![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The lead of this article is by no means awful, but it's a bit short and low in content, and the lead sentence, indeed, even the second sentence, say very little of importance. I don't want to make unilateral changes, but what if we started off something like "The Discovery Institute is a think tank best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to get anti- evolution sentiments taught in schools." Adam Cuerden talk 11:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Axe has published several papers that can be read as criticisms of the capabilities of evolution, but I don't know of any articles by Axe that can be described as "pro-intelligent design". I notice that this doesn't come with a reference.
Dembski produced documentation that Templeton's funding was for a book on topics discussed within "No Free Lunch". I think that Templeton is too eager to distance themselves from the rotting corpse of "intelligent design" creationism, and is overlooking their former support for IDC advocates and projects. There should be some notice of this in the article rather than leaving the Templeton quote as the final word on the topic; it is apparent that Templeton's criticism of the DI is not wholly accurate, apparently due to Templeton wishing to appear less entangled with the DI and the IDC movement than was actually the case.
There are several numbers that I've produced in analysis, and the sentence above confuses a couple of them. The Discovery Institute's number of 90.9% concerned only a single section of Judge Jones's decision, so the 35% number and the 90.9% number are not directly comparable, as the sentence in the article implies. The DI claims that 90.9% is the proportion of Judge Jones's text in the section about whether ID is science that is due to the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact; the relevant number to compare to that from what I've done is 66%: I found that 66% of that section in Judge Jones decision was taken from the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact. That is a substantially different number from what the DI says, though it isn't as different as the 35% mentioned in the current sentence.
There's another relevant number that I found that annoys the DI mightily. You see, one can also pose a different question: How much of the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact concerning the section on whether ID is science did Judge Jones use in his decision? It turns out that Judge Jones only used 48% of the text produced by the plaintiffs's on that topic, meaning that Judge Jones rejected about half of what the plaintiffs proposed in that particular section (as opposed to the 65% overall rejection proportion). This is fundamentally at odds with the DI characterization of Judge Jones as having expended no effort of his own and credulously adopting the plaintiffs's text wholesale; it is apparent that while Judge Jones obviously thought the plaintiffs generally had good arguments, he did make significant decisions about which parts of their argumentation to adopt and which to reject.
I have some notes about my analyses here, along with the text files I used and the full set of matches found. Anyone can, with a bit of effort, check my work for accuracy; everything needed to do so is provided. Now, obviously, what I have done is original research. On the other hand, the numbers I've presented are verifiable. How the editors want to handle the result I will leave up to them. I'll suggest a revision of the current sentence:
I think that clarifies what was there. I think it would be useful to include somehow the information about how picky Judge Jones was in adopting the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact in the section on whether ID is science, too. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Wesley is right - there are a number of problems that need to be addressed, but it's better if he isn't the one to fix them. In addition to the claim that Axe has published pro-ID papers (which, obviously, he has not), there is the assertion that the Biologics Institute is conducting ID research. I am unaware of any such research - either published or presented as a talk - so to say that they are conducting research is like all the other claims over the past 20 years that there is research going on into ID. If someone figured out how to do research into ID, it would make a great publication - it would be the first ID-related science. Guettarda 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that there should be some discussion about the proper lead sentence of the article. The recent reversions back and forth, with no justification save for brief edit summary, doesn't cut it.
For example, the latest reversion to "get creationist beliefs taught" claims that a "new citation supports" the reversion. I checked all the footnoted citations, and found nothing of the sort. This is not the sort of discussion to be had by reversions and edit summary's.
Please discuss this edit and justify the change. Nothing from the Discovery Institute claims that they want to get creationism taught, quite to the contrary, they expressly deny that. Obviously, the Discovery Institute doesn't get be the final arbiter, but when the citations are far from clear, this edit needs to be justified. This post is to start a real wiki discussion. Veritasjohn 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the reverted-to version of "get creationist beliefs taught" is more accurate and more substantiatable than the reverted-from "raise awareness of problems in evolutionary theory." That ID is Creationism is supported both by legal opinions and scholarly research. DI members (including DI VP Stephen Meyer) are on record as having explicitly advocated teaching ID. On the other hand there is no evidence that the DI has genuinely ""raise[d] awareness of problems in evolutionary theory" -- or that there are any genuine "problems" to raise. Hrafn42 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
$20 says 90.37.98.132 ( talk · contribs) is DI Fellow David Berlinski. Odd nature 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess Luskin went to law school. I am not sure he graduated or was admitted to the bar anywhere to practice law. I have scanned his "rebuttal". Most of it is just attacking bloggers of one sort or another. I guess it might have value, but not introduced as a naked sentence hanging out at the end of a paragraph. I note that it is contrary to many other expert lawyer opinions I have read. This business about copying the text provided to the judge by the lawyers on both sides is standard pratice, I understand, and is quite commonplace. Where is the evidence to the contrary? Unless we have some balancing material, I start to wonder if the Luskin rebuttal inclusion is not only bad English, but violates POV as well. Comments?-- Filll 13:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me the height of hypocrisy for the Discovery Institute to accuse Judge Jones of copying 90 percent of one section of his opinion (just 16 percent of its total length) from the proposed findings of fact by the plaintiff's lawyers, when the DI itself tried to palm off as 'original' work a law review article [submitted to Montana Law Review] that was copied 95 percent from the authors' own book {Traipsing Into Evolution]. Concealing this fact from the law review editors, until I discovered and documented this effort, seriously undercuts the credibility of the DI on this or any other issue.
I have seen no evidence that he has done legitimate "legal work at DI", nor could I (after a quick search) find any evidence that he's submitted amicus curiae briefs. Can anybody provide links? Hrafn42 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose the following sentence to be added at the end of the section:
The Discovery Institute issued a rebuttal to criticism of the study, arguing that case law supports the policy that “the verbatim or near verbatim adoption of a party's findings of facts is disapproved by courts” even if it is not prohibited. [1]
This addition would provide information that (1) DI has a response to criticism (2) a summary quote of the rebuttal. Just as the authors of the criticism (Sandefur, Brayton, etc.) are not specifically named in the text, the DI rebuttal author, Luskin, is not named. Are there problems with this proposal? Veritasjohn 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There is already too much on this topic in this article, in my opinion. I would cut it back. And I would place an expanded section on this topic, if it is of such interest, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover article. I have found about 10 or more Discovery Institute and intelligent design supporters that have published similar kinds of attacks on the Jones decision. And there are some other articles that describe why these attacks are ill-founded. And then numerous DI and ID responses rebutting these articles. And then there are neutral articles that describe the situation from a neutral outside viewpoint. To really investigate this carefully would take much more space than is appropriate in this article. This article is about the DI, after all, and not about the trial, and not about Judge Jones etc. And not about common Judicial practice. This is just ludicrous to consider for this article, frankly. -- Filll 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that this section is a bit out of place in the Discovery Institute article. I would restructute ir slighlty, after writing a longer section and putting it in another article. I would include MUCH more information about this. On all sides. And then I would rewrite this little section here to make it just an introduction to the much longer and more complete article elsewhere. And veritasjohn, you are giving yourself away by your edits. Don't think I don't know who you are.-- Filll 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You have very low standards for "personal offense" and "personal attack". You stepped over the line and you know darn well why and how, and now you are being careful. If you want to get engaged in another administrative action, then you can continue down the path you are on right now. But I think it would be best for you to try to stick to the straight and narrow.-- Filll 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed>
Given that we have no competent evidence that there was in fact a "verbatim or near verbatim adoption of a party's findings of facts", I would consider Veritasjohn's proposed wording to be misleading, and cannot support it. Hrafn42 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to say that much of this discussion seems to be getting off track. (particularly some unsigned comments). I want to simply reach consensus on inserted the disputed rebuttal reference and text. Hrafn42 charges that I cannot propose language that does not either misrepresent what DI said, or what Judge Jones did. First, my initial proposed text quoting DI has absolutely no misrepresentation of what DI said. You then stated that your POV finds their statement misleading (and I suspect you find much of what DI says "misleading"), and thus you criticized that it was in error in relation to what Judge Jones did. This is not a question of fact, but is one of opinion, and your criticism really is POV. I tried to accommodate your view, and offered a summary without quotation. You make the same criticism, and now argue that it is impossible to mention the DI rebuttal.
As to undue weight, there are currently multiple criticism blogs cited in the wiki - with quotes. This is not some outside source blogger saying "I agree with DI, Judge Jones was improper" or some other such irrelevant viewpoint: this is a rebuttal from the organization charged with impropriety for releasing the study. maybe the critics are right, maybe not. On a political debated issue such as this, a Wiki cannot exclude viewpoints because a majority of the editors share some POV. The rebuttal is a highly relevant viewpoint, a direct on point rebuttal from the source accused of lying. Again, an encyclopedia is not supposed to be someone deciding which POV is "True"; instead it should provide encyclopedic information for the readers. Readers are entitled to read the material and decide from themselves. A short sentence saying "The Discovery Institute has issued a rebuttal to the criticism" cannot seriously be considered "undue weight." Perhaps if one were to advocate for extensive quotation from the DI rebuttal, or characterize the DI rebuttal as being true, that would be undue weight.
As to your view of Luskin's use of case citations, your argument is just a POV on whether the cases really apply. I've read the rebuttal, and he is pretty clear about how the facts are different, and in his deriving an allegedly legal policy from those cases. This is not a matter of fact, legal arguments of this type are frequently made (some successfully, some unsuccessfully).
As I indicated above, other editors agreed that DI's rebuttal should be linked, and one asked for a summary. I'm willing to drop the summary and just end the sentence at "issued a rebuttal." I don't think this is ideal, but for the sake of consensus, I would agree to that. Does that satisfy your concerns? Simply put, it is a verifiable fact that DI has issued a rebuttal. Veritasjohn 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The section as it now stands is a reasonable summary of the situation. At most I would state that the DI issued several articles instead of just their one "study". And the claims of this study were disputed by others, as is done in the current article. If we are going to include minutae like the Casey Luskin "rebuttal" then I think that this entire issue should be exhaustively studied. All 20 or so of the DI articles attacking the Jones decision should be listed. Articles by those on the other side disputing these claims, including those in the legal literature, should cited. And this undertaking would be sufficiently long that it does not belong in this article. It is not about the DI particularly. It is about the Jones court decision and it is about attacks on Jones. How was the decision recieved? How was it analyzed? Are these analyses correct? Do the claims and counter claims hold water? -- Filll 14:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
In case this still matters, here is a link that proves Casey Luskin is a licensed attorney. As I've said before, given the other critics quoted, and named (Brayton particularly) who are not attorneys, I don't think this is really a valid reason for excluding a link to the rebuttal. In case it bothered some, here it is. [3] Veritasjohn 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone objected to the words,
in the article, and I thought I would expand on what that was about. For the Kitzmiller v. DASD case, NCSE was consulting with the plaintiffs' legal team. One thing that had to be done was to trace the history of arguments in the book Of Pandas and People, and we eventually had access to six complete drafts of the book dating back to 1983. I wrote a script in Perl to compare two source texts, compile all the matching bits of text found, and produce some statistics about the matching. I provided the complete set of text matches found via the program to expert witness Dr. Barbara Forrest, and those were included as an appendix to her expert report. It was with respect to this material and particular analyses based on it that the decision in the case referred:
So the program itself never had direct scrutiny by the court, but its output was referred to in positive terms. The "approval for use" would be by implication, as the results from it were entered into evidence in the case, and it formed part of the basis for the testimony of an expert witness in the case. Since the output was essentially self-checking (both source and derived match were delivered in their entirety), "authoritative" does seem like a legitimate way to describe it. It was, in fact, in some part responsible for the decision in that federal court case.
I'll take a look sometime soon and see whether the appendices to Forrest's expert report were ever made public. I seem to recall that they were, but I'd want to make absolutely sure of that. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 03:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
A brief note, in a legal context, "authoritative" implies some sort of legal judgement that "thou shalt do it this way" (which I don't think Jones meant). A better adjective, at least in my opinion, is "reliable" which has the implication of "this is an acceptable way to do it". I've taken the liberty of making the substitution. Hrafn42 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> ornis ( t) 06:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We find very little, if any, evidence in the record that the
District Court gave the settlement and its unique characteristics the careful and comprehensive scrutiny required under the circumstances. First, virtually every order issued by the District Court was a verbatim or near verbatim copy of a proposed order offered by the settling parties.36 Particularly troubling are the circumstances surrounding the District Court’s verbatim adoption of the settling parties’ proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into the December 4, 2003 Final Order Approving the Class Action Settlement. The District Court entrusted class counsel to prepare these findings in an ex parte closed door session held before the settlement hearing, when counsel for Appellants were not present. The colloquy between class counsel and the Court, block quoted in Part I, not only reflects the District Court’s failure to inquire into any substantive aspect of the settlement, but also suggests that the fairness hearing was a mere formality. It suggests that the District Court had pre-determined its approval of the settlement
before hearing the arguments of any of the five objectors.
In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia
I would note a number of points that distinguish this case from Kitzmiller:
It is clear from this that Luskin was using the phrase "verbatim or near verbatim" out of context. The Appeals Court only discussed "near verbatim" in a very narrow context: that of a proposed order. It is also clear that it was a pervasive pattern of behaviour that the court was criticising, not mere "near verbatim" copying of a single section of a document. Hrafn42 15:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Under these circumstances, I think it is reasonable to request that any mention of Luskin's "verbatim or near verbatim" claims be matched against this decision that he is misrepresenting. I would also suggest that this provides further justification for "find[ing] much of what DI says 'misleading'". Hrafn42 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Luskin states:
My first post: “Thus, it is clear that while the “verbatim or near verbatim” adoption of a
party’s findings of facts practice is not prohibited, it is also highly disapproved of by many courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which
governs Judge Jones’ own court.”
As a citation he gives a link to his earlier blog entry which sources the claim to In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia.
As I have already demonstrated above, In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia does not use the phrase "verbatim or near verbatim" in connection to "findings of fact", it uses it only in connection to "a proposed order". Thus, the phrase is taken out of context. You can "re-read" Luskin's rebuttal to your heart's content, it will not change this fact.
What Luskin is doing here is not an "analogy", but a gross and illegitimate extrapolation: that because the appeals court disapproved of pervasive copying of very nearly everything in the entire decision, that they would also disapprove of a far lower level of judicious copying.
The reason that Jones relied more heavily on the plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact in this "important section" (which was not copied in its entirety -- stop misrepresenting), is that this section drew heavily on matters of Science and Philosophy of Science. Jones in not an expert in either, nor does he have direct access to experts in either. The plaintiffs' counsel did (through its expert witnesses and consultants). It is therefore not unreasonable that Jones would draw more heavily on this expertise for his wording than in other parts of the decision (which are more purely matters of law or of fact, and thus within his own expertise). Hrafn42 04:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. How much material do we need to shove in this article on this off-topic bit of minutae? This is not what this article is about. As I have said about 10 times, if we do this (which I am not sure I want to be bothered with), it should be done properly, in a scholarly manner, without quoting sloppy pieces like this Luskin note. It should be done carefully, with dozens of references and citations on all sides. And it would be too extensive at that point to put it in this article; it would be too long and off-topic.--
Filll
05:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Veritasjohn ( 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC) ) said,
Your points about the DI study are beside the point. DI has issued a rebuttal to their critics. You don't think it is persuasive -- fine. That does not mean it should be banned from the wiki article. Under that logic, why even mention the original DI study, since so many critics point out flaws? It is there because it created "controversy" . . . . and it is certianly not undue weight to add a single line linking a sole rebuttal piece
I entirely agree, Veritasjohn. The "Undue Weight" rule ( WP:UNDUE) says, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A single sentence and a link certainly do not give undue weight to Casey Luskin's rebuttal. Right now the Wikipedia article contains no rebuttal at all of the criticisms of the original DI study. If Luskin's critics do not want to add his rebuttal, then what rebuttal do they propose adding in its place?
These Wikipedia bans of significant viewpoints are a major reason for Wikipedia's bad reputation. We have been wasting several days arguing over something that should not even be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.119 ( talk) 13:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I have dug through the definitive peer-reviewed legal analyses of the Jones decision published in the Montana Law review: [4], authored by individuals from the DI itself, including Luskin. If this complaint that the copying was outside the bounds of reasonable and appropriate behavior was truly valid and something other than just pure puffery and spurious nonsense, surely it would have been discussed or at least mentioned in the 52 page article. I was not able to find a single mention of it in the published article. Not one, even though the DI wrote it themselves. This certainly demonstrates to me that this purported issue is really a nonissue, and just something meant for public consumption, and not a serious issue at variance with standard judicial practice. So I strongly think we should not waste time and effort on it. It is given the appropriate treatment in this article, and probably way more space than it even deserves in this article.-- Filll 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The gripe about Judge Jones's decision is completely irrelevant. Sometimes judges just take the entire proposed decision of the prevailing party in a case and just sign it as written. In this case, obviously the judge disagreed with 10% or thought it unnecessary, and agreed with 90% of the ACLU's (plaintiff's) proposed order. ... Kenosis 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Kenosis, Jones disagreed with more than that. At best (using the DI study), Jones only kept about 70% of the original PPFoF for this section (while making significant copy-edits to the portion he kept). This portion that he kept made up 90% of the final document - the remaining 10% is stuff Jones added, not deleted. About half of that 10% was tying the section to the rest of the endorsement test analysis, and the other half dealt with post-trial claims raised by the defense not otherwise dealt with in the PPFoF. (PS: filll - the anonymous commenter is not VeritasJohn, he is an indefinitely banned commenter's sockpuppet. FeloniousMonk knows who he is) --W. Kevin Vicklund —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.58.5 ( talk) 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care. As far as I am concerned, all DI POV warriors might as well be socks and meat puppets. And as I said above, if it was important, it would have been in the formal peer-reviewed paper. Since it wasn't, even a document writen by the DI, this clearly is complete spurious nonsense and does not even deserve this much space in the article. -- Filll 18:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is to text to that effect there. And if it is such an egregious breach of judicial protocol, why is that not mentioned in the associated text?-- Filll 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Filll, this was a minor and unexceptional point that the DI later, when they found they weren't getting any traction, decided to 'manufacture' into some grand scandal. Also, the phrase "90.9% ... was taken virtually verbatim" is meaningless drivel. You can have X% taken verbatim, or refer to the section as having been taken "virtually verbatim", but "virtually verbatim" is too ambiguous a concept to be measurable (with a percentage). Hrafn42 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no agenda in the changes. In fact it makes the text more clearer and accurate.
This is one long sentance BTW:
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case' and thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section
Playing dumb: what decision? and what case? was it accepted purely because it was partly responsible for a previous decision? (sounds like circular reasoning, no something I'd think would be part of a judicial process)
Compared with
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program used to determine the content and extent of copying between drafts of the "intelligent design" textbook "Of Pandas and People" for the Kitzmiller case, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section.
This specifies what program exactly we are talking about - the comparsion program designed to detect copying. What case - the Kitzmiller. And doesn't assert that it was accepted purely on the basis of previous use.
It's more accurate and easier to read.-- ZayZayEM 08:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
She is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
The RFC concerns whether it is appropriate or not to include a disclaimer noting that Picard is outside of her speciality, and that the petition was an absolute failure of an appeal to authority.
There have been no supplied WP:RS that utilize this argument. So it has been argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:NOR-- ZayZayEM 09:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In light of the revert war today (of which I have no involvement) and some past discussions on this page, I thought it would be a good time to discuss which, and when, blogs can be proper sources for the DI article.
Perhaps a general policy cannot be agreed upon, but at least a discussion would move the ball forward more than deleting some references and re-inserting them without discussion. Veritasjohn ( talk) 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
For example, take a look at WP:SPS. And a person who is a sufficiently notable expert to have an entry on Wikipedia probably meets some sort of criteria for notability of their statements in a blog. Some blogs are actually peer-reviewed. Science blogs such as Panda's Thumb weblog are quite highly respected and ranked highly in Nature magazine studies of blogs. So yes, blogs can be WP:RS sources in some cases.-- Filll ( talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is PT peer-reviewed? No. Is respect from readers and popularity a measure of reliability/verifiability? No. From WP:V:
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5]
That footnote reads:
"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. 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..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
More from WP:V:
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
PT doesn't seem to be providing anything new. Like most blogs, it's simply commenting on material from other sources. 67.135.49.177 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your selective reading of the rules fools no one. Do you think we are stupid? You think you can trick us? My goodness. You really want to have your access to Wikipedia blocked? And PT is produced by a group of scientists who check each other's work and contributions. It is not exactly peer-review, but it is approaching peer-review. PT is the top rated science blog in a study by Nature magazine, and one does not get much more of a seal of approval than that. The people chosen to have blogs on Scienceblogs are carefully chosen, and the people allowed to post to Panda's Thumb weblog are even more carefully chosen. These are notable people in their own right, and by the rules of WP, all over the place, therefore what they write can be used as a WP:RS.-- Filll 20:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:V is the overriding policy, WP:RS is only a guideline, and does not supersede WP:V. The source in question looks self-published to me, and is legitimately disputed. Since it is only one of several sources cited for the statement, it should be removed as redundant and of disputed reliability. It's also disturbing how these five footnotes are being used to pack in an incredible amount of text to "source" a quite simple opening sentence. This technique is quite common to get information into an article that would otherwise not be appropriate. - Crockspot 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
but the source, and it's footnoted text, introduces a new concept, which should be worked into the article as a new statement. If editors wish to take that angle, we can argue about that, but in this context, the source is inappropriate, and I am removing it. - Crockspot 06:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses.
Crockspot: given you are dismissing PT as "legitimately disputed" on the basis of WP:V, perhaps you can answer my question above on:
...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...")."
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow - leave Wiki for a long weekend and look what happens! Craziness, I apparently need to catch up on all this discussion. Veritasjohn 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that I have gotten past the problems in the first sentence, I am finding that the rest of the lead paragraph is criticism. While the criticism is legitimate, it seems inappropriate to pack it all into the lead paragraph. This is not how we write articles on Wikipedia. That information should be moved into the body of the article. - Crockspot 07:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, your complaints appear to be baseless. However, even if there was some substance to them, we are allowed to have footnotes in articles. So not all of those numbered links have to be citations; some can be footnotes. So what?-- Filll 14:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You do have consensus then? How do you have consensus? Your edits are not supporting a religious POV? Please show me how, given all the references that connect ID to religion. I must be incredibly stupid. -- Filll 03:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me spell it out for you:
Actually, we are just reflecting what is in the mainstream, as we are required to do by NPOV etc. Here is what is written in the intelligent design article itself on this issue: "The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism; [2] [3] [4] [5] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism". [6] [7] [8] "
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link);
Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy,
Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 224 p.,
ISBN
0195157427
Ok, first show me how the word "baseless" is uncivil. Is it a curse word? Is it a racial slur of some kind? Is it sexist? Does it impugn your heritage or perspicacity? Does it cast terrible aspersions over your character? Does it constitute an attack on your personally?
Perhaps I am just dense, because I do not see it. Please educate me on how the word "baseless" is uncivil. Is the word "groundless" also uncivil? How about the phrase "without merit"? Are you really saying that anyone who disagrees with you and your agenda in any way shape or form whatsoever is to be condemned as uncivil and vilified? Please do enlighten us as to what you really mean and why you said it. This is quite interesting. I honestly had no idea that the word "baseless" was a form of invective or an expletive. I have never seen it listed as such, however, I could be mistaken. Please direct me to reference works where the word "baseless" is so listed.
Drawing from the American Heritage Dictionary, I see that uncivil is the same as discourteous or rude. So it was discourteous to use the word baseless? It was rude? I can assume that if I use the word baseless on network television that word would be bleeped out? Is it on the list of forbidden words of network television and radio censors? Is it on the list of deprecated words and expressions compiled by the Federal Communications Commission? Please provide references for this, if you claim it since I have never heard of it before. Has anyone ever been sued for the use of the word "baseless"?
I see from the article on
WP:CIVIL that "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. " So saying your remarks and complaints were baseless caused you stress? It encouraged conflict? So I should have just let you do whatever you wanted, since otherwise there would be conflict? Any opposition causes conflict and therefore is uncivil? Is that the definition of uncivil in this context? Are you sure you want to press this further?
Here is what the Wikipedia article on civility says:
Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
So is the word "baseless" rude? Please explain to me how it is rude.
Did I do this? I do not believe I did. If you think the comment about a dictionary was in this category, I assure you it was not intended as such. It was mildly sarcastic since I cannot believe you are charging me with incivility for use of the word "baseless". Frankly, I think your charges of incivility are "baseless". And I challenge you to file an RfC on this issue if you want to see what others think.
Is this what use of the word "baseless" is? If so, I do not see it. Please explain how this could be true.
I did not do this, did I?
Did I say you were lying when I used the word "baseless"? I do not think so, but maybe I missed something. Please show me where I am wrong.
Does the use of the word "baseless" fall in this category? I do not think so, but maybe I am wrong. Please show me how.
More serious examples include:
Is the word "baseless" used as a common taunt? Maybe some schoolyard bullies use this word to taunt others? I never heard of kids chanting "baseless" repeatedly but maybe I had a sheltered upbringing.
How is the word "baseless" a personal attack?
Is the word "baseless" a racial, ethnic, sexual or religious slur? If so, please explain how.
Is the word "baseless" a profanity?
Did I deface your use page?
Did I do this?
Does the use of the word "baseless" constitute an indecent suggestion? Please show how this is true.
I am at a loss here. My goodness...-- Filll 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid that is not particularly convincing or compelling, as well as being inaccurate. You have not responded to almost any point raised above, and have misquoted me. (Is misquoting me being uncivil towards ME? Is inaccurately accusing me of being uncivil being uncivil? Hmm....definitely seems like it might be.)
After all, I wrote;
your complaints appear to be baseless
So I did not actually say your complaints are baseless but that they appear to be baseless. Do you see the difference? Maybe you missed the subtle difference before.
On the other hand, maybe my use of the word "appear" was taken as an insult of your personal appearance, and some suggestion that when someone looks at you, they do not see that you have a base to stand on. I myself do not possess such a base, but maybe in your culture not having a base is a grave insult. If so, I apologize for suggesting that you do not have a base or do not appear to have a base.
That "your complaints appear to be baseless" obviously is my own personal opinion, and that of several other editors as well. And as far as I know, we operate based on consensus here, not on your own personal dictates. Or am I mistaken, and Crockspot personally is a dictator on Wikipedia? If that is true, I apologize. Please show me the documentation where Crockspot gets to dictate policy and content on Wikipedia. I would be most interested.
So in your opinion, "disagree strongly" is a more civil thing to say than "appear to be baseless"? To me, the opposite appears to be true. Perhaps you are a bit biased and trying to save face after you made a, dare I say, "baseless" claim of incivility? And I wonder about all the other editors above who disputed your claims? Those do not constitute "qualifications"? I am shocked and surprised to hear you claim that. I guess you might have missed all the people who disagreed with you. And do I have to detail exactly in which ways I disagree with you when I state that I disagree? That is news to me. Please show me where I must do this in Wikipedia policy. I would be most interested to see this.
I also might take umbrage at your use of the word "simple". Are you implying that I am simple? And even, perhaps a simpleton? This seems to me to be uncivil. You are being quite uncivil and I protest you calling me simple in the strongest possible terms. I am highly offended by your use of the word "simple".
Please respond to my entire list of questions and requests before you go any further. I am quite dismayed that you just brush off all my comments and arguments without responding to them. In fact, I find it insulting and uncivil.-- Filll 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not? What is wrong? You are unable to answer why me saying that "appear to be baseless" is uncivil? Come come now. I am waiting for your responses.-- Filll 03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to the edit warring and apparent meat and sock puppetry here and at Of Pandas and People, I've protected the article until things settle down. FeloniousMonk 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Is [ this citation ( diff, one of five footnotes, relevant to the short lead sentence that it is attached to as a source, or does it introduce a further concept and/or criticism that should be edited into the article on its own? For clarity, the lead sentence that this citation is attached to reads: "The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses.[1][2][3][4][5]" - 02:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Two points. One is that, regardless of anything else, PT is a reliable source for Nick Matzke's opinion. And Matzke is an expert on this topic. The other is that we can also source this to Not in Our Classrooms. Can the problem be solved by adding the following ref: <ref>[[Nick Matzke|Matzke, Nicholas J.]] and Paul R. Gross. 2006. Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback Antievolutionist Strategy. pp 28-56 in [[Eugenie Scott]] and [[Glenn Branch]], ''[[Not in Our Classrooms|Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools]]'', Beacon Press, Boston ISNB:0807032786</ref>? Guettarda 04:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Although the book is a great source, the advantage of the blog is that it is more accessible and satisfies WP:V better. Plus we do not want to create a precedent of getting rid of PT.
The problem is, here and on other pages, editors come on and announce that all 100+ articles on creationism and/or intelligent design are all BS/crap and should be torn up and turned into promotional tracts for the Discovery Institute and if we do not give in, we are violating all kinds of laws and fairness doctrines and Wikipedia policies. That is what is going on now. This attempt is just the latest in a string of dozens and dozens and dozens. All with the same agenda. And if we give in, soon this will just turn into an advertising venue for the Discovery Institute. Great...-- Filll 05:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Though Crockspot retired, I think I might be able to rephrase the question that he is getting at:
How does the content of Pandathumb support the statement ''"The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses."
I read through it and recognize that he is an expert. I just question how that page backs up that sentence. It dances around the topic but it doesn't exactly come out and say it. For a long time, I have been reminded that controversial topics need to have definitive sourcing. The sentence as it stands is backed up by four sources that do state what it says but this one is less clear. That is all. Have a great day! 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)Ok, I am actually trying to help you guys out here to make a bulletproof article but my efforts seem to be overlooked or ignored (or maybe my reading comprehension is faulty...). Let's look at the statement that we have attached this source to:
The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses.
Now let's look at the article we are trying to link with this:
This is what I am getting at. You are attempting to attach to this sentence an article that does not even mention most of the key points in the sentence. Use the article elsewhere as it is a great source that analyzes the attempts by DI attack science. But don't attach it to that sentence. spryde | talk 14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I read through Matzke's text a couple more times. At most, all that is needed is a very slight rewording of the sentence. Matzke makes a compelling case that the Critical Analysis of Evolution campaign of the Discovery Institute is nothing more than creationism, and in fact the Discovery Institute is advocating creationist beliefs and even still intelligent design, although after its court defeat it is less open about promoting intelligent design.
To fix the problem, I just made a small change. Here is my proposed reworded version:
The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy and related campaigns to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
The cited references and footnotes remain identical in my suggested version.-- Filll ( talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure. I would defer to some of our language experts here. But maybe...-- Filll ( talk) 03:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington that is best known for its advocacy of intelligent design through attempts to change education standards and its Teach the Controversy and related campaigns to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses. [1] [6] [7] [8] [9]
Responding to: "should [said further concepts and criticisms in reference under scrutiny] be edited into the article"?
The beginning of this sections says the DI claims that 90.9% of the judge's opinion came from the plaintiff's submission of findings; then the end says that Elsberry's reanalysis found that 35% of the submission was incorporated into the opinion. Those are very different things, so which is it? Even if it is something worth noting, it seems to me that the former (i.e., the degree to which the judge relied on the plaintiffs rather than writing a new opinion) is the important number. KarlM 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
<undent> This is a different source from the Brayton article used as a reference, which had comments mentioning 35% as well as 38%, and the article at present doesn't match what I'm getting from the Wesley reference:
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case and thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section.< ref> Text Comparison source documents, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Wesley Elsberry.< /ref>< ref> Elsberry Does the Math Ed Brayton. Dispatches from the Culture Wars, December 19 2006< /ref>
Here's a proposed revision –
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case and thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that only 38% of the complete ruling by Judge Jones actually incorporated the findings of fact that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section. Significantly, Judge Jones adopted only 48% of the plaintiffs’s proposed findings of fact for that section, and rejected 52%, clearly showing that he did not accept the section verbatim.< ref> Text Comparison source documents, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Wesley Elsberry.< /ref>< ref> The Austringer – Jones, Luskin, and Text, 31 Jan 2007< /ref>
Please advise so that the change can be made. .. dave souza, talk 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose to change on minor part of the revision (which I like, overall). The second sentence leads out "Significantly, ..." which appears to give the Wiki a point of view on the controversy. I think it would be more NPOV to say, "According to Elsberry" instead of "Significantly" The wiki article should not make judgments about which facts are significant, at least not in this fashion. Agreed? Veritasjohn 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}}
On the third citation in the article, the link to the American prospect site no longer shows the article. I would link to repoint the URL from this to this which is the wayback machine's copy of the original article (earliest copy is December 18, 2002, article date is December 2, 2002). I do not see this as controversial. spryde | talk 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Needs trimming per WP:GTL. I might do that after the protection is lifted. Any problems with that? Thanks and sorry to interupt your edit wars with trivial house cleaning, Cheers! -- Tom 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it DI's own stated goal to "teach creationism", or is that a conclusion drawn by Barbara Forrest and others?
If it's not DI's own stated goal, then should Wikipedia alert its readers to the dispute oven what DI's real goals are - or should it simply report Forrest's interpretation as the only referenced "fact"?
Where I'm coming from in this, is reading a few web sites where DI and their ilk complain that ID is "conflated" with creationism or with young earth creationism.
Is it the view of Wikipedia (or just of ID opponents) that ID is a form of creationism? In other words, has Wikipedia made up its collective mind that ID's critique of evolution as insufficient to account for the " irreducible complexity' of the flagellum cannot stand on its own? That it MUST be tied to the motive of "using" this critque in an argument from design for the existence of God?
In short, is there no way for an ID advocate to be an agnostic? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Serious question: is this in any way connected to the Discovery Channel or to Fort Discovery? Or do they just happen to share the same names? Sweetfreek ( talk) 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made an attempt to provide subsection headings to the (very long) 'Controversy' section, in an attempt to give it some structure. Although I think it's an improvement, I'm still not entirely satisfied with the results. For one thing, the remaining un-subsectioned paragraph, on Chapman's transformation sounds like it more belongs as part of a larger section (perhaps on the DI's anti-intellectualism/anti-science theme) than as a general introduction. On the other hand, it does to a certain extent give a lead-in to the religious aspect of their agenda. I'll leave it for the time being, until either I see a smoother way of fitting this together, or until somebody else comes along to improve the fit. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any good reason that articles are be linked too multiple times? Per WP:GTL, that does not seem necessary? I removed a FEW but there still are a LOT more still in the article. I brought this up a while ago but here we go again. If this has aleready been addressed or there is a different consensus I apologize ahead of time. Cheers! -- Tom 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of the term "non-partisan." Describing DI as non-partisan doesn't mean they're not ideological, nor does it imply they never lobby for legislation introduced by Republican Senators. What it means is that they aren't formally affiliated with, and don't support particular parties or candidates. Non-partisanship is a requirement for 501(c)3 status, so the fact that they've achieved 501(c)3 status means that the IRS, at least, regards them as non-partisan. The fact that you don't like their ideological views (and frankly, I don't either) doesn't make them non-partisan. Binarybits ( talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Two points:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I would further note that the OED defines 'partisan' (in this context) as "An adherent or proponent of a party, cause, person, etc.; esp. a devoted or zealous supporter". I think we have ample evidence that the DI is a "zealous" "proponent" of the "cause" of ID, and that to call them "non-partisan" therefore violates WP:ASTONISH. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that non-partisan is a fairly common way to describe organizations that work on political topics (as indicated by the "nonpartisan organizations" category), and that the IRS's designation of DI as 501c3 should be enough to verify DI's claim of non-partisanship. But I'm plainly outnumbered and I'm frankly not inclined to waste a lot of time sticking up for an organization I don't like very much.
If we're going to use non-partisan in this new, stricter fashion, then someone should trim or remove the "non-partisan organizations" category. Organizations like CAP and AEI are obviously not non-partisan as the term is being defined here. Binarybits ( talk) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I would further like to note (though as it is a wikipedia article, do not cite as authoritative) Nonpartisan which states:
Some nonpartisan organizations are truly such; others are nominally nonpartisan but in fact are generally identifiable with a political party. For example, the National Rifle Association is technically a nonpartisan organization, but at the national level at least functions almost as an adjunct of the United States Republican Party. Conversely, although technically a nonpartisan organization, at the national level the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has for many years functioned as almost a subsidiary organization to the United States Democratic Party. The same can be said of most American right-to-life organizations with regard to the Republicans and of most U.S. labor unions with regard to the Democrats.
Is it appropriate to state, baldly, and in the lead, that an organisation is "nonpartisan" (even assuming the US/IRS definition), if it is only "nominally" so? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The category does seem overly broad. Maybe a CfD is in order? JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A week ago, an editor reverted a " bold" change that I made to the top section.
My change had two parts:
First, I referenced the following sources as saying that the Discovery Institute proposes creationist beliefs:
Second, I changed the quotes in the references in the top section to use block quotes instead of inline quotes. For example, I changed:
to
This second change affected the following references:
I suggest we discuss which (if any) of my changes should be applied to the top section.
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
This article appears to include information predominently about this organization's advocacy for the Intelligent Design (ID) idea. In fact, it makes the organization look like that is it's major mission. Is this really true? Is ID the major platform of this organization, or is it but one of many ideas the organization promotes? Cla68 ( talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the lead and part of the article is a bit unbalanced though may be accurate. More about how the DI markets themselves is needed. Their "About Us" is particularly interesting:
“ | Mission Statement
Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and Internet website ( http://www.discovery.org ). Current projects explore the fields of technology, science and culture, reform of the law, national defense, the environment and the economy, the future of democratic institutions, transportation, religion and public life, government entitlement spending, foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of "Cascadia." The efforts of Discovery fellows and staff, headquartered in Seattle, are crucially abetted by the Institute's members, board and sponsors. |
” |
The fact that "intelligent design" doesn't appear in their mission statement is telling. Yet, it is unescapable that this is what the institute is best known for in the media and it is also what the vast majority of their publications, events, and promotions are about. I'd love to see you take a crack at it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there actually a credible challenge that the Discovery Institute is a conservative thinktank? Or is somebody trying to make a WP:POINT? siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Its not a "Think Tank" its a religious organisation, as the article states its manifesto says so! The only thinking they do is trying to get religion taught in schools, breaching the constitution and thinking of ways to enforce their religious beliefs onto others.--
27.33.109.57 (
talk)
11:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Would it not be a good idea to replace hatnote with link to disambiguation page? Bus stop ( talk) 19:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Should be mentioned that the Discovery Institutes biggest and most intelligent front men, chicken out of the dover trial, as they knew it would be shown ID is just creationism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdefghiabc ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That seems like an unfair assessment to me. Having not read much about the trial, however, I am in little place to judge. Please avoid treating ID like it was a 'Freemason conspiracy.' It deserves an open debate just like every other scientific theory. -Master Imrahil 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Master Imrahil (
talk •
contribs)
Hi, I think it's safe to say there is probably a consensus to start adding organizations like these to Category: Cults. Wikipedia's definition of a cult is, "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre." I think we can all agree that this organization and others like it fall under that definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.231.231 ( talk) 13:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
After 150 years of populating educational institutions with Darwinists, suddenly, when the Discovery Institute attempts to balance these institutions, it is called "stacking" school boards. Why was it never stacking when secular originations did it?
Normally, I feel that Wikipedia is fair and balanced and I have on several occasions defended it against critics, but this section is totally unhinged in its presentation. It sounds more like the Catholic Church's indictment of Galileo's views, which were also not considered REAL TRUE HONEST SCIENCE, because they did not fit with the accepted knowledge of the time and so challenged those in power.
Steve Novak, MBA & Mensan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.132.41 ( talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Intelligent design also can't be proven or disproven. It's not a scientific theory. Yet the DI is trying to force it into schools - for religious reasons. The claims of this talk page are generally those of similarly religiously motivated editors who can't substantiate their points with reliable sources. This is not surprising given the consistent lack of scientific support for all their propositions - again, because this is a religious issue, not a scientific one. The extensive use of sources also clearly illustrates the fact that the page is not based on opinion - particularly the fact that the most reliable sources are the most vehement. This page isn't about proving or disproving God, it's about the DI - a religious organization with a religious agenda attempting to force that agenda into secular institutions in violation of the US constitution. The DI is trying to use science to prove God, which even theologians agree is pointless and stupid. If the DI ever presented any actual data or experiments on their concepts, it could be said that they were trying to be scientific, but all that's presented is rehashed creationist arguments discredited centuries ago. Science has even tested the few propositions presented by ID (mostly Behe's work) and found that Behe either deliberately ignored, blatantly misrepresented, or didn't even bother looking in the scientific literature as there were multiple sources contradicting his assertions even before he presented them.
Anyway, your sourceless assertion isn't sufficient to modify the page. If you perhaps had a concrete suggestion it could be examined, but quite literally the entire basis of intelligent design is without merit. It's been examined by the scientific community and essentially laughed out of the room. If you don't realize it, then you've probably been reading solely the Discovery Institute's propaganda pieces - look into the other side, even a bit. Intelligent design is bad science, and in many people's opinion, bad theology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, wow. In all my years on Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever read a more biased article. Unbelievable that this iteration has stayed up for so long. Unbelievable. 172.56.21.56 ( talk) 02:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The information presented in the introduction is highly slanted, and calls greatly for a re-evalutation. I would suggest citations from the Institute's website.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.165.23 ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 September 2009
I would agree that the information in the introduction is very biased and defamatory as The Discovery Institute does not teach Creationism. Intellegent Design properly understood does not start with any real understanding of the Bible, Koran, ect. It starts by looking at life as possibly being designed based upon certain evidences found within observed data. Creationism properly understood believes that the Yahweh, the God of the Old and New Testaments created the earth Ex Nihilo (Latin 'Out of nothing'). Within the Creationism camp there are Old Earth, Young Earth, and Gap theorists, ect. The Discovery Institute can't be a 'Creationist Propaganda Mill' because of the fact that there are so many different theological or atheological groups working with them. Ranging from Jew, to Christian, to Muslim, to Agnostic.
Sushi (
talk)
05:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we please stop saying the pseudoscience "intelligent design?" I don't agree with Intelligent Design, nor do I think it's scientific, but we need to present the information in an unbiased way. Saying that the Discovery Institute teaches "creationist, anti-evolutionist" beliefs is far from neutrality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psstein1 ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 20 July 2014
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that following the policy on Verifiability will give us the best result:
It does not matter whether or not you, you, or I think that Intelligent Design is Creationism. The question is: What has been published in reliable sources?
The opening paragraph has the following sources:
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help).
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The lead of this article is by no means awful, but it's a bit short and low in content, and the lead sentence, indeed, even the second sentence, say very little of importance. I don't want to make unilateral changes, but what if we started off something like "The Discovery Institute is a think tank best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to get anti- evolution sentiments taught in schools." Adam Cuerden talk 11:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Axe has published several papers that can be read as criticisms of the capabilities of evolution, but I don't know of any articles by Axe that can be described as "pro-intelligent design". I notice that this doesn't come with a reference.
Dembski produced documentation that Templeton's funding was for a book on topics discussed within "No Free Lunch". I think that Templeton is too eager to distance themselves from the rotting corpse of "intelligent design" creationism, and is overlooking their former support for IDC advocates and projects. There should be some notice of this in the article rather than leaving the Templeton quote as the final word on the topic; it is apparent that Templeton's criticism of the DI is not wholly accurate, apparently due to Templeton wishing to appear less entangled with the DI and the IDC movement than was actually the case.
There are several numbers that I've produced in analysis, and the sentence above confuses a couple of them. The Discovery Institute's number of 90.9% concerned only a single section of Judge Jones's decision, so the 35% number and the 90.9% number are not directly comparable, as the sentence in the article implies. The DI claims that 90.9% is the proportion of Judge Jones's text in the section about whether ID is science that is due to the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact; the relevant number to compare to that from what I've done is 66%: I found that 66% of that section in Judge Jones decision was taken from the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact. That is a substantially different number from what the DI says, though it isn't as different as the 35% mentioned in the current sentence.
There's another relevant number that I found that annoys the DI mightily. You see, one can also pose a different question: How much of the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact concerning the section on whether ID is science did Judge Jones use in his decision? It turns out that Judge Jones only used 48% of the text produced by the plaintiffs's on that topic, meaning that Judge Jones rejected about half of what the plaintiffs proposed in that particular section (as opposed to the 65% overall rejection proportion). This is fundamentally at odds with the DI characterization of Judge Jones as having expended no effort of his own and credulously adopting the plaintiffs's text wholesale; it is apparent that while Judge Jones obviously thought the plaintiffs generally had good arguments, he did make significant decisions about which parts of their argumentation to adopt and which to reject.
I have some notes about my analyses here, along with the text files I used and the full set of matches found. Anyone can, with a bit of effort, check my work for accuracy; everything needed to do so is provided. Now, obviously, what I have done is original research. On the other hand, the numbers I've presented are verifiable. How the editors want to handle the result I will leave up to them. I'll suggest a revision of the current sentence:
I think that clarifies what was there. I think it would be useful to include somehow the information about how picky Judge Jones was in adopting the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact in the section on whether ID is science, too. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Wesley is right - there are a number of problems that need to be addressed, but it's better if he isn't the one to fix them. In addition to the claim that Axe has published pro-ID papers (which, obviously, he has not), there is the assertion that the Biologics Institute is conducting ID research. I am unaware of any such research - either published or presented as a talk - so to say that they are conducting research is like all the other claims over the past 20 years that there is research going on into ID. If someone figured out how to do research into ID, it would make a great publication - it would be the first ID-related science. Guettarda 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that there should be some discussion about the proper lead sentence of the article. The recent reversions back and forth, with no justification save for brief edit summary, doesn't cut it.
For example, the latest reversion to "get creationist beliefs taught" claims that a "new citation supports" the reversion. I checked all the footnoted citations, and found nothing of the sort. This is not the sort of discussion to be had by reversions and edit summary's.
Please discuss this edit and justify the change. Nothing from the Discovery Institute claims that they want to get creationism taught, quite to the contrary, they expressly deny that. Obviously, the Discovery Institute doesn't get be the final arbiter, but when the citations are far from clear, this edit needs to be justified. This post is to start a real wiki discussion. Veritasjohn 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the reverted-to version of "get creationist beliefs taught" is more accurate and more substantiatable than the reverted-from "raise awareness of problems in evolutionary theory." That ID is Creationism is supported both by legal opinions and scholarly research. DI members (including DI VP Stephen Meyer) are on record as having explicitly advocated teaching ID. On the other hand there is no evidence that the DI has genuinely ""raise[d] awareness of problems in evolutionary theory" -- or that there are any genuine "problems" to raise. Hrafn42 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
$20 says 90.37.98.132 ( talk · contribs) is DI Fellow David Berlinski. Odd nature 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess Luskin went to law school. I am not sure he graduated or was admitted to the bar anywhere to practice law. I have scanned his "rebuttal". Most of it is just attacking bloggers of one sort or another. I guess it might have value, but not introduced as a naked sentence hanging out at the end of a paragraph. I note that it is contrary to many other expert lawyer opinions I have read. This business about copying the text provided to the judge by the lawyers on both sides is standard pratice, I understand, and is quite commonplace. Where is the evidence to the contrary? Unless we have some balancing material, I start to wonder if the Luskin rebuttal inclusion is not only bad English, but violates POV as well. Comments?-- Filll 13:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me the height of hypocrisy for the Discovery Institute to accuse Judge Jones of copying 90 percent of one section of his opinion (just 16 percent of its total length) from the proposed findings of fact by the plaintiff's lawyers, when the DI itself tried to palm off as 'original' work a law review article [submitted to Montana Law Review] that was copied 95 percent from the authors' own book {Traipsing Into Evolution]. Concealing this fact from the law review editors, until I discovered and documented this effort, seriously undercuts the credibility of the DI on this or any other issue.
I have seen no evidence that he has done legitimate "legal work at DI", nor could I (after a quick search) find any evidence that he's submitted amicus curiae briefs. Can anybody provide links? Hrafn42 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose the following sentence to be added at the end of the section:
The Discovery Institute issued a rebuttal to criticism of the study, arguing that case law supports the policy that “the verbatim or near verbatim adoption of a party's findings of facts is disapproved by courts” even if it is not prohibited. [1]
This addition would provide information that (1) DI has a response to criticism (2) a summary quote of the rebuttal. Just as the authors of the criticism (Sandefur, Brayton, etc.) are not specifically named in the text, the DI rebuttal author, Luskin, is not named. Are there problems with this proposal? Veritasjohn 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There is already too much on this topic in this article, in my opinion. I would cut it back. And I would place an expanded section on this topic, if it is of such interest, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover article. I have found about 10 or more Discovery Institute and intelligent design supporters that have published similar kinds of attacks on the Jones decision. And there are some other articles that describe why these attacks are ill-founded. And then numerous DI and ID responses rebutting these articles. And then there are neutral articles that describe the situation from a neutral outside viewpoint. To really investigate this carefully would take much more space than is appropriate in this article. This article is about the DI, after all, and not about the trial, and not about Judge Jones etc. And not about common Judicial practice. This is just ludicrous to consider for this article, frankly. -- Filll 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that this section is a bit out of place in the Discovery Institute article. I would restructute ir slighlty, after writing a longer section and putting it in another article. I would include MUCH more information about this. On all sides. And then I would rewrite this little section here to make it just an introduction to the much longer and more complete article elsewhere. And veritasjohn, you are giving yourself away by your edits. Don't think I don't know who you are.-- Filll 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You have very low standards for "personal offense" and "personal attack". You stepped over the line and you know darn well why and how, and now you are being careful. If you want to get engaged in another administrative action, then you can continue down the path you are on right now. But I think it would be best for you to try to stick to the straight and narrow.-- Filll 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed>
Given that we have no competent evidence that there was in fact a "verbatim or near verbatim adoption of a party's findings of facts", I would consider Veritasjohn's proposed wording to be misleading, and cannot support it. Hrafn42 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to say that much of this discussion seems to be getting off track. (particularly some unsigned comments). I want to simply reach consensus on inserted the disputed rebuttal reference and text. Hrafn42 charges that I cannot propose language that does not either misrepresent what DI said, or what Judge Jones did. First, my initial proposed text quoting DI has absolutely no misrepresentation of what DI said. You then stated that your POV finds their statement misleading (and I suspect you find much of what DI says "misleading"), and thus you criticized that it was in error in relation to what Judge Jones did. This is not a question of fact, but is one of opinion, and your criticism really is POV. I tried to accommodate your view, and offered a summary without quotation. You make the same criticism, and now argue that it is impossible to mention the DI rebuttal.
As to undue weight, there are currently multiple criticism blogs cited in the wiki - with quotes. This is not some outside source blogger saying "I agree with DI, Judge Jones was improper" or some other such irrelevant viewpoint: this is a rebuttal from the organization charged with impropriety for releasing the study. maybe the critics are right, maybe not. On a political debated issue such as this, a Wiki cannot exclude viewpoints because a majority of the editors share some POV. The rebuttal is a highly relevant viewpoint, a direct on point rebuttal from the source accused of lying. Again, an encyclopedia is not supposed to be someone deciding which POV is "True"; instead it should provide encyclopedic information for the readers. Readers are entitled to read the material and decide from themselves. A short sentence saying "The Discovery Institute has issued a rebuttal to the criticism" cannot seriously be considered "undue weight." Perhaps if one were to advocate for extensive quotation from the DI rebuttal, or characterize the DI rebuttal as being true, that would be undue weight.
As to your view of Luskin's use of case citations, your argument is just a POV on whether the cases really apply. I've read the rebuttal, and he is pretty clear about how the facts are different, and in his deriving an allegedly legal policy from those cases. This is not a matter of fact, legal arguments of this type are frequently made (some successfully, some unsuccessfully).
As I indicated above, other editors agreed that DI's rebuttal should be linked, and one asked for a summary. I'm willing to drop the summary and just end the sentence at "issued a rebuttal." I don't think this is ideal, but for the sake of consensus, I would agree to that. Does that satisfy your concerns? Simply put, it is a verifiable fact that DI has issued a rebuttal. Veritasjohn 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The section as it now stands is a reasonable summary of the situation. At most I would state that the DI issued several articles instead of just their one "study". And the claims of this study were disputed by others, as is done in the current article. If we are going to include minutae like the Casey Luskin "rebuttal" then I think that this entire issue should be exhaustively studied. All 20 or so of the DI articles attacking the Jones decision should be listed. Articles by those on the other side disputing these claims, including those in the legal literature, should cited. And this undertaking would be sufficiently long that it does not belong in this article. It is not about the DI particularly. It is about the Jones court decision and it is about attacks on Jones. How was the decision recieved? How was it analyzed? Are these analyses correct? Do the claims and counter claims hold water? -- Filll 14:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
In case this still matters, here is a link that proves Casey Luskin is a licensed attorney. As I've said before, given the other critics quoted, and named (Brayton particularly) who are not attorneys, I don't think this is really a valid reason for excluding a link to the rebuttal. In case it bothered some, here it is. [3] Veritasjohn 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone objected to the words,
in the article, and I thought I would expand on what that was about. For the Kitzmiller v. DASD case, NCSE was consulting with the plaintiffs' legal team. One thing that had to be done was to trace the history of arguments in the book Of Pandas and People, and we eventually had access to six complete drafts of the book dating back to 1983. I wrote a script in Perl to compare two source texts, compile all the matching bits of text found, and produce some statistics about the matching. I provided the complete set of text matches found via the program to expert witness Dr. Barbara Forrest, and those were included as an appendix to her expert report. It was with respect to this material and particular analyses based on it that the decision in the case referred:
So the program itself never had direct scrutiny by the court, but its output was referred to in positive terms. The "approval for use" would be by implication, as the results from it were entered into evidence in the case, and it formed part of the basis for the testimony of an expert witness in the case. Since the output was essentially self-checking (both source and derived match were delivered in their entirety), "authoritative" does seem like a legitimate way to describe it. It was, in fact, in some part responsible for the decision in that federal court case.
I'll take a look sometime soon and see whether the appendices to Forrest's expert report were ever made public. I seem to recall that they were, but I'd want to make absolutely sure of that. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 03:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
A brief note, in a legal context, "authoritative" implies some sort of legal judgement that "thou shalt do it this way" (which I don't think Jones meant). A better adjective, at least in my opinion, is "reliable" which has the implication of "this is an acceptable way to do it". I've taken the liberty of making the substitution. Hrafn42 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> ornis ( t) 06:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We find very little, if any, evidence in the record that the
District Court gave the settlement and its unique characteristics the careful and comprehensive scrutiny required under the circumstances. First, virtually every order issued by the District Court was a verbatim or near verbatim copy of a proposed order offered by the settling parties.36 Particularly troubling are the circumstances surrounding the District Court’s verbatim adoption of the settling parties’ proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into the December 4, 2003 Final Order Approving the Class Action Settlement. The District Court entrusted class counsel to prepare these findings in an ex parte closed door session held before the settlement hearing, when counsel for Appellants were not present. The colloquy between class counsel and the Court, block quoted in Part I, not only reflects the District Court’s failure to inquire into any substantive aspect of the settlement, but also suggests that the fairness hearing was a mere formality. It suggests that the District Court had pre-determined its approval of the settlement
before hearing the arguments of any of the five objectors.
In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia
I would note a number of points that distinguish this case from Kitzmiller:
It is clear from this that Luskin was using the phrase "verbatim or near verbatim" out of context. The Appeals Court only discussed "near verbatim" in a very narrow context: that of a proposed order. It is also clear that it was a pervasive pattern of behaviour that the court was criticising, not mere "near verbatim" copying of a single section of a document. Hrafn42 15:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Under these circumstances, I think it is reasonable to request that any mention of Luskin's "verbatim or near verbatim" claims be matched against this decision that he is misrepresenting. I would also suggest that this provides further justification for "find[ing] much of what DI says 'misleading'". Hrafn42 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Luskin states:
My first post: “Thus, it is clear that while the “verbatim or near verbatim” adoption of a
party’s findings of facts practice is not prohibited, it is also highly disapproved of by many courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which
governs Judge Jones’ own court.”
As a citation he gives a link to his earlier blog entry which sources the claim to In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia.
As I have already demonstrated above, In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia does not use the phrase "verbatim or near verbatim" in connection to "findings of fact", it uses it only in connection to "a proposed order". Thus, the phrase is taken out of context. You can "re-read" Luskin's rebuttal to your heart's content, it will not change this fact.
What Luskin is doing here is not an "analogy", but a gross and illegitimate extrapolation: that because the appeals court disapproved of pervasive copying of very nearly everything in the entire decision, that they would also disapprove of a far lower level of judicious copying.
The reason that Jones relied more heavily on the plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact in this "important section" (which was not copied in its entirety -- stop misrepresenting), is that this section drew heavily on matters of Science and Philosophy of Science. Jones in not an expert in either, nor does he have direct access to experts in either. The plaintiffs' counsel did (through its expert witnesses and consultants). It is therefore not unreasonable that Jones would draw more heavily on this expertise for his wording than in other parts of the decision (which are more purely matters of law or of fact, and thus within his own expertise). Hrafn42 04:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. How much material do we need to shove in this article on this off-topic bit of minutae? This is not what this article is about. As I have said about 10 times, if we do this (which I am not sure I want to be bothered with), it should be done properly, in a scholarly manner, without quoting sloppy pieces like this Luskin note. It should be done carefully, with dozens of references and citations on all sides. And it would be too extensive at that point to put it in this article; it would be too long and off-topic.--
Filll
05:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed> FeloniousMonk 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Veritasjohn ( 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC) ) said,
Your points about the DI study are beside the point. DI has issued a rebuttal to their critics. You don't think it is persuasive -- fine. That does not mean it should be banned from the wiki article. Under that logic, why even mention the original DI study, since so many critics point out flaws? It is there because it created "controversy" . . . . and it is certianly not undue weight to add a single line linking a sole rebuttal piece
I entirely agree, Veritasjohn. The "Undue Weight" rule ( WP:UNDUE) says, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A single sentence and a link certainly do not give undue weight to Casey Luskin's rebuttal. Right now the Wikipedia article contains no rebuttal at all of the criticisms of the original DI study. If Luskin's critics do not want to add his rebuttal, then what rebuttal do they propose adding in its place?
These Wikipedia bans of significant viewpoints are a major reason for Wikipedia's bad reputation. We have been wasting several days arguing over something that should not even be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.119 ( talk) 13:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I have dug through the definitive peer-reviewed legal analyses of the Jones decision published in the Montana Law review: [4], authored by individuals from the DI itself, including Luskin. If this complaint that the copying was outside the bounds of reasonable and appropriate behavior was truly valid and something other than just pure puffery and spurious nonsense, surely it would have been discussed or at least mentioned in the 52 page article. I was not able to find a single mention of it in the published article. Not one, even though the DI wrote it themselves. This certainly demonstrates to me that this purported issue is really a nonissue, and just something meant for public consumption, and not a serious issue at variance with standard judicial practice. So I strongly think we should not waste time and effort on it. It is given the appropriate treatment in this article, and probably way more space than it even deserves in this article.-- Filll 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The gripe about Judge Jones's decision is completely irrelevant. Sometimes judges just take the entire proposed decision of the prevailing party in a case and just sign it as written. In this case, obviously the judge disagreed with 10% or thought it unnecessary, and agreed with 90% of the ACLU's (plaintiff's) proposed order. ... Kenosis 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Kenosis, Jones disagreed with more than that. At best (using the DI study), Jones only kept about 70% of the original PPFoF for this section (while making significant copy-edits to the portion he kept). This portion that he kept made up 90% of the final document - the remaining 10% is stuff Jones added, not deleted. About half of that 10% was tying the section to the rest of the endorsement test analysis, and the other half dealt with post-trial claims raised by the defense not otherwise dealt with in the PPFoF. (PS: filll - the anonymous commenter is not VeritasJohn, he is an indefinitely banned commenter's sockpuppet. FeloniousMonk knows who he is) --W. Kevin Vicklund —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.58.5 ( talk) 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care. As far as I am concerned, all DI POV warriors might as well be socks and meat puppets. And as I said above, if it was important, it would have been in the formal peer-reviewed paper. Since it wasn't, even a document writen by the DI, this clearly is complete spurious nonsense and does not even deserve this much space in the article. -- Filll 18:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is to text to that effect there. And if it is such an egregious breach of judicial protocol, why is that not mentioned in the associated text?-- Filll 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Filll, this was a minor and unexceptional point that the DI later, when they found they weren't getting any traction, decided to 'manufacture' into some grand scandal. Also, the phrase "90.9% ... was taken virtually verbatim" is meaningless drivel. You can have X% taken verbatim, or refer to the section as having been taken "virtually verbatim", but "virtually verbatim" is too ambiguous a concept to be measurable (with a percentage). Hrafn42 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no agenda in the changes. In fact it makes the text more clearer and accurate.
This is one long sentance BTW:
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case' and thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section
Playing dumb: what decision? and what case? was it accepted purely because it was partly responsible for a previous decision? (sounds like circular reasoning, no something I'd think would be part of a judicial process)
Compared with
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program used to determine the content and extent of copying between drafts of the "intelligent design" textbook "Of Pandas and People" for the Kitzmiller case, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section.
This specifies what program exactly we are talking about - the comparsion program designed to detect copying. What case - the Kitzmiller. And doesn't assert that it was accepted purely on the basis of previous use.
It's more accurate and easier to read.-- ZayZayEM 08:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
She is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
The RFC concerns whether it is appropriate or not to include a disclaimer noting that Picard is outside of her speciality, and that the petition was an absolute failure of an appeal to authority.
There have been no supplied WP:RS that utilize this argument. So it has been argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:NOR-- ZayZayEM 09:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In light of the revert war today (of which I have no involvement) and some past discussions on this page, I thought it would be a good time to discuss which, and when, blogs can be proper sources for the DI article.
Perhaps a general policy cannot be agreed upon, but at least a discussion would move the ball forward more than deleting some references and re-inserting them without discussion. Veritasjohn ( talk) 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
For example, take a look at WP:SPS. And a person who is a sufficiently notable expert to have an entry on Wikipedia probably meets some sort of criteria for notability of their statements in a blog. Some blogs are actually peer-reviewed. Science blogs such as Panda's Thumb weblog are quite highly respected and ranked highly in Nature magazine studies of blogs. So yes, blogs can be WP:RS sources in some cases.-- Filll ( talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is PT peer-reviewed? No. Is respect from readers and popularity a measure of reliability/verifiability? No. From WP:V:
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5]
That footnote reads:
"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. 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..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
More from WP:V:
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
PT doesn't seem to be providing anything new. Like most blogs, it's simply commenting on material from other sources. 67.135.49.177 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your selective reading of the rules fools no one. Do you think we are stupid? You think you can trick us? My goodness. You really want to have your access to Wikipedia blocked? And PT is produced by a group of scientists who check each other's work and contributions. It is not exactly peer-review, but it is approaching peer-review. PT is the top rated science blog in a study by Nature magazine, and one does not get much more of a seal of approval than that. The people chosen to have blogs on Scienceblogs are carefully chosen, and the people allowed to post to Panda's Thumb weblog are even more carefully chosen. These are notable people in their own right, and by the rules of WP, all over the place, therefore what they write can be used as a WP:RS.-- Filll 20:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:V is the overriding policy, WP:RS is only a guideline, and does not supersede WP:V. The source in question looks self-published to me, and is legitimately disputed. Since it is only one of several sources cited for the statement, it should be removed as redundant and of disputed reliability. It's also disturbing how these five footnotes are being used to pack in an incredible amount of text to "source" a quite simple opening sentence. This technique is quite common to get information into an article that would otherwise not be appropriate. - Crockspot 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
but the source, and it's footnoted text, introduces a new concept, which should be worked into the article as a new statement. If editors wish to take that angle, we can argue about that, but in this context, the source is inappropriate, and I am removing it. - Crockspot 06:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses.
Crockspot: given you are dismissing PT as "legitimately disputed" on the basis of WP:V, perhaps you can answer my question above on:
...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...")."
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow - leave Wiki for a long weekend and look what happens! Craziness, I apparently need to catch up on all this discussion. Veritasjohn 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that I have gotten past the problems in the first sentence, I am finding that the rest of the lead paragraph is criticism. While the criticism is legitimate, it seems inappropriate to pack it all into the lead paragraph. This is not how we write articles on Wikipedia. That information should be moved into the body of the article. - Crockspot 07:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, your complaints appear to be baseless. However, even if there was some substance to them, we are allowed to have footnotes in articles. So not all of those numbered links have to be citations; some can be footnotes. So what?-- Filll 14:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You do have consensus then? How do you have consensus? Your edits are not supporting a religious POV? Please show me how, given all the references that connect ID to religion. I must be incredibly stupid. -- Filll 03:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me spell it out for you:
Actually, we are just reflecting what is in the mainstream, as we are required to do by NPOV etc. Here is what is written in the intelligent design article itself on this issue: "The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism; [2] [3] [4] [5] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism". [6] [7] [8] "
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link);
Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy,
Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 224 p.,
ISBN
0195157427
Ok, first show me how the word "baseless" is uncivil. Is it a curse word? Is it a racial slur of some kind? Is it sexist? Does it impugn your heritage or perspicacity? Does it cast terrible aspersions over your character? Does it constitute an attack on your personally?
Perhaps I am just dense, because I do not see it. Please educate me on how the word "baseless" is uncivil. Is the word "groundless" also uncivil? How about the phrase "without merit"? Are you really saying that anyone who disagrees with you and your agenda in any way shape or form whatsoever is to be condemned as uncivil and vilified? Please do enlighten us as to what you really mean and why you said it. This is quite interesting. I honestly had no idea that the word "baseless" was a form of invective or an expletive. I have never seen it listed as such, however, I could be mistaken. Please direct me to reference works where the word "baseless" is so listed.
Drawing from the American Heritage Dictionary, I see that uncivil is the same as discourteous or rude. So it was discourteous to use the word baseless? It was rude? I can assume that if I use the word baseless on network television that word would be bleeped out? Is it on the list of forbidden words of network television and radio censors? Is it on the list of deprecated words and expressions compiled by the Federal Communications Commission? Please provide references for this, if you claim it since I have never heard of it before. Has anyone ever been sued for the use of the word "baseless"?
I see from the article on
WP:CIVIL that "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. " So saying your remarks and complaints were baseless caused you stress? It encouraged conflict? So I should have just let you do whatever you wanted, since otherwise there would be conflict? Any opposition causes conflict and therefore is uncivil? Is that the definition of uncivil in this context? Are you sure you want to press this further?
Here is what the Wikipedia article on civility says:
Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
So is the word "baseless" rude? Please explain to me how it is rude.
Did I do this? I do not believe I did. If you think the comment about a dictionary was in this category, I assure you it was not intended as such. It was mildly sarcastic since I cannot believe you are charging me with incivility for use of the word "baseless". Frankly, I think your charges of incivility are "baseless". And I challenge you to file an RfC on this issue if you want to see what others think.
Is this what use of the word "baseless" is? If so, I do not see it. Please explain how this could be true.
I did not do this, did I?
Did I say you were lying when I used the word "baseless"? I do not think so, but maybe I missed something. Please show me where I am wrong.
Does the use of the word "baseless" fall in this category? I do not think so, but maybe I am wrong. Please show me how.
More serious examples include:
Is the word "baseless" used as a common taunt? Maybe some schoolyard bullies use this word to taunt others? I never heard of kids chanting "baseless" repeatedly but maybe I had a sheltered upbringing.
How is the word "baseless" a personal attack?
Is the word "baseless" a racial, ethnic, sexual or religious slur? If so, please explain how.
Is the word "baseless" a profanity?
Did I deface your use page?
Did I do this?
Does the use of the word "baseless" constitute an indecent suggestion? Please show how this is true.
I am at a loss here. My goodness...-- Filll 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid that is not particularly convincing or compelling, as well as being inaccurate. You have not responded to almost any point raised above, and have misquoted me. (Is misquoting me being uncivil towards ME? Is inaccurately accusing me of being uncivil being uncivil? Hmm....definitely seems like it might be.)
After all, I wrote;
your complaints appear to be baseless
So I did not actually say your complaints are baseless but that they appear to be baseless. Do you see the difference? Maybe you missed the subtle difference before.
On the other hand, maybe my use of the word "appear" was taken as an insult of your personal appearance, and some suggestion that when someone looks at you, they do not see that you have a base to stand on. I myself do not possess such a base, but maybe in your culture not having a base is a grave insult. If so, I apologize for suggesting that you do not have a base or do not appear to have a base.
That "your complaints appear to be baseless" obviously is my own personal opinion, and that of several other editors as well. And as far as I know, we operate based on consensus here, not on your own personal dictates. Or am I mistaken, and Crockspot personally is a dictator on Wikipedia? If that is true, I apologize. Please show me the documentation where Crockspot gets to dictate policy and content on Wikipedia. I would be most interested.
So in your opinion, "disagree strongly" is a more civil thing to say than "appear to be baseless"? To me, the opposite appears to be true. Perhaps you are a bit biased and trying to save face after you made a, dare I say, "baseless" claim of incivility? And I wonder about all the other editors above who disputed your claims? Those do not constitute "qualifications"? I am shocked and surprised to hear you claim that. I guess you might have missed all the people who disagreed with you. And do I have to detail exactly in which ways I disagree with you when I state that I disagree? That is news to me. Please show me where I must do this in Wikipedia policy. I would be most interested to see this.
I also might take umbrage at your use of the word "simple". Are you implying that I am simple? And even, perhaps a simpleton? This seems to me to be uncivil. You are being quite uncivil and I protest you calling me simple in the strongest possible terms. I am highly offended by your use of the word "simple".
Please respond to my entire list of questions and requests before you go any further. I am quite dismayed that you just brush off all my comments and arguments without responding to them. In fact, I find it insulting and uncivil.-- Filll 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not? What is wrong? You are unable to answer why me saying that "appear to be baseless" is uncivil? Come come now. I am waiting for your responses.-- Filll 03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to the edit warring and apparent meat and sock puppetry here and at Of Pandas and People, I've protected the article until things settle down. FeloniousMonk 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Is [ this citation ( diff, one of five footnotes, relevant to the short lead sentence that it is attached to as a source, or does it introduce a further concept and/or criticism that should be edited into the article on its own? For clarity, the lead sentence that this citation is attached to reads: "The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses.[1][2][3][4][5]" - 02:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Two points. One is that, regardless of anything else, PT is a reliable source for Nick Matzke's opinion. And Matzke is an expert on this topic. The other is that we can also source this to Not in Our Classrooms. Can the problem be solved by adding the following ref: <ref>[[Nick Matzke|Matzke, Nicholas J.]] and Paul R. Gross. 2006. Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback Antievolutionist Strategy. pp 28-56 in [[Eugenie Scott]] and [[Glenn Branch]], ''[[Not in Our Classrooms|Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools]]'', Beacon Press, Boston ISNB:0807032786</ref>? Guettarda 04:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Although the book is a great source, the advantage of the blog is that it is more accessible and satisfies WP:V better. Plus we do not want to create a precedent of getting rid of PT.
The problem is, here and on other pages, editors come on and announce that all 100+ articles on creationism and/or intelligent design are all BS/crap and should be torn up and turned into promotional tracts for the Discovery Institute and if we do not give in, we are violating all kinds of laws and fairness doctrines and Wikipedia policies. That is what is going on now. This attempt is just the latest in a string of dozens and dozens and dozens. All with the same agenda. And if we give in, soon this will just turn into an advertising venue for the Discovery Institute. Great...-- Filll 05:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Though Crockspot retired, I think I might be able to rephrase the question that he is getting at:
How does the content of Pandathumb support the statement ''"The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses."
I read through it and recognize that he is an expert. I just question how that page backs up that sentence. It dances around the topic but it doesn't exactly come out and say it. For a long time, I have been reminded that controversial topics need to have definitive sourcing. The sentence as it stands is backed up by four sources that do state what it says but this one is less clear. That is all. Have a great day! 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)Ok, I am actually trying to help you guys out here to make a bulletproof article but my efforts seem to be overlooked or ignored (or maybe my reading comprehension is faulty...). Let's look at the statement that we have attached this source to:
The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses.
Now let's look at the article we are trying to link with this:
This is what I am getting at. You are attempting to attach to this sentence an article that does not even mention most of the key points in the sentence. Use the article elsewhere as it is a great source that analyzes the attempts by DI attack science. But don't attach it to that sentence. spryde | talk 14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I read through Matzke's text a couple more times. At most, all that is needed is a very slight rewording of the sentence. Matzke makes a compelling case that the Critical Analysis of Evolution campaign of the Discovery Institute is nothing more than creationism, and in fact the Discovery Institute is advocating creationist beliefs and even still intelligent design, although after its court defeat it is less open about promoting intelligent design.
To fix the problem, I just made a small change. Here is my proposed reworded version:
The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy and related campaigns to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
The cited references and footnotes remain identical in my suggested version.-- Filll ( talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure. I would defer to some of our language experts here. But maybe...-- Filll ( talk) 03:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington that is best known for its advocacy of intelligent design through attempts to change education standards and its Teach the Controversy and related campaigns to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses. [1] [6] [7] [8] [9]
Responding to: "should [said further concepts and criticisms in reference under scrutiny] be edited into the article"?
The beginning of this sections says the DI claims that 90.9% of the judge's opinion came from the plaintiff's submission of findings; then the end says that Elsberry's reanalysis found that 35% of the submission was incorporated into the opinion. Those are very different things, so which is it? Even if it is something worth noting, it seems to me that the former (i.e., the degree to which the judge relied on the plaintiffs rather than writing a new opinion) is the important number. KarlM 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
<undent> This is a different source from the Brayton article used as a reference, which had comments mentioning 35% as well as 38%, and the article at present doesn't match what I'm getting from the Wesley reference:
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case and thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section.< ref> Text Comparison source documents, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Wesley Elsberry.< /ref>< ref> Elsberry Does the Math Ed Brayton. Dispatches from the Culture Wars, December 19 2006< /ref>
Here's a proposed revision –
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case and thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that only 38% of the complete ruling by Judge Jones actually incorporated the findings of fact that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section. Significantly, Judge Jones adopted only 48% of the plaintiffs’s proposed findings of fact for that section, and rejected 52%, clearly showing that he did not accept the section verbatim.< ref> Text Comparison source documents, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Wesley Elsberry.< /ref>< ref> The Austringer – Jones, Luskin, and Text, 31 Jan 2007< /ref>
Please advise so that the change can be made. .. dave souza, talk 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose to change on minor part of the revision (which I like, overall). The second sentence leads out "Significantly, ..." which appears to give the Wiki a point of view on the controversy. I think it would be more NPOV to say, "According to Elsberry" instead of "Significantly" The wiki article should not make judgments about which facts are significant, at least not in this fashion. Agreed? Veritasjohn 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}}
On the third citation in the article, the link to the American prospect site no longer shows the article. I would link to repoint the URL from this to this which is the wayback machine's copy of the original article (earliest copy is December 18, 2002, article date is December 2, 2002). I do not see this as controversial. spryde | talk 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Needs trimming per WP:GTL. I might do that after the protection is lifted. Any problems with that? Thanks and sorry to interupt your edit wars with trivial house cleaning, Cheers! -- Tom 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it DI's own stated goal to "teach creationism", or is that a conclusion drawn by Barbara Forrest and others?
If it's not DI's own stated goal, then should Wikipedia alert its readers to the dispute oven what DI's real goals are - or should it simply report Forrest's interpretation as the only referenced "fact"?
Where I'm coming from in this, is reading a few web sites where DI and their ilk complain that ID is "conflated" with creationism or with young earth creationism.
Is it the view of Wikipedia (or just of ID opponents) that ID is a form of creationism? In other words, has Wikipedia made up its collective mind that ID's critique of evolution as insufficient to account for the " irreducible complexity' of the flagellum cannot stand on its own? That it MUST be tied to the motive of "using" this critque in an argument from design for the existence of God?
In short, is there no way for an ID advocate to be an agnostic? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Serious question: is this in any way connected to the Discovery Channel or to Fort Discovery? Or do they just happen to share the same names? Sweetfreek ( talk) 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made an attempt to provide subsection headings to the (very long) 'Controversy' section, in an attempt to give it some structure. Although I think it's an improvement, I'm still not entirely satisfied with the results. For one thing, the remaining un-subsectioned paragraph, on Chapman's transformation sounds like it more belongs as part of a larger section (perhaps on the DI's anti-intellectualism/anti-science theme) than as a general introduction. On the other hand, it does to a certain extent give a lead-in to the religious aspect of their agenda. I'll leave it for the time being, until either I see a smoother way of fitting this together, or until somebody else comes along to improve the fit. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any good reason that articles are be linked too multiple times? Per WP:GTL, that does not seem necessary? I removed a FEW but there still are a LOT more still in the article. I brought this up a while ago but here we go again. If this has aleready been addressed or there is a different consensus I apologize ahead of time. Cheers! -- Tom 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of the term "non-partisan." Describing DI as non-partisan doesn't mean they're not ideological, nor does it imply they never lobby for legislation introduced by Republican Senators. What it means is that they aren't formally affiliated with, and don't support particular parties or candidates. Non-partisanship is a requirement for 501(c)3 status, so the fact that they've achieved 501(c)3 status means that the IRS, at least, regards them as non-partisan. The fact that you don't like their ideological views (and frankly, I don't either) doesn't make them non-partisan. Binarybits ( talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Two points:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I would further note that the OED defines 'partisan' (in this context) as "An adherent or proponent of a party, cause, person, etc.; esp. a devoted or zealous supporter". I think we have ample evidence that the DI is a "zealous" "proponent" of the "cause" of ID, and that to call them "non-partisan" therefore violates WP:ASTONISH. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that non-partisan is a fairly common way to describe organizations that work on political topics (as indicated by the "nonpartisan organizations" category), and that the IRS's designation of DI as 501c3 should be enough to verify DI's claim of non-partisanship. But I'm plainly outnumbered and I'm frankly not inclined to waste a lot of time sticking up for an organization I don't like very much.
If we're going to use non-partisan in this new, stricter fashion, then someone should trim or remove the "non-partisan organizations" category. Organizations like CAP and AEI are obviously not non-partisan as the term is being defined here. Binarybits ( talk) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I would further like to note (though as it is a wikipedia article, do not cite as authoritative) Nonpartisan which states:
Some nonpartisan organizations are truly such; others are nominally nonpartisan but in fact are generally identifiable with a political party. For example, the National Rifle Association is technically a nonpartisan organization, but at the national level at least functions almost as an adjunct of the United States Republican Party. Conversely, although technically a nonpartisan organization, at the national level the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has for many years functioned as almost a subsidiary organization to the United States Democratic Party. The same can be said of most American right-to-life organizations with regard to the Republicans and of most U.S. labor unions with regard to the Democrats.
Is it appropriate to state, baldly, and in the lead, that an organisation is "nonpartisan" (even assuming the US/IRS definition), if it is only "nominally" so? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The category does seem overly broad. Maybe a CfD is in order? JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A week ago, an editor reverted a " bold" change that I made to the top section.
My change had two parts:
First, I referenced the following sources as saying that the Discovery Institute proposes creationist beliefs:
Second, I changed the quotes in the references in the top section to use block quotes instead of inline quotes. For example, I changed:
to
This second change affected the following references:
I suggest we discuss which (if any) of my changes should be applied to the top section.
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
This article appears to include information predominently about this organization's advocacy for the Intelligent Design (ID) idea. In fact, it makes the organization look like that is it's major mission. Is this really true? Is ID the major platform of this organization, or is it but one of many ideas the organization promotes? Cla68 ( talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the lead and part of the article is a bit unbalanced though may be accurate. More about how the DI markets themselves is needed. Their "About Us" is particularly interesting:
“ | Mission Statement
Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and Internet website ( http://www.discovery.org ). Current projects explore the fields of technology, science and culture, reform of the law, national defense, the environment and the economy, the future of democratic institutions, transportation, religion and public life, government entitlement spending, foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of "Cascadia." The efforts of Discovery fellows and staff, headquartered in Seattle, are crucially abetted by the Institute's members, board and sponsors. |
” |
The fact that "intelligent design" doesn't appear in their mission statement is telling. Yet, it is unescapable that this is what the institute is best known for in the media and it is also what the vast majority of their publications, events, and promotions are about. I'd love to see you take a crack at it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there actually a credible challenge that the Discovery Institute is a conservative thinktank? Or is somebody trying to make a WP:POINT? siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Its not a "Think Tank" its a religious organisation, as the article states its manifesto says so! The only thinking they do is trying to get religion taught in schools, breaching the constitution and thinking of ways to enforce their religious beliefs onto others.--
27.33.109.57 (
talk)
11:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Would it not be a good idea to replace hatnote with link to disambiguation page? Bus stop ( talk) 19:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Should be mentioned that the Discovery Institutes biggest and most intelligent front men, chicken out of the dover trial, as they knew it would be shown ID is just creationism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdefghiabc ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That seems like an unfair assessment to me. Having not read much about the trial, however, I am in little place to judge. Please avoid treating ID like it was a 'Freemason conspiracy.' It deserves an open debate just like every other scientific theory. -Master Imrahil 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Master Imrahil (
talk •
contribs)
Hi, I think it's safe to say there is probably a consensus to start adding organizations like these to Category: Cults. Wikipedia's definition of a cult is, "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre." I think we can all agree that this organization and others like it fall under that definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.231.231 ( talk) 13:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
After 150 years of populating educational institutions with Darwinists, suddenly, when the Discovery Institute attempts to balance these institutions, it is called "stacking" school boards. Why was it never stacking when secular originations did it?
Normally, I feel that Wikipedia is fair and balanced and I have on several occasions defended it against critics, but this section is totally unhinged in its presentation. It sounds more like the Catholic Church's indictment of Galileo's views, which were also not considered REAL TRUE HONEST SCIENCE, because they did not fit with the accepted knowledge of the time and so challenged those in power.
Steve Novak, MBA & Mensan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.132.41 ( talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Intelligent design also can't be proven or disproven. It's not a scientific theory. Yet the DI is trying to force it into schools - for religious reasons. The claims of this talk page are generally those of similarly religiously motivated editors who can't substantiate their points with reliable sources. This is not surprising given the consistent lack of scientific support for all their propositions - again, because this is a religious issue, not a scientific one. The extensive use of sources also clearly illustrates the fact that the page is not based on opinion - particularly the fact that the most reliable sources are the most vehement. This page isn't about proving or disproving God, it's about the DI - a religious organization with a religious agenda attempting to force that agenda into secular institutions in violation of the US constitution. The DI is trying to use science to prove God, which even theologians agree is pointless and stupid. If the DI ever presented any actual data or experiments on their concepts, it could be said that they were trying to be scientific, but all that's presented is rehashed creationist arguments discredited centuries ago. Science has even tested the few propositions presented by ID (mostly Behe's work) and found that Behe either deliberately ignored, blatantly misrepresented, or didn't even bother looking in the scientific literature as there were multiple sources contradicting his assertions even before he presented them.
Anyway, your sourceless assertion isn't sufficient to modify the page. If you perhaps had a concrete suggestion it could be examined, but quite literally the entire basis of intelligent design is without merit. It's been examined by the scientific community and essentially laughed out of the room. If you don't realize it, then you've probably been reading solely the Discovery Institute's propaganda pieces - look into the other side, even a bit. Intelligent design is bad science, and in many people's opinion, bad theology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, wow. In all my years on Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever read a more biased article. Unbelievable that this iteration has stayed up for so long. Unbelievable. 172.56.21.56 ( talk) 02:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The information presented in the introduction is highly slanted, and calls greatly for a re-evalutation. I would suggest citations from the Institute's website.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.165.23 ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 September 2009
I would agree that the information in the introduction is very biased and defamatory as The Discovery Institute does not teach Creationism. Intellegent Design properly understood does not start with any real understanding of the Bible, Koran, ect. It starts by looking at life as possibly being designed based upon certain evidences found within observed data. Creationism properly understood believes that the Yahweh, the God of the Old and New Testaments created the earth Ex Nihilo (Latin 'Out of nothing'). Within the Creationism camp there are Old Earth, Young Earth, and Gap theorists, ect. The Discovery Institute can't be a 'Creationist Propaganda Mill' because of the fact that there are so many different theological or atheological groups working with them. Ranging from Jew, to Christian, to Muslim, to Agnostic.
Sushi (
talk)
05:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we please stop saying the pseudoscience "intelligent design?" I don't agree with Intelligent Design, nor do I think it's scientific, but we need to present the information in an unbiased way. Saying that the Discovery Institute teaches "creationist, anti-evolutionist" beliefs is far from neutrality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psstein1 ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 20 July 2014
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that following the policy on Verifiability will give us the best result:
It does not matter whether or not you, you, or I think that Intelligent Design is Creationism. The question is: What has been published in reliable sources?
The opening paragraph has the following sources:
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help).
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link).