againts the contents of it. That would prevent an edit war before it starts. -Nickles0n (talk)

DBB introduces 'irreducible complexity' and raises the eye as an example of IC. Dawkins is discussing both IC and this example, so is clearly relevant. Your attempt to differentiate between the book & its contents is more than a little bizarre. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As you yourself say, he's talking about "the contents of the book". That is "talking about the book". As for the {{bias}} tag you added, you need to raise specific points. And if we can't solve the problem easily, then a tag might be appropriate. But first you need to clearly identify some problems. Guettarda (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't exactly know how to tag certain parts since i have only edited a few pages and this is the only one that i think is bias.--Nickles0n (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda didn't say that you had to "tag certain parts" but that "you need to raise specific points" (here on talk). "this is the only one that i think is bias" is non-specific to the point of being essentially meaningless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Behe page and showing both sides

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]

I added references to some statements by Michael Behe which you removed with this remark:

Rvt: none of the cited sources appear to be reliable, at best self-published/questionable, and their use would appear to fail WP:SELFPUB

Let's take a look at what I added:

1. In the section "Darwin's Black Box" there is a quote by Richard Dawkins referring to Michael Behe. I added a quote by Michael Behe responding to Richard Dawkins, from Behe's blog on Amazon.com. The point here is to show both sides of the question. WP:SELFPUB refers to a situation in which someone is trying to pass himself off as an expert. In this case, if Richard Dawkins makes a statement about Behe, in an article about Behe, then why isn't it relevant to hear Behe's response?

2. There is a paragraph in which it is stated that the work of Russell Doolittle "defeats" a key claim of Behe. I added a link containing Behe's response. The fact that the websites being linked to may contain other material that is not reliable doesn't automatically mean that these articles are unreliable. Why isn't Behe's response relevant?

3. There is a series of statements by Judge Jones about Michael Behe. I included a link to Behe's response to Jones. Why isn't that relevant in an article about Behe? Doesn't that give both sides of the issue? I also included the text of specific responses. Are responses by Behe just not allowed?

4. In the first paragraph it is said that Behe's claims are "roundly rejected by the scientific community." I included a link to a list of scientists who appear to be sympathetic to Behe's claims. Why isn't this relevant?

--Swood100 (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Discussion of an article belongs on article talk.
2. All the sources you cited were 'questionable ' or 'self-published' (or worse) per WP:V. Therefore WP:SELFPUB applies.
3. The existence of Behe's response to Dawkins is hardly noteworthy (people respond to each other on blogs all the time). If Behe's response was not sufficiently noteworthy to be published in a reputable source, then Wikipedia should not be giving notice to it.
4. Behe's response to Doolittle is referenced to a patently unreliable source (a creationist wiki). I would also point out that, unlike Doolittle, Behe has no relevant expertise in the area he is 'responding' on, so we should not give the bare existence of a response WP:UNDUE weight. If the response is to be discussed at all, it should be on the basis of the evaluation of a subject-matter-expert on its merits.
5. The 'Judge Jones' material is 'questionably' sourced and makes a claim about a third party, so is impermissible. In any case, as his court testimony demonstrated, Behe is not an expert on the philosophy of science, so his claims appear to be merely "self serving".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: if a Wikipedia article reports accusations against Behe but uses contrived excuses to refuse to report Behe’s response to the accusations, then the evenhandedness of that article is laughable and it will have no credibility.

Let me take your remarks one at a time:

Discussion of an article belongs on article talk.

1. That’s fine. This is my first discussion. I’ll have to ask for your patience as I learn the ropes here.

All the sources you cited were 'questionable ' or 'self-published' (or worse) per WP:V. Therefore WP:SELFPUB applies.

1. But WP:SELFPUB does not apply if we are dealing with a person as a source of information about himself.
2. Suppose in an article about Smith, Jones says that Smith is wrong. Smith has five points he makes in rebuttal. Do we say that such rebuttal is by definition “self-serving” and for this reason refuse to publish it?
3. If Behe creates a document that contains his response to accusations against him it does not matter which websites make the document available. The character of the document does not change depending on the website. All we are concerned about is whether or not we can reasonably conclude that this represents an actual response by Behe.

The existence of Behe's response to Dawkins is hardly noteworthy (people respond to each other on blogs all the time). If Behe's response was not sufficiently noteworthy to be published in a reputable source, then Wikipedia should not be giving notice to it.

1. Dawkins said that Behe’s theory had long ago been answered successfully.
2. By reporting this, Wikipedia is asserting that this issue (whether Behe’s theory had long ago been answered successfully) is noteworthy.
3. How can an issue be noteworthy for the purpose of reporting the assertions but not noteworthy for the purpose of reporting the response by the person against whom the assertions were made?
4. Suppose we publish that Jones says that Smith is an alcoholic. Do we tell Smith that any statements he may wish to make with respect to this issue are not noteworthy unless he can first get them published in a journal considered reputable by his detractors?

Behe's response to Doolittle is referenced to a patently unreliable source (a creationist wiki).

1. If the reference had been for the purpose of proving the truth of an assertion based on the credibility of the website, then you would be correct.
2. If there were evidence that a website has been shown to be guilty of modifying the text of original documents so that there is significant doubt that this does represent the actual statement made by Behe, then you would be correct.
3. However if it is reasonable to believe that a document does accurately convey a statement made by Behe, then the character of the document does not change depending on the website that makes it available.

I would also point out that, unlike Doolittle, Behe has no relevant expertise in the area he is 'responding' on, so we should not give the bare existence of a response WP:UNDUE weight. If the response is to be discussed at all, it should be on the basis of the evaluation of a subject-matter-expert on its merits.

1. Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at a major American university. The subject under discussion is how the blood clotting cascade operates at the biochemical level. He devoted an entire chapter to this subject in Darwin’s Black Box (chapter 4). Don’t you think that a presumption exists that this person has relevant expertise in this area?
2. Doolittle was mentioned in Darwin’s Black Box and he replied in an article in Boston Review, intending to show that Behe’s analysis was incorrect. Then Behe responded in a letter published in Boston Review with arguments intended to show that Doolittle’s analysis was incorrect.
3. Are Behe’s remarks weighty enough to receive a formal response from Doolittle but not weighty enough to be referenced in a Wikipedia article?

The 'Judge Jones' material is 'questionably' sourced and makes a claim about a third party, so is impermissible.

1. Behe is responding to an opinion by Judge Jones, who is not a third party with reference to his own opinion.
2. Again, we judge the truth of an assertion by considering the contents of the assertion and who makes it, not who else reports it.

In any case, as his court testimony demonstrated, Behe is not an expert on the philosophy of science, so his claims appear to be merely "self serving".

1. Judge Jones: Behe said X with implications Y
2. Behe: the judge misunderstood and/or mischaracterized what I said. I did not say X with implications Y. Here is what I really said ...
3. Wikipedia: we will report 1 but not 2 because
   1. 2 is self-serving, and
   2. We have evaluated Behe’s statements (“as his court testimony demonstrated”) and have determined that they lack merit. To those who claim that this is the domain of the reader we reply that the reader has us to thank for allowing him to avoid an erroneous conclusion.
4. According to Wikipedia the philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science. I don’t see what that has to do with Behe’s wish to clarify his position, or why attempting to do so would be self-serving, or why such statements of clarification would not be relevant to the readers.

--Swood100 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Darwin's Black Box section, second to last paragraph, there is the following sentence:

This defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex.'

It appears that this violates WP:NPOV since whether or not the claim is defeated is a disputed point. I propose the following instead:

It is claimed that this defeats a key assertion in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex.'

Is there any objection to this change?

--Swood100 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Swood100. Your various proposals blatantly fail the WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL and WP:WEIGHT requirements of WP:NPOV. Do not introduce these changes. . dave souza, talk 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, again I am again going to have to ask for your patience while I learn the ropes here. Please correct my understanding:

• Behe’s theories are pseudoscientific and to allow Behe’s words to be presented in rebuttal of accusations made against him would be a misuse of resources, somewhat like giving a hoaxer the opportunity to perpetrate his hoax.
• Doolittle’s argument is conclusive. He did not just claim to defeat a key assertion in Behe’s book. As a clear matter of fact, he did defeat it.

Does this fairly state the points that I missed? --Swood100 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not "fairly state" anything.

1. Dawkins review was published in a prominent publication. Unless Behe's response passes muster in a WP:RS (be it a scientific journal, a major newspaper or whatever), there is no reason to consider it to pass muster with Wikipedia. Cranks self-publish on their blogs all the time -- it is generally not 'encyclopaedic' to take note of them. It is expressly forbidden when they make claims that are either "unduly self-serving" or about third parties (e.g. about Dawkins).
2. Behe's claims on irreducible complexity and ID have been explicitly disavowed by his department, so the fact that he is "a Professor of Biochemistry at a major American university" is largely irrelevant.
3. AFAIK, Behe's work (when he did any work with any scientific merit at all -- which hasn't been for more than a decade) was in areas unrelated to blood-clotting, or to any of his other examples. Therefore he is neither an expert, nor a RS, on these matters.
4. Judicial verdicts (unless overturned on appeal, or otherwise discredited) are considered RSs. Sour grapes in a questionable source from a witness, whose side lost, who was widely considered to have been discredited on cross-examination, whose testimony was quoted by the judge in support of the other side (which I would note has happened in another case since) and who is widely regarded as having lost what little scientific credibility he had left due to his performance, is, unsurprisingly, not considered reliable.

Per WP:NPOV, if you wish Behe's responses to be given any WP:WEIGHT at all, you need to provide reliable sources for them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We will be able to avoid unproductive discourse if we can isolate exactly where our disagreements lie. Please take a look at the following and let me know the part that you disagree with.

1. In an article about a person who has gained notoriety because of his beliefs, there are at least two parts to the article: (a) what are the person’s beliefs, and (b) are they true? A reliable way of showing truth in such an article is by contrasting the beliefs with the majority view in such a way that the differences are clearly described and there is no confusion as to which is the majority view.
2. In an article about a person who has gained notoriety because of his beliefs, apart from issues such as libel there is no condition that must be satisfied before the content of the beliefs can be fully set forth. It is not appropriate to withhold a full statement and definition of such beliefs on the grounds that they are a minority view or that they have not been published in a respected journal or that they are not regarded as legitimate by experts in the field or that the person lacks requisite expertise in that area. In many cases the only reason that the person is having an article written about him in the first place is that his views have aroused a great deal of opposition. To say that in such an article his beliefs may not be clearly set forth until the opposition is removed or until it is demonstrated that he is not a “crank” would defy logic. As stated in WP:RS, “There may well be reason to doubt that the views extolled in the source are true; this is not a reason for excluding the source from articles about this potentially untrue view.”
3. In an article about a person who has gained notoriety because of his beliefs, before it is possible to evaluate the truth of the beliefs it is necessary to first lay them out. The person himself is a reliable source for a statement of his own beliefs, regardless of whether the beliefs contain inaccuracies or misrepresentations. They are his beliefs, they are the reason for his notoriety, and they are the focus of the article. If the person is widely regarded as fringe, pseudo-academic or extremist, then a similarly fringe, pseudo-academic or extremist person or organization may be a reliable source for information about him. A source reliable for the purpose of specifying what a person’s beliefs are is often not reliable for the purpose of determining their truth.
4. In the determination of whether a person’s beliefs are true, the term “reliable source” refers to a source that can supply reliable information about the correctness or general acceptance of the person’s beliefs. Much of the WP:RS discussion deals with this determination. If the beliefs expressed are those of a “crank” then a reliable source will point that out and provide explanation. A source reliable for this purpose may not be considered reliable for the purpose of producing a statement of a person’s beliefs in his own words.
5. One of the restrictions on the publication of statements by fringe, extremist or self-published sources is that the material cited should not be unduly self-serving. This is primarily a limitation on using such a statement to establish truth. It is not a limitation on using it to state and define what a person’s beliefs are. For example, a scientist may have gained notoriety because he claimed to have produced cold fusion. He may be quoted as saying “I have produced cold fusion” as long as this is presented as his statement and belief and not as the generally accepted belief. This statement, after all, is the reason that an article about him is being written in the first place.
6. Another restriction on the publication of statements by fringe, extremist or self-published sources is that they should not involve claims about third parties. If in an article about Scientist A, who claims to have produced cold fusion, a statement is made by Scientist B denying the claim and asserting that Scientist A is a “crank,” then Scientist B is not considered a “third party” for purposes of restricting rebuttal by Scientist A.
7. When there is an article about a person and an accusation is made against him, if his rebuttal is available it should be presented regardless of the source of the original statement. This helps to bring into sharper focus exactly what the person’s beliefs are. As stated in WP:NPOVT, “Where accusations are contested in a reliable source, it is important to include this challenge alongside the accusation, and to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. The challenge should be attributed to the source. Give the facts to the reader to decide for themselves…” There is no requirement that the challenge must first be published or agreed with by any other person or organization. Nor does there exist the notion of a source so exalted that rebuttal is precluded.
8. Using a person’s own words to describe his beliefs or present his viewpoint does not, by itself, carry the implication that the beliefs are regarded by others as legitimate, as long as it is clearly stated that this is a statement by the subject of the article and, if appropriate, that it is the minority view.
9. When, in an article about a person, the person’s own words are used to describe his beliefs and the concern arises that his words are not accurate or contain misrepresentations, then presenting a rebuttal is a better approach than censoring, since this allows the reader to decide the question rather than the editor. This approach is more in line with accepted notions of how truth is determined in a society that enjoys freedom of the press. In addition, it insulates Wikipedia from the charge that certain viewpoints have been repressed. Exceptions, of course, are made in cases of libel, third parties, etc.

--Swood100 (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Help, help, we're being repressed! See WP:PSTS on the importance of basing articles on reliable secondary sources rather than giving uncritical credence to primary sources, and WP:V for the requirement to base articles on reliable third party sources. . . dave souza, talk 14:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that a person is a reliable source for a statement of his own beliefs?--Swood100 (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not Behe's "beliefs", as the subject is not theology or Catholicism, etc. The issue is his purportedly scientific claims. And no, Behe is not a reliable source on the scientific merits of irreducible complexity and ID, on blood clotting, on Kitzmiller v. Dover, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

By “belief” I mean a statement from Behe along these lines: “I know that I am in the minority but I believe that random variation does not adequately explain the evolutionary changes that are seen. My reasons are these . . .” Let’s distinguish between that statement and the following statement: “Behe’s theories are poppycock.” The first is a statement of fact about the subject of an article: “I hold this belief.” The second is an evaluation of the scientific merit of those beliefs. I agree with you that the person himself is usually the last source we want to cite as to whether his own beliefs are objectively true. Nevertheless, he may be the first source we want to cite as to what those beliefs are. Do you agree? --Swood100 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what you or I agree, it's a question of reporting the analysis of a third party reliable source, per WP:V and WP:PSTS. Start with the evaluation of a secondary source, and quote Behe's statements of beliefs in that context. Specific proposals? . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to use secondary or third-party sources to report facts about a person. His own statements can be used. As stated in WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves . . ." Do you agree that Wikipedia guidelines allow Behe's statements to be used as a source of information about himself? --Swood100 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See my last response. . . dave souza, talk 00:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that this is a little too cryptic. Your last response implies that such material must be presented in the context of a third party source. Can you answer my question directly? Do you agree that Wikipedia guidelines allow Behe's statements, sourced from Behe's blog, to be used as a reliable source of information about Behe's beliefs? If not, why not? --Swood100 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Stating a claim as a "belief" does not circumvent WP:SELFPUB. It does not permit a questionable/self-published to be used to:

1. Make a claim about Richard Dawkins
2. Make a claim about Russell Doolittle
3. Make a claim about Judge Jones
4. Make a claim that a widely discredited crank like Behe, who lacks any expertise in the area of blood clotting, is right about claims made in that field, when those claims have been debunked by legitimate experts in that field.
5. Make claims about how a case, where his side lost, was misdecided.

Going back to one of your original points: yes, Behe most certainly is "someone is trying to pass himself off as an expert." He has no expertise relevant to any of these points. Restating them as a "belief" does not make them admissible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In an article about Person A who has gained notoriety because he holds a controversial theory, is it appropriate to first state what the theory is that he holds? --Swood100 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Already in the article:

Behe is best known for his argument for irreducible complexity, which asserts that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore more probably the result of intelligent design.

This does not mean that the article should provide a forum for said notorious crank's self-published "unduly self-serving" defences of his "controversial theory" or claims about his critics -- this is not "stat[ing] what the theory is that he holds". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If we have a statement of a person's theory in his own words, then in an article about him why wouldn't we use that as an explanation of what his theory is? This would then be followed by rebuttal from other scientists. What exactly is the harm we are trying to avoid?

Can you tell me which of my nine numbered points you disagree with? --Swood100 (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Why not? You have already been told why not: because of WP:SELFPUB #1 & #2 & because of WP:UNDUE.
2. The "harm" of giving "equal validity" to a discredited crank, in comparison to the legitimate experts dismantling his fatally-flawed claims.
3. I disagree with the ones that use the word "belief" (see "Stating a claim as a…" above). I may disagree with whatever small number don't -- but by then it was a case of WP:TLDNR.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, suppose we say "Behe's theory is not generally accepted by scientists. Here is the theory in Behe's own words . . ." and then we follow that with a straightforward statement by Behe of his theory, not involving a reference to any other person. Would you agree that since "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves . . ." that this does not violate WP:SELFPUB? If you think that it does, could you point out the exact words of WP:SELFPUB that it violates? And would you agree that this does not violate WP:UNDUE? If you think that it does, could you point out the exact words of WP:UNDUE that it violates? --Swood100 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Per WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. … Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care" This means that we should be doubly cautious about using an unreliably published primary source.
2. AFAIK, Behe equivocates rather heavily between his writings as to what his "theory" means -- so it is not possible to give "a straightforward statement by Behe of his theory". Therefore we need to use a reliable WP:SECONDARY source to interpret this equivocation.
3. Please tell me where "Behe's theory" includes claims about Dawkins, Doolittle or Jones -- as it was Behe's statements about these three that got us started.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you really saying that in any article about Person A, if Person B makes a statement about Person A or his theory, then a reply by Person A will not be permitted? For example, Behe says, “The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.” Dawkins says “No it’s not and here’s why . . .” And that’s where is has to remain? Behe cannot point out any flaws in what Dawkins said?--Swood100 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If the 'reply' was not published in a reliable source, then no it is not permitted, per WP:SELFPUB. Blog/DI/Creo-wiki postings by a crank saying 'no everybody else is wrong and I'm right' have about as much credibility as a bout of flatulence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruling by admin needed. Consider this exchange:

• Behe: “At the molecular level we find molecules that are irreducibly complex . . .”
• Dawkins: “They are not at all irreducibly complex, and here’s why . . .”
• Behe: “The criticism that Dawkins makes is flawed for this reason . . .”

Are the following statements true:

1. The statements of Behe are descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is not verifiable without specialist knowledge. The statement by Dawkins supplies the necessary secondary source evaluation and analysis.
2. The statements of Behe are descriptive claims by the subject of an article, presented in order to state what his theory is in his own words. As such, they may be presented directly as a primary source, of information about himself, in an article about himself, as long as secondary source evaluation and analysis is present.
3. If 90% of the scientific community feel that the theories of a particular scientist lack scientific merit, then in an article about him the requirements of WP:UNDUE can be satisfied by stating that fact up-front. Thereafter, in principle, 50% of the article could deal with the assertions of the theory and 50% of the article could deal with rebuttal of the theory.

--Swood100 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1. It is not the function of admins to 'rule' on such issues -- they are decided by WP:CONSENSUS.
2. An admin, Dave Souza, has already weighed in on this issue.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking for a clarification. I would think that general questions such as these would be decided at a higher level than by WP:CONSENSUS on a particular article. I think I am going to just have to get a copy of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual in order to see how it all fits together.--Swood100 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is how pretty much everything is decided on Wikipedia: article content is a question of reaching consensus on that article, in accordance with policies and guidelines which reflect the consensus of a wider spread of editors on Wikipedia as a whole. You clearly don't have consensus for your proposed changes, and it's been pointed out to you that they contravene policies. Your proposed edits giving the "last word" to Behe on various critical assessments go against WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL policies by obscuring the majority view and giving undue weight to Behe's fringe views. You based them on self published statements or statements published on unreliable sources, without showing that any reliable secondary source has given credence or notability to these statements. As talk page guidelines indicate, the best way forward for you would, in my opinion, be to open a new section making specific proposals and showing the sources you wish to cite to support the proposed changes. Also please note, admin's don't have any more say than anyone else about article content, and I'm acting here as an editor, not as an admin. Of course experienced editors do tend to have more idea of methods of working, policies and guidelines, but these are available for everyone to learn. . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

This article seems to spend far too much time discussing Behe's views on evolution. The overwhelming majority of his work deals with DNA structure, so we shouldn't let the controversy around a few of his odder ideas lead the article away from the genuinely useful work he seems to have achieved in DNA structure. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason for this is that Behe is notable solely for his "views on evolution". None of his work prior to DBB appears to have evoked any third-party comment to speak of. Can you find any sources either commenting on him before that book's publication or even discussing in any sort of detail his prior work? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also isn't excessive to include his entire journal output? I would have thought that at least restricting the list to articles he is the principal author of would be more reasonable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He's principal or senior author of almost all of these papers, I think he's pass WP:PROF even without the ID books. The lack of coverage of his academic career before he switched over to writing books is the major failing of this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the principal/lead/whatever-the-correct-term-is author was listed first. If "principal" is some term of art in this context, with a different meaning, then I apologise, but would also ask (i) what this meaning is & (ii) how it makes the articles in question noteworthy w.r.t. Behe? On the matter of his prior career: (i) on what basis would he meet WP:PROF & (ii) what RSs are there giving coverage to it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The primary/principal/lead author is indeed the first one listed, the senior author is listed last (I've always seen it as the person who did the work coming first, versus the person who wrote the grant and supervised the work coming last). I think he'd pass PROF on the basis of having so many papers in good-quality journals (PNAS, JMB etc) All I'm saying is that condensing this large amount of published work down to a single sentence seems unjustified. However, I'm not going to spend time expanding that section myself, since I don't think he is all that important. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it normal practice to include articles that they "wrote the grant and supervised the work" rather than "did the work"? Also, the first article on the list, he's neither the first nor the last. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

His Departmental bio only gives pubs he's the primary author on, and I can see no evidence that it's common practice on WP to include non-primary (in fact it seems to be a more common practice to only list books) so I'm trimming his list down to only thr primary author material at this stage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

actually, Tim, whether the person whose lab it is it goes first or last depends of the subject and to some extent the professor. In my experience, as alternatives it is also fairly normal to either list alphabetically or rotate the positions. If specified, the principal author is the one with an footnote: "author to whom correspondence should be addressed." And, if there's a grant, you can always figure out who was the PI in the grant. JD Watson when at Harvard, made a point of not listing himself on the papers from his lab at all, according to his autobio on the principle that everyone who counted would know anyway, & he enjoyed mystifying the others. But Hrafn, it is now in fact required in medicine and increasingly common in all of biomedicine to specify in full detail just who did what in the paper. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes

When I suggested that the words “This defeats a key claim in Behe's book” be changed to “It is claimed that this defeats . . .” and was told that this “blatantly” fails the WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL and WP:WEIGHT requirements of WP:NPOV I should have right then joined the others who have stopped by, made an effort, and then moved on. The problem seems to be that you regard every proposal of moderation as just a change in tactics by the barbarian seven-day creationists storming the gates.

It has been suggested by others that you should compare the tone of this type of article with the tone of similar articles in the Enc. Britannica or other mainstream encyclopedias. Unless there are some people responsible enough to do this you may find educators announcing that they will no longer accept citations of Wikipedia on certain social issues. If that happens, achieving the status quo ante may be much more difficult than anybody imagined.

Best wishes. --Swood100 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You should never "accept citations of Wikipedia" -- Wikipedia itself doesn't. You should look at, and cite, the sources that Wikipedia cites -- that's a major point of WP:V: "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What I am referring to is the high school or college student who is writing a paper for school and is required to provide citations to his sources. A citation to an encyclopedia is acceptable for many purposes. --Swood100 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and what I'm saying is that if Wikipedia doesn't consider itself (or any other wiki) to be a "reliable source" and demands such a source for inclusion, then it is reasonable for the "high school or college student" to do likewise. An 'encyclopaedia that anybody can edit' is not 'an encyclopaedia you should be citing'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did a search on citing Wikipedia and I see what you mean. There is no doubt that there is a need for sources to the point of view expressed here, and since mainstream encyclopedias are available for the remaining viewpoints it only reinforces to the student how different the treatment can be from two encyclopedias that both claim to be objective. Well, if everybody there is satisfied with it I am as well. Again, best wishes. --Swood100 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the best wishes, a word of caution. From what I've read, some schools or colleges won't accept encyclopaedias as references, but insist on more scholarly citations. Some encyclopaedias my be more acceptable than others, so it's worthwhile for the students to check that with their instructors. . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This Article is biased and an embarrassment to this Wiki

Wiki over all is an excellent source for information. Too bad articles like this ruin its reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's strange. My view is that articles like this enhance Wikipedia reputation.--LexCorp (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Either way, can you explain why this is a bad article? Is it factually incorrect? If so, how? Or is your concern one of balance? If so, can you add material and sources to rebalance it? Or do you just not like the way that it's written? If so, be bold and have a go at editing it. --PLUMBAGO 14:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight to a fringe view

Can you elaborate on the undue weight that was contained in the short book summary, and how it detracted from the mainstream context?

Can you elaborate on how moving the discussions of falsifiable and the identity of the intelligent designer into their own sections and out of the Darwin's Black Box section affects undue weight or the mainstream context?--Swood100 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to your repeated attempts to add this mass of blockquotes and commentary by the subject of this article[3] into the article, adding about 1/3 by text volume to his exceedingly fringe view, without context or balance? Sometimes including actually removing the mainstream criticism of that view[4] as well? Is that your query? Or did you mean something else? Please be specific with your questions, or people cannot answer them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If this were an article on a mainstream subject, then a fringe view would be allowed little or no space. In an article by a person who holds a fringe view, however, the fringe view has to be reported. That’s what the article is about. When there is a difference between the majority view and the fringe view the article must make it clear which is the majority view.

If it is reported that the subject of an article has been accused of engaging in an Argument from Ignorance and he disputes that, then there are three ways to handle it (a) report the accusation but not the denial, (b) report the accusation and just say “The subject denies this.” (c) report the accusation and report the subject’s reasoning as to why he is denying the accusation.

I am following the third approach: explaining the subject’s reasoning. I have tried to trim the response down as much as I can, but there is a limit to this. I certainly think it’s appropriate to report a rejoinder after the response, if one exists, as I included in the “unfalsifiable” portion. I am not attempting to report only one side of the issue. If you think that I am guilty of this, please point it out. But if it takes a few extra paragraphs for Behe’s response to be presented in a coherent fashion, then I don’t see why that should not be done. This is an article about him, after all.--Swood100 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You said that I removed the "mainstream criticism of that view" but in the link you provided, not one word was removed, although the diff may make it look that way. I only inserted a short book summary. Please point out one word that was removed.--Swood100 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have specific objections, please state them.--Swood100 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just wait, and not assume that because I haven't included a certain rejoinder critical of Behe that I'm not going to. The judge in the Kitzmiller decision had some things to say on this question that were not at all favorable to Behe.--Swood100 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the added material has a whiff of WP:SYNTH about it and, anyway, appears largely irrelevant. The detail of Behe's claims and counter-claims illuminates very little, and the quality of the article is degraded (IMHO) by the inclusion of such minutia. If any material elsewhere describes the (excruciating) detail of this ding-dong between Behe and others (e.g. who used which particular word and when), then we should use this as a source rather than an excuse to shoehorn in such a level of detail. I think that it really unbalances the article, and for no real gain. Just my two cents. --PLUMBAGO 10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Two accusations are made against Behe:

1. Doolittle's study refuted Behe's prediction about the irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade.
2. After Doolittle's study came out Behe was guilty of intellectual dishonesty by trying to retroactivly change his definition of the system that was irreducibly complex.

What I have tried to do is give the reader the relevant facts related to this, as well as the arguments on both sides. This will help anyone who is trying to get to the bottom of these particular accusations to decide the question for himself. Previously, we just said that Doolittle's study refuted Behe. That might be sufficient for someone who is looking for a cursory treatment of the issue, but would not be for someone who wants the issue presented in greater depth. Perhaps we should split the article into an overview at the beginning, and then have a series of sections later on for those who want more information on a particular issue. But for those who come to Wikipedia trying to research the question of intellectual dishonesty or whether Behe has been refuted, I don't see how we get around the need for this level of detail.

Could you elaborate on the whiff of WP:SYNTH you detect here?--Swood100 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. What I meant about WP:SYNTH was that the section currently reads like sources have been collected and presented here in a novel synthesis. That is, the resulting back-and-forth storyline presented in the article does not occur in any one source (i.e. it is synthesised). This does not mean that it is incorrect, but it does (IIRC) violate WP:SYNTH. My follow-up point is that, should this material not be a synthesis and actually occur in an external source, then we should cite that source and trim this unnecessary material. It is far, far too detailed, and seriously unbalances this article. Not only that, by just (metaphorically) giving him more rope, I'm not sure that the material really does Behe any favours, so could be viewed as objectionable under WP:BLP. Anyway, those were just the thoughts that I had. --PLUMBAGO 09:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to take an example, "The final paragraph above shows the animosity that exists between Behe and Miller, possibly in part because of Miller’s testimony at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial" is pure synthesis, taking two primary sources and drawing a novel conclusion without any secondary source. Similarly, the preceding long and incoherent statement culminating in a demand for a charitable reading of his wording is presented without a secondary source on its notability or interpretation. By bending over backwards to give an uncritical repetition of Behe's argument the article becomes TLDR and gives undue weight to Behe's promotion of pseudoscience. Needs better sourcing, and cleaning up. . . dave souza, talk 10:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that this is a little ungainly. I can clean it up. Questions:

1. The sentence beginning “The final paragraph…” was intended merely as a segue into the events at the trial. I thought that it just stated the obvious. What do you mean by “pure synthesis”? It is clear from what Behe wrote (“breathlessly reports,” “seems to have passed Miller by,” “malicious reading”) that Behe has no fond feelings for Miller. And it is clear that Miller’s testimony led to the judge saying that Behe took action “to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument.” What kind of source is required here?
2. I will summarize the long statement. However, this statement is not presented in order to establish the truth of the contents of the statement. It is presented simply to show Behe’s response to the accusation. Behe’s response was “On page 86 I specified limitations on my definition of the system that is irreducibly complex and I meant those limitations to also be in force when I discussed the same system on page 87, even though my use of the word “entire” might seem to negate that.” The reason I quoted the relevant material from pages 86 and 87 was so that the reader could evaluate this question for himself. I don’t see how a secondary source on the “notability or interpretation” of this claim is needed, or even what kind of a statement that would be. We clearly have both Miller and the Judge saying that the claim is not credible. It is nevertheless Behe’s statement of what he intended and he still gets to make it, even if he is the only one in the world who believes it. Not true?--Swood100 (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you read Behe's abrasive response as suggesting "Behe has no fond feelings for Miller" doesn't mean that someone else might read it as normal banter – got a source sharing your view? And that says nothing about Miller's views, let alone support the idea that he has "animosity" for Behe. We cite Miller and the Judge, if need be we can go further and show that only a tiny fringe of expert biologists, if any, believe Behe's claim. You're giving a big lump of incoherent text to give undue weight to that fringe view. Wikipedia is about reflecting scholarly secondary sources, not about giving a right of reply to cranks. . . dave souza, talk 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I need to rewrite this. It needs to be made clear that the issue here is not whether the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex but rather what Behe intended to include in his definition of the blood clotting cascade. Under one definition Doolittle showed it not to be irreducibly complex. Under a different definition Doolittle's study did not address the question that Behe raised. I'll take a shot at it.

Also, WP:SYNTH apparently refers to reaching or implying a conclusion. If the comment about animosity between Behe and Miller is troubling to some I will take it out. It certainly doesn't add anything. As for the rest, I was trying to be scrupulous to avoid reaching any conclusions but I'll have another look at it. Maybe some slipped in.--Swood100 (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Blood clotting cascade

I received the following message:

Please do not edit an article to promote an individual's point of view, as you did to Michael Behe. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:57, 9 January 2010

Could the author please explain how my addition promoted an individual's point of view? Miller claimed that Doolittle's study had defeated Behe. Behe replied that this was based on a misreading of what he had said in Darwin's Black Box. I tried to show that the controversy revolved around the proper construction of a certain sentence that Behe had written, and then I quoted Behe as to what he had meant and why it should be construed in a certain way.

What part of this is objectionable?--Swood100 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see also that Behe's response to the charge that his theory amounts to an Argument from Ignorance has been removed by the same person. Is Behe not permitted to respond to this charge? Please explain.--Swood100 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

see above. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Someone just reverted my edits, saying that there are "Serious NPOV problems with recent changes." Could that person point out the NPOV problems?--Swood100 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit war to force your changes in. We don't work that way here. It is up to you to gain consensus for your major changes instead of just forcing them through wholesale. So far, I see no one agreeing with the bloat you are adding to the article. This isn't a detailed debate. It's a biography, and I think you are missing the point. Auntie E. (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

After my edits were reverted I left the changes in place, created this section, and invited the person to explain the problems he or she found. The next day, when there had been no response, I concluded that the person had no problems to report and I undid his or her revert. If someone takes issue with something I have added, please bring it up and we'll discuss it. Please be specific.--Swood100 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry, I dropped the ball here. A cursory glance at the current article reveals most of the same flaws as before. Leaving aside WP:SYNTH, I still don't understand why this material is not over at the article on Behe's book. It does not need to be here, and seriously bloats and unbalances this article. I'll try to pop back later. --PLUMBAGO 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like this article is trying to cover some of the major points about Behe and touch on some of the major controversies. Let's take the part about Doolittle and the blood cascade. Presumably that could all be covered in the article dealing with Darwin's Black Box, but most everything else could also be covered in a different article. I simply added his response, which required a little more detail about the controversy. I think that we have to accept that if there's going to be both an article about Behe and one about the book, then there is going to be some overlap. Could you be more specific about what you mean by bloat and WP:SYNTH and unbalance?--Swood100 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

By "unbalance" I mean that this one section of the article is wildly out of proportion to the rest of the article. By "bloat" I mean that the material included is largely only tangentially relevant for this article. It may make more sense over at the Darwin's Black Box article, but even there it may seriously bloat the article. It's also absurd that the subsection on one of Behe's book's is inflated by the inclusion of extensive quotation from another of his books. Furthermore, while I remain suspicious that the added material could be judged a novel synthesis of external sources, I'm now more of the opinion that the larger problem is just the inclusion of so much stuff. I'm also not sure that all of the material used could be judged reliable, at least for the purpose here of extensive quotation. For instance, the various claims and counter-claims deal ostensibly with scientific matters, but are often drawn from non-scientific sources (by which I include DI webpages). If the arguments they make are so valuable, they should appear in scientific literature. This again points, not to removing them, but to trimming mention to a summary statement and a link instead of extensive quotation.

Anyway, I've tagged up the section as being too long, and I intend to trim it when I've time. If you think the material is worth salvaging (and I'm sure you do), I'd suggest trying to summarise it here in this article but primarily integrating it with the main article on Behe's book. It really would make much more sense over there. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it might make sense to divide this article up into various conceptual categories rather than into books. I started to break these categories out and another person objected, saying that he thought it should all stay under the book heading. Much of the material I added was simply Behe’s response to accusations made at the beginning of the section. Perhaps we should break these accusations out into separate sections. Then readers who are only interested in one controversy will be able to find it easily. What is your idea of the proper content of an article such as this?

Clearly, if a response to an accusation is available it needs to be supplied, and when we move from direct quotations to paraphrasing we lose something. This has to be weighed against the benefit to be gained by reducing the size of the article. To eviscerate a response in order to cut it down from two paragraphs to one only makes sense if evisceration is the objective.

1. The term “bloat” implies that the information value of the material does not justify its length, or, as you said, that it is irrelevant to an article such as this. Can you refer me to an example of that?
2. Can you give an example of the material that might not be judged reliable?
3. You said “. . . various claims and counter-claims deal ostensibly with scientific matters, but are often drawn from non-scientific sources. . .” I assume you are talking about the blood cascade issue, but the controversy there is whether or not Behe included the factors "before the fork in the pathway" in his definition of the system that was irreducibly complex. It can only be answered by looking at what Behe wrote. I don't really understand the point you are making here.--Swood100 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

1. If you don't understand that part of the job of an encyclopaedia is to summarise and distil material material down to something of a readable length, then I'm afraid I can't help you with your first point. You have added a huge amount of material to a single section of the article, a single section, I should add, that already has an article elsewhere. This material would largely fit much better there: why exactly is it here?
2. My point about the reliability of sources is not that they are a priori unreliable, but just that their nature (i.e. outside the scientific literature) makes them odd choice for commentary on ostensibly scientific matters (I say "ostensibly" since Behe's work has diverged from science to say the least). If they were making good scientific points, they would appear in the literature. That they don't (and I include both pro- and anti-Behe viewpoints here), tells us that we're on political ground. That said, I've no objection to including the sources here, but we don't need to so relentlessly bore the reader with endless detail that they could look up themselves by following a link. In passing, one of the sources is actually Behe's Amazon blog - is this likely to be judged a reliable source? Meanwhile, as I've noted before, another long block of quotation in support of this book is from another of his books.
3. Quoting Behe's response concerning clotting factors is giving undue weight to his views. The previous version of the article (which I note has now been trimmed somewhat by a third party) essentially finished up with remarks from Behe which might lead the reader to conclude, erroneously, that his viewpoint was the last word in this discussion. As it happens, it may well have been the last word in this discussion because the other participants got fed up with goalpost-shifting and tendentious points about particular wordings. That Behe does not publish these ideas in the scientific literature should tell one something about their reliability and whether using them would constitute undue weight.

Anyhow, I'll try to get around to looking at the newly trimmed version of the article. --PLUMBAGO 10:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no response to my request that the person doing that massive revert explain his reasons, I undid it. I have no problem with criticism. It's just that we need to go about this in a civilized way: by expressing and discussing specific problems that we see.

I also broke out the major controversies into their own categories.

I start from the proposition that any theory that is to be discussed in Wikipedia should be presented as its proponent would present it, and that it is not proper to present a weakened or diluted version of a theory in order to accomplish goals related to Fringe theories. Those goals must be accomplished through commentary, response and rebuttal in the same article. The reader is entitled to have the actual, original theory presented to him and often there is nobody better able to present it than the fringe scientist himself. If the words of the scientist are used to present the theory there must be no confusion that this is an exposition of the theory by the proponent, and that this is not an explanation of the generally accepted theory. If that is accomplished, then the theory should be presented.

Do you agree with the preceding paragraph?

In his Amazon blog, Behe is explaining that Miller is wrong because he was mistaken as to what Behe's theory was. This serves to explain and define his theory. There is nobody better able to do that than the man himself. And whether it comes from his blog or from a book that he wrote is irrelevant. Is Behe's blog a reliable source? If the question is "Is Behe's theory true?" then Behe's blog is not a reliable source. If the question is "What is Behe's theory?" then the blog is is definitely a reliable source, and that is what it is being used for here. Disagreement?

Can you give me an example of where I "relentlessly bore the reader with endless detail"?

In your third paragraph, I think you are missing the point. The issue here is this: "Did Behe exclude the factors "before the fork in the pathway" from his definition of the irreducibly complex system?" We are trying to determine from his own writing what he wrote and what he meant. How is it giving undue weight to present his own view on this? Certainly the result may be that we do not believe that he "meant" something that was not explicitly expressed. That was the conclusion drawn by both Miller and the judge. And how can it be concluded that his viewpoint was the last word in the discussion when the judge formally found that Miller's view was the correct one? That Behe did not publish this in a scientific article would be relevant to whether the blood clotting mechanism is irreducibly complex. It is not relevant to the determination of how he defined the system that he said was irreducibly complex. For that, we just look at what he wrote.

Was there a point you were making that I did not address?--Swood100 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A Simple Request

I have heard people assert that there are issues with the edits I have made. Each time, I have asked the person to please point out the specific text he or she is talking about and what the specific issue is, but nobody has done that. Then I get accused of being hard of hearing. Now somebody else has come along and done a major revert with no explanation.

To the people who have a problem with what I have added: how about some specifics? It is not enough just to throw out major categories such as WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. I have read those but I need you to tell me specifically, in English, (a) what text is objectionable, and (b) what is the specific objection. Otherwise, how can we even discuss it? One person says "This is WP:NPOV." The next person says "No it's not." That's not productive. You need to point out the exact text and explain why you think it falls under an objectionable category.

Now Simonm223 has come along and reverted everything to some arbitrary point. Please explain (and please don't just recite category names).--Swood100 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there anybody here who is arguing that it is never permissible to use a fringe scientist's own words to explain what his theory is? And that it is never permissible to show such a scientist's response to the charges made against him? I hope that everyone realizes how absurd that is. No matter what the theory is, it should be presented as the proponent presents it. How else does the reader know what the position is? Then should follow appropriate response and rebuttal. Any other approach that I'm aware of has no justification.--Swood100 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Two things: 1) You have been trying to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK for a POV supporting the so-called Intelligent Design theory. The inclusion of extensive quotes from Behe, outlining his arguments is neither necessary to understand the subject of the article nor is it within the bounds of WP:DUE. Furthermore it violates WP:FRINGE by destroying parity of sources on an article related to a fringe topic (ID).

2) The burden falls on you to justify inclusion of new material. Not of me to justify reversion of your edits. The fact that multiple people have reverted your edits should indicate to you that consensus does not support the inclusion of that material. I do not intend to defend my reversions point by point. You should seek consensus over whether to include some of this contentious material. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if we understand each other correctly. When the subject of an article is a fringe scientist:

1. I say that it is appropriate to use the words of the fringe scientist to show what his theory is, and you say that this is not allowed because (a) using the words of the fringe scientist is not an appropriate way to understand his theory, (b) using the words of the fringe scientist to set out what his theory is constitutes making an argument on his behalf, and (c) that the harm caused by allowing such an argument to be made cannot be remedied by rebuttal in the article.
2. You say that it is not appropriate to use the words of a fringe scientist to describe his theory because that violates parity of sources.
3. You say that you carefully thought through all the material you removed and determined that it was, without exception, all objectionable.
4. You refuse to address any specific text and explain why it falls into an objectionable category.

You failed to address the WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK issues. Furthermore you entirely disregarded my second point. I've laid out the reason for my revert. I've laid out what you should do if you want some of that material included in the article. I will not play WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT games with somebody pushing for their POV. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how my additions violate WP:DUE. Here is what WP:DUE says:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader.

Please explain what makes this a WP:COATRACK issue:

A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".

As far as justifying the inclusion of new material, I justify it this way:

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. In addition, see the "Some General Rules" section for additional justifying reasons.--Swood100 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Suppose we have a fringe scientist who believes that Copernicus had it wrong and that in fact the Ptolemaic system is the one that is correct. He believes this is true because over time he can see the planets going around in circles in the sky. If this man has achieved sufficient notoriety to warrant his own article, you would argue that his descriptions of the Ptolemaic system, being the one that he asserts is the correct one, and statements of his planetary observations, may not be used in the article since (a) this violates parity of sources, (b) presenting his theory through the use of his own words would constitute the making of an argument on his behalf, and (c) there would be no way, then, that it would be possible to present modern experts who could demonstrate to the reader how far off-base this man is. You say that when a reader wants to understand a man's theory, hearing it expressed by the man himself does not tend to clarify exactly what the theory is. Rather, that is to be avoided in the case of a fringe theory because of the likelihood that no cogent arguments will be available to show the flaws in the fringe theory, and because consequently people will be led astray.

Please correct any point that I am not understanding correctly.--Swood100 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I repeat that the burden is upon you to justify the inclusion of new material and to gain consensus on the modificiations. It does not fall to me to justify my reversion. Seek consensus for your modifications if you wish to include them. Attempting to attack me for reverting you will not lead to that. I am personally opposed to including a list of Behe talking points as they strike me as a WP:COATRACK for his opinion. Your long string of blockquotes weakly framed as "debate" discussion is thus what I have issue with.Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, let's start with the Doolittle paragraph. You have it ending like this: "This defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex." My additions show that this is a disputed point. I try to point out clearly that the dispute revolves around the pages in Darwin's Black Box where Behe says that the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex, meaning that if you remove one of the factors the system will no longer work. Doolittle found that the pufferfish was missing three of the factors and the system still worked. Miller said that his disproves Behe's prediction. Behe said that he had excluded those three factors from his definition of the irreducibly complex system, and so Doolittle's finding did not conflict with his prediction. The answer to the question revolves around how you interpret the simple English he used on pages 86 and 87 of his book. I maintain that since this is a disputed point, and since it can be explained in a brief space, it should be explained. And I believe that Behe's remark about the "principle of malicious reading" is relevant in that it shows his belief that a good-faith reading of what he wrote supports his position. I also included references showing the reader how to get to the relevant testimony of both Miller and Behe on this issue. These additions are more helpful to the reader than just declaring that one of the sides was correct.--Swood100 (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Miller-Behe remarks being framed as a debate that can easily be remedied. I'll just give Miller's assertion and then Behe's response.--Swood100 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are having a problem with Behe's Argument From Ignorance response, the response could be paraphrased but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. All his points (or "talking points" as you put it) would still need to be included, because they constitute his answer to the charge. I have no objection to removing the blockquotes and displaying this all as one paragraph with regular quotes.--Swood100 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't need to include a multitude of Behe quotes. I disagree with you on this. If you want to include it show that consensus supports your position. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So, you do not object to the undoing of your revert as long as we leave out Behe's current response to the charge that his theory amounts to an Argument From Ignorance and see if we can come up with a better one. However, you are not proposing that Behe's response to this charge could legitimately be excluded altogether. Is this correct?--Swood100 (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is anybody else who has a problem with any of my edits, please let me know what text you are referring to and what the nature of the issue is.--Swood100 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The following statement was made above:

I am personally opposed to including a list of Behe talking points as they strike me as a WP:COATRACK for his opinion.

The critical thing that this person is failing to realize is that the only thing that this article is about is Behe's opinion and how it differs from mainstream scientific opinion. People come to this article because they want to know about Behe's opinion - i.e. his theory. I think that this is the essence of the problem that people have with my edits. They don't want Behe's opinion to be expressed. Is there anybody who has a problem with my edits for some other reason? The solution is not to muzzle Behe. The solution is in the rebuttal. If anyone is aware of any strong, succinct rebuttals that I have overlooked, please point them out to me. I will be happy to present them as powerfully as I can.--Swood100 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are no further objections at this point, I will restore my edits, excluding the part about the Argument from Ignorance. I was never happy with that anyway because the quotations from Behe only made reference to chapters in his book where he says that he made arguments that were not merely negative. And the opposing quotations just spoke at a general level. And we need to also include the "God of the gaps" accusation (a form of Argument from Ignorance). We need to reference some specific arguments that Behe says turn his position into something other than an Argument from Ignorance. We also need specific rebuttals: why the particular arguments he is making fail to rescue his position from being an Argument from Ignorance and/or fail to be cogent arguments against the mainstream position. The web is a big place. If anybody knows of any good material on either side, and hasn't got the time right now to incorporate it into the article, just make a little note right here on this page, saying: "Check out this link" and I will either form it into a compact argument or I will tell you why I believe that there might be a better source for that particular point (or I will tell you that I haven't got any time right now to do any editing). The bottom line is this:

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.

Finally, fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced qualitative research - denialist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

--Swood100 (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not restore your edits until you have convinced us they are necessary. You have no consensus to do so. I see no one supporting you here. We told you we don't think they are necessary, and you haven't even told us why they are. We've told you repeatedly. This is not the page to debate Behe's ideas. Auntie E. (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You are treating this article as if it were an article on a general subject, such as Evolution, in which Behe's theory can be treated as a fringe theory and excluded or truncated because of due weight when compared with the major theories. However, this is an article about a person who is notable because of his fringe theory. Are you saying that in a biography of such a person an exposition of his theory can be excluded on the grounds that it is a fringe theory?

Here are the requirements of WP:NPOV:

1. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
2. A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. … Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: … Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

It is true that the only people who have spoken up so far are those who are trying to enforce their own negative point of view about Behe in this article. But an article cannot ignore the requirements of WP:NPOV, even by consensus.

I described earlier the reason for my changes related to the Doolittle issue. What do you find objectionable about that?--Swood100 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You said that this is not the page to debate Behe's ideas. Is this the page to describe Behe's ideas? If both sides are not going to be portrayed, should we remove all disparagement of Behe's ideas? What exactly belongs on this page?--Swood100 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This has entered far into WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT territory. That's a game I don't play. There is no consensus for your edits. You have provided no valid rationale for inclusion. Until you do so I will not debate further. I will, however, revert edits that go against consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, although there are more than two parties there appear to be only two sides, so Wikipedia:Third opinion appears to be available. Would you agree to that?--Swood100 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Some general rules

From Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

1. Finally, fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced qualitative research - denialist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.
2. While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources.
3. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.

From Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

1. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
2. A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. … Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: … Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

1. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.

From Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples

1. Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view

--Swood100 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP Issues

This article has serious BLP issues.

1. The statement "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community.[3][4][5", is not supported by the cites, none of which are reliable sources qualified to speak for "the scientific community". At best this is [WP:SYN] which is completely inappropriate for an WP:BLP. Reword or remove
2. "and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy" unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement.
3. "Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution". Cites a wikilink. WP is not WP:RS should be removed.
4. "Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures." - Unsourced
5. "Behe's testimony is extensively cited by the judge" - Providing a number of cites none of which make this statement, to justify the statement is OR/SYN.
6. The statement "In 1996, Behe published his ideas on irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box, which was rejected by the scientific community." is unsupported and probably unsupportable. Say specifically who rejected it or find a statement from a scientific body qualified to speak for the scientific community.
7. The first paragraph of the "Darwins Black Box" section is OR. One of the references is broken, the other goes to an infidel.org book review which is not an appropriate a RS for a BLP.
8. "Furthermore, Behe aimed the publication of this book at the general public,[21] gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements, contrary to normal interpretations of the scientific method.[22][23]" - impugns the authors motives. One is tempted to use the "L" word to describe this statement. Cites don't help here. You need to quote a secondary source so that it doesn't appear that it is WP who is making this charge.
9. "Nevertheless, Behe's credentials as a biochemist gave the intelligent design movement a key proponent. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution." This entire paragraph is unsourced and needs to be removed or sourced.

When writing BLP's one must be hyper cautious when making statements about a person's work that could affect their livelihood. Some highlights from WP:BLP which this article fails:

• Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively
• Be very firm about the use of high quality references.
• Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

Although per WP:BP these entries should be removed immediately and without discussion, I am posting this as a courtesy to interested editors to provide an opportunity to resolve these issues.

In addition, the entire article is written in a very non-encyclopedic tone. See WP:Words_to_avoid for hints on improving this aspect of the article. I would suggest that much of the material here doesn't belong in a biography and should be moved to the article on ID where editors have more latitude to discuss scientific controversies without running into BLP restrictions. JPatterson (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the above I have removed unsourced or non-RS sourced material. With minor exceptions I've not attempted to fix the holes this leaves in the article which I will leave to someone familiar with the subject matter. Editors reverting the above edits or adding new material should be prepared to defend the addition at the appropriate notice board per WP:BLP JPatterson (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's fix this article

I agree with Swood100 that this article reads like a propaganda piece. I understand that the editors disagree with his ideas. But that does not excuse the sniping that runs through much of the article. Some of the more serious problems:

• Criticism of Behe is sprinkled throughout the article. The effect is that when we attempt to understand what his views are we are constantly interrupted by reminders that he is wrong (or at least in the minority). This reads like an attempt to shout him down. I suggest moving most if it into a section entitled "Criticism of His Views".

• The statement that all of the other biologists in his university department have disavowed his views (a statement which I have clarified) does not belong in the subheading about his education. This is criticism of his views. It has been placed here to offset his academic qualifications.

• The section "Promotion of irreducible complexity and intelligent design" is confusing. It appears to make a diversion into speculation as to the motives of those who proposed I.D. I think this section should be rewritten to explain the role of Michael Behe in the development of I.D.

• This section should also explain how Phillip E. Johnson is related to Behe's "Promotion of irredible complexity and intelligent design". If the only relationship is that they both wrote books on the subject, then the reference should be removed (since this is not an article about I.D.).

• The section "Darwin's Black Box" contains a speculative (and highly cynical) theory as to why Behe wrote a popular book.

• In many cases, the views of Behe's opponents are described or can be inferred from the criticism which they level against him, but his views remain obscure. This makes it particularly difficult to interpret the quotes from the Dover decision. I am pretty sure that many of the 'damaging admissions' are in fact his espoused views. They may seem inconsistent with his views only because they are juxtaposed with views which, unknown to us, he rejects.

I do not believe that adding more rebuttals from Behe will help. Doing so would simply make the article more confusing than it already is. Instead it needs to be reorganized so that the reader can clearly see what his views are, to what extent they differ from mainstream thought, and to what extent his opponents have addressed his points.

Chappell (talk) 9 January 2010

Any comments re the BLP issues raised above? I've been going through the cites and many are are not of sufficient quality to be used in a BLP. If no one raises their hand to address these issues in a few hours, I'm going to start removing poorly sourced content. We can then add stuff back in to an article restructured to your proposal which is a good approach. The article as it stands is a WP:Coatrack for a critique of a theory that is and should be addressed elsewhere. There is no doubt that we need to make clear that his theories are not widely accepted but it needs to be done with excellent sources an in accordance with WP:BP. JPatterson (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The wholesale removal of Behe's involvement is whitewashing, as is the removal of much of the material critical of his viewpoints. Some of your changes seem acceptable, but overall the net impact to the article is negative. Per BRD, you should be discussing the changes here, not reverting back to your changes. Ravensfire (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. As of Jan. there is a push to clean up the BLP space. Discussion is not required to remove unsourced material and editors are to be "firm" in their insistence on well sourced material. And please note the burden of proof for re-insertion is with the editor re-inserting. The reverting editor did not attempt to justify the sourcing as required. JPatterson (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Further note to one of the OP's comments - critical comments generally should be placed in the same section as the view. If the subject's view is in the minority, that should be clearly stated with the view. Ravensfire (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure but they need to sourced properly. OR and SYN no longer make the grade here. JPatterson (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's one thing to whitewash the page, but misprepresenting sources in edit summaries is out of line. I don't like seeing sourced content deleted as "unsourced." Washington Post, NCSE, New Scientist, a US court decision are reliable sources. Even Panda's Thumb and Talkreason. Please re-add the properly sourced content. Auntie E. (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the trouble to edit in a series so that any objections could be raised on a point be point bases. I was very careful to check sources but it is possible I made a mistake. If you would like to re-insert some material feel free but be prepared to justify your sources. Note that court transcripts are primary sources which must be used with great caution. You can not draw conclusions based on primary sources nor say things like "the judge quoted extensively from Behe's testimony". Both are by definition OR, not allowed in a regular article much less a BLP. JPatterson (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If I could make a suggestion, I would reword the the lead paragraph to something like

Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and author best known for his theory of irreducible complexity criticizing some aspects of evolutionary theory that is held by the vast majority of scientist. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

This solves the problem of juxaposing the two opposing views without introducing difficult to source statements. The statement on evolution doesn't have to have a reference since it is in the lead and presumably would be expanded upon in the article (see WP:LEAD). I would also suggest again that this is not the best place to proxy the evolution v creationist battle. If it were me, per WP:SS, I'd have a section summarizing his views and their critique with a link to the main article on irreducible complexity . Another short summary section for the book and its critique, linking to the main article on that topic. The section on "the wedge" or whatever its called has interesting information not covered elsewhere so it should stay although it could use a good clean up. As it stands there's too much back and forth that is irrelevant to a biography. In any case, I don't have a dog in the hunt so don't shoot the messenger. I'm just on BLP patrol. JPatterson (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Each edit must be discussed

Many things were removed from this article that should not have been removed. I reverted back to the last consensus version. I'm in favor of moving forward, trimming, rewriting, etc. but it absolutely must be done with consensus and not unilaterally. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. Discussion is not required to remove unsourced and non-RS sourced material. Editors are to be "very firm" in there insistence on solid sources and the onus for providing evidence to support re-insertion lies with you, the re-inserting editor. I've added a BLP dispute tag to the article page. It appears this WP:Coatrack is going to require admin attention. JPatterson (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed statements that were very well-sourced. Since you have not established that you understand WP:RS, you will need to discuss with other editors before going on this whitewashing campaign again. I encourage you to find an administrator to help with this discussion. The more eyes the better. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You've re-inserted material that is unsourced, poorly sourced, OR and/or SYN as outlined above. You must provide evidence for your contention that this material is well sourced, per WP:BLP. For example, one can not support the contention that "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community" with an opinion piece by a non-scientist (ref 1) who doesn't make that claim, a WP piece that's not on point(ref 2), and an article by an non-notable author on a non-RS website(ref 3). And none of these references make the claim, true as it may be, that "[Behe's theories] have been rejected by the scientific community". Stringing references together to make a point none of them make explicitly in their own right is the definition of WP:SYN. The material I removed, on both sides, all have similar issues. JPatterson (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can respect the synthesis issue, but let's talk about the flip-side. None of Behe's theories have been accepted by the scientific community. He's a pariah, an outcast in his own university, which took the unusual step of publicly repudiating him and saying that his entire field is unscientific on its face. Would it be better to list each of his theories individually, and then show that each individual theory has been rejected? Or would people then claim that the article was being devoted to demolishing ID instead of being an article about Behe?—Kww(talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the SYN issue is as clear-cut as you make it out to be, JP. I'm willing to consider new references, but removing the statement which you admit is "true as it may be" looks to me like gaming. Let's find new sources that we all agree are good and move forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a suggestion above for changes to the lead that avoid the BLP SYN issues and also some suggestions for structuring the article per WP:SS to make it more encyclopedic. Beyond that, I'm not here to say how the article should be written, it is not a subject I'm familiar with or interested in. I am just insisting that it follow the clearly stated policy wrt sourcing. JPatterson (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not here to say how the article should be written, what are you doing here and on the noticeboards? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Somebody has clearly got so worked up about Behe's theories that they insist on having a refutation of them in the intro, taking up more space than the rest of the intro put together. This is clearly not balanced and should be removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that point-by-point refutations are rarely the best. Of course, we should keep some criticism in. WP:FRINGE#Evaluating claims may be of service to us. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to this, I have adjusted the lede. More adjustment could be beneficial. Please help! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think more than a single sentence opposing Behe's views are necessary in the lede. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now we have one compound sentence and the second half is essentially a vague statement about Lehigh University's statement which was made in direct response to Behe. Is that okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is the second half necessary? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The bit about Lehigh University? I think it is somewhat remarkable that the university made a statement explicitly about the subject of intelligent design because of this person. Maybe we could make it even shorter... let me try. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I failed in making it shorter, but I did make it more relevant, I think. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)