Talk:Of Pandas and People

Creationism B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Significance of title

Why is the book called this? (unsigned comment by User:Starwed 18:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Look in the external links at "The Panda's Thumb," an article which explains the significance of panda evolution in the debate. Jokestress 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning with, "The title Of Pandas and People is a reference to a scientific controversy about the giant panda" does not go on to sufficiently explain the controversy mentioned. Something about a thumb without even an immediate link to more info. Also, the sentence that follows makes use of the words "in fact" preceding a reference to evolutionary theories, again without explanation. Perhaps a neutral voice and ample explanation would be more inviting to those without developed opinions on the topics at hand. And more informative to boot! --bobby

Dispute tag

I removed a dispute tag that had no substantiation on this talk page. If someone has a real dispute, they should feel free to reinstate the tag and open discussion here. JHCC (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Watered down"

I have edited the use of the phrase "watered down" in reference to the Kansas incident. I replaced it with something like "modified curriculum with regard to evolutionary theory".

Links Section

It seems like the External Links section is a bit biased towards one side. Perhaps somebody could add more pro-ID links and/or remove some anti-ID links for the sake of balance? Fightindaman 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any relevant creationist links, add them (and by relevant I mean about the book itself, we have a separate Kitzmiller v. Dover page). Do not remove any relevant links just to make something "balanced", that is under the false assumption that all POVs have equal validity, and which is not in line with WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. — Dunc|☺ 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section is really biased. For one thing, it does not label the opposing group as Pro-Evolution/Darwinism, but "Pro Science". They have already labeled one 'Science' on the spot. There are quite a few ID sites conspicuously absent from the pro-Intelligent design links.165.123.133.216 01:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Rebekah[reply]

Overview

I'm kind of disappointed. I expected more from the Overview section. I'm writing a paper contrasting 19th century objections to Darwinism with modern-day objections, but I can't even figure out what the main objections in Pandas are. Perhaps someone here would sacrifice (and I do mean sacrifice) their time and read the book? Report back on what it says? Thanks! --aciel 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of material available on the internet. You'd probably be better off looking at Darwin's Black Box, Meyer's review "paper" in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington as examples of primary antievolutionist literature. There is a lot of material at the talk.origins Archive. — Dunc|☺ 08:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still, the suggestion stands. =) --aciel 02:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

Someone wrote,

Pseudoscience or non-science? I know it's something that isn't science dressed up as science, but doesn't pseudoscience already have a definition that is inconsistent with what Intelligent Design is? From what I remember, pseudoscience is somewhat scientific, but inappropriately done; Pandas and People is NOT scientific.

Read the pseudoscience article to better understand it. Mr Christopher 16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg

Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes in Overview section

The Overview begins with:

The book argues that "the origin of new organisms [can be located] in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent." The text is non-committal on the age of the Earth, commenting that "Some [ID proponents] take the view that the earth's history can be compressed into a framework of thousands of years, while others adhere to the standard old earth chronology."

First- can somebody give a specific citation (page and edition number) for these quotations.

Real question- why are there bracketed words here? I've never read the book (don't know much about it) but I assume that the "[can be located]" stands for something like "is" in the original, while the "[ID proponents]" has been inserted and has no equivalent in the original. If I'm right about those (and if I'm not then I have no issue with the sentences as written), then it seems that these brackets been inserted to make the text sound less POV. It seems to me that we should leave the maximum possible POV in the text quotations, since that's the only reason anybody cares about this book. I'd like to see the original text there, unless there's a real reason not to. Staecker 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cdesign proponentsists

Did you catch this on NOVA last night? Too funny. It should go in the article of have it's own. Someone is already selling t-shirts that say "I heart cdesign proponentsists" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed. A link to the NOVA episode's web page has been added to the Media links section. TechBear 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in the article for some time - if I remember right, I'm the one who added it. -- ChrisO 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

banned book section

The section: 2006 attempt to declare Pandas the "Banned Book of the Year" is only sourced by a website and a blog. If nobody else mentioned the "attempt" is it really notable? Steve Dufour (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they're still repeating (and expanding upon) this lie over a year later,[1] I would say "yes". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section title

I can support the previous "2004 - 2005: Dover, Pennsylvania" or "2004 - 2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover", but the current "2004 - 2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pennsylvania" is messy. We should use "Dover" to mean the geographic location, or the defendant (Dover School Board) -- not both. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree- good edit. ... dave souza, talk 08:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceBlogs NOT RS/V

Footnote 5 from WP:V (emphasis mine):

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control

Seed Magazine (which can be put in the place of "newspapers" above) may have set up ScienceBlogs, but they exert NO editorial control on them (a fact that is stated in the ScienceBlogs article). Because of this, any and all ScienceBlogs cannot be used as RS. 67.135.49.177 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because I assumed it was another douchebag creationist with an axe to grind, or a Raspor sock. Re-examining the link, as it stands I actually don't see a good justification of the blog entry as a reliable source. Though anon's comment in his edit summary about the 'usual suspects' makes me wonder if s/he's a sock puppet. Anyway, there's a discussion elsewhere for anyone reading. WLU 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Blogs has long been considered a reliable source at Wikipedia, for nearly two years now, and is widely used at many articles. The vast majority of the bloggers at Science Blogs are professional scientists or professors, and Science Blogs is a branch of Seed Magazine: Science Blogs clearly fits the exemption in the policy you're quoting and that's why it's been accepted as a reliable source at Wikipedia for so long. Now please do not disrupt this article any further. 64.237.4.140 20:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation-only website...that counts as a degree of oversight for me. The actual comment the blog entry on P&P justifies is somewhat mundane and it'd be nice to have something more official. Somewhat irrelevant until after Dec. 1st at this point, so let's discuss and look for sources. WLU 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, if it counts for YOU, then I guess the discussion is over. Yep. Pack it up, kids. WLU's personal opinions trump Wiki policies. Jinxmchue 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously SB is a reliable source. The Questionable Authority is a reliable source for Mike Dunford's opinion. In this case, Dunford is reporting on a conversation with Deborah Caldwell-Stone. Thus, for our purposes, we need to ask whether he is likely to have misrepresented what Caldwell-Stone had to say. Technorati shows no responses to the blog posting, while Larry Fafarman, a banned user, is the only one who shows up on Google blogsearch. Come to think of it - crap. The anon is Larry. D'uh. Guettarda 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it is not an RS since it doesn't meet the second part of the sentence I quoted above. For SB to be considered a reliable source, then Seed Magazine needs to exert editorial control over the posts. They don't, so SB does not qualify as an RS. Jinxmchue 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, people were wrong to assume SB is a reliable source. Seed Magazine does not exert any editorial control over the blog posts, so as I said, SB does not meet footnote 5 of WP:V. Jinxmchue 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious how the relationship between Seed (magazine) and Scienceblogs differs from the relationship envisaged under WP:V footnote 5, specifically the section "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." I would also point out that Scienceblogs tend to be more knowledgeable (and thus more reliable) sources for science news (and analysis thereof) than the mainstream press, who often allow reporters without a strong science background to cover this beat. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn is correct. The proper thing to do is attribute it explcitly to Dunford in the text. JoshuaZ 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the statements were made by Deborah Caldwell-Stone (to whom they are already explicitly attributed), Dunford merely reported them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So unverifiable phone conversations as reported on blogs are now considered reliable sources? Jinxmchue 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly a reliable source and is on par with talk.origins. Why does this seem to get discussed on every single page even remotely related to creationism or ID? There has to be something better to do so anytime this is brought up it can smashed by a quick link. Baegis 04:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap! Are you seriously asserting talk.origins - an open discussion forum - is a reliable source? Jinxmchue 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]