This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate that the lede is cited to the DI & the book's publisher? It rather suggests lack of balance for such a widely-criticised book. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 12:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Lack of balance is right.. but certainly not in favor of the book. Any attempts to add balance comments to this article are reverted by the editors. (As will this comment no doubt.) So much for objectivity! Asteckley ( talk) 04:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn.. you are absurdly silly. My addition referred directly to the book itself that is the topic of the entire Wikipedia article...that IS the "source". The level of your bias in censoring any reasonable discussion is stunning! Asteckley ( talk) 21:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC).
Hrafn: Seriously? Are you REALLY trying to make the argument that stating that Meyer "spends many pages explaining that complexity alone does not imply intentional design" is an 'opinion'...or an 'uncited synthesis'? You do realize that the book is publicly available, don't you? Anybody reading this article can actually read the book and see that my addition is just an objective observation. You are embarrassing yourself, (not to mention undercutting your own obvious mission of discrediting anything coming from ID proponents). An "opinion" would be if I were evaluating what he says as 'good' or 'bad' or 'right' or 'wrong'. What bizarre world are you living in to suggest that my description of what Meyer's book contains (which he himself would unhesitatingly agree with) is only my 'opinion' or a 'synthesis'? Would it also be an 'opinion' to state that the book is about 'Intelligent Design'? Or that it talks about "specified complexity"? Agree with him or not, the fact is those topics constitute substantial amounts of the book's content. As does a lengthy description of what is meant by 'specified complexity'. And also that specified complexity is NOT complexity alone as PZ Meyers' criticism is trying to suggest. Perhaps we could settle this be removing entirely the reference to PZ Myers, since he himself admits that he had not even read the book before writing his evaluation of it. Asteckley ( talk) 05:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
— WP:NOR
SERIOUSLY, stating that PZ Myers is wrong because he "overlooks the fact that Meyer spends many pages explaining that complexity alone does not imply intentional design" (rather than, for example, that he believes Meyer's explanation to be malformed or inadequate or similar) -- bloody well requires a secondary source! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
the article needs some kind of at least modest summary of what the it is about. All I get from teh current article is that it is a book by ID'ers that seems to use a lot of poor scientific explaination. What is the book's thesis? A paragraph on that prior to the 'reception' section would be a wonderful addition. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 23:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of dubious sources used here--on all sides of the issue, including many self-published blogs with no editorial control and no association with news organizations. Drrll ( talk) 07:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You are right that ScienceBlogs blogs are associated with a company that produces Seed magazine, which itself appears to be a reliable source. The problem is that none of the individual blogs at ScienceBlogs are under the editorial control of anyone:
WP:IRS says the following about blogs:
Even though their blogs dealing with ID are heavy on personal attacks (not a shock given the lack of editorial control of opinionated bloggers), they could be reliable if they were under a news outlet's full editorial control--at least the ones written by experts in relevant fields, which is not always the case. Besides the Pharyngula ScienceBlogs blog, these other blogs are also free from a news outlet's editorial control:
In addition, the Trinity Broadcasting source makes no claim that it's either a scholarly enterprise or a news organization as far as I know (at least the CBN source claims to be a news article written by a journalist). WP:PARITY does not give sources a pass because of the topic or because of the favorable sources used in an article:
Drrll ( talk) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I am going to wander a bit in responding to the above, for which I apologise.
In conclusion, given the scarcity of sources, we are faced with either (i) accepting these sources as having sufficient WP:PARITY, or (ii) merging/deleting this article. Because, to be blunt, this article is not sustainable without them. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Drrll ( talk) 19:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure Deadhorse-Drrll will come up with numerous spurious reasons why he disagrees with me. I'm really not interested. Unless and until it looks like there is some possibility of a change in WP:CONSENSUS, I see little point in responding further, except to offer a pre-emptive disagreement with whatever he is likely to say hereafter. Have fun talking to yourself and/or to anybody willing to play dead horse piñata with you. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to include every view of every review ever made on the book. Three or four representative reviews are enough to establish the general reception of the book. I've cleaned out many of the incidental reviews that do nothing more than repeat/restate what the other sources have already said. aprock ( talk) 00:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
User QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV recently erased the "Main Points" section, citing WP:SOAP. As per the linked article, a SOAP designation does not apply to this Main Points section because, while it does speak of science/religion/politics, it does so as "an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Also, the Main Points section does not advertise or promote the book. If the presence of a Main Points section does do that, then an exceedingly large number of WP book articles need to be revised. Another edit, in the lede, the reference to Meyer's degrees in science were deleted and replaced with the term creationist. While I cannot find where Meyers says he is a creationist, I can find where he cites his earned degrees. Thus I am replacing "creationist" with "Philosopher of science" and adding the reference that was cited in his BLP. Best, Purefury182 ( talk) 15:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate that the lede is cited to the DI & the book's publisher? It rather suggests lack of balance for such a widely-criticised book. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 12:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Lack of balance is right.. but certainly not in favor of the book. Any attempts to add balance comments to this article are reverted by the editors. (As will this comment no doubt.) So much for objectivity! Asteckley ( talk) 04:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn.. you are absurdly silly. My addition referred directly to the book itself that is the topic of the entire Wikipedia article...that IS the "source". The level of your bias in censoring any reasonable discussion is stunning! Asteckley ( talk) 21:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC).
Hrafn: Seriously? Are you REALLY trying to make the argument that stating that Meyer "spends many pages explaining that complexity alone does not imply intentional design" is an 'opinion'...or an 'uncited synthesis'? You do realize that the book is publicly available, don't you? Anybody reading this article can actually read the book and see that my addition is just an objective observation. You are embarrassing yourself, (not to mention undercutting your own obvious mission of discrediting anything coming from ID proponents). An "opinion" would be if I were evaluating what he says as 'good' or 'bad' or 'right' or 'wrong'. What bizarre world are you living in to suggest that my description of what Meyer's book contains (which he himself would unhesitatingly agree with) is only my 'opinion' or a 'synthesis'? Would it also be an 'opinion' to state that the book is about 'Intelligent Design'? Or that it talks about "specified complexity"? Agree with him or not, the fact is those topics constitute substantial amounts of the book's content. As does a lengthy description of what is meant by 'specified complexity'. And also that specified complexity is NOT complexity alone as PZ Meyers' criticism is trying to suggest. Perhaps we could settle this be removing entirely the reference to PZ Myers, since he himself admits that he had not even read the book before writing his evaluation of it. Asteckley ( talk) 05:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
— WP:NOR
SERIOUSLY, stating that PZ Myers is wrong because he "overlooks the fact that Meyer spends many pages explaining that complexity alone does not imply intentional design" (rather than, for example, that he believes Meyer's explanation to be malformed or inadequate or similar) -- bloody well requires a secondary source! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
the article needs some kind of at least modest summary of what the it is about. All I get from teh current article is that it is a book by ID'ers that seems to use a lot of poor scientific explaination. What is the book's thesis? A paragraph on that prior to the 'reception' section would be a wonderful addition. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 23:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of dubious sources used here--on all sides of the issue, including many self-published blogs with no editorial control and no association with news organizations. Drrll ( talk) 07:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You are right that ScienceBlogs blogs are associated with a company that produces Seed magazine, which itself appears to be a reliable source. The problem is that none of the individual blogs at ScienceBlogs are under the editorial control of anyone:
WP:IRS says the following about blogs:
Even though their blogs dealing with ID are heavy on personal attacks (not a shock given the lack of editorial control of opinionated bloggers), they could be reliable if they were under a news outlet's full editorial control--at least the ones written by experts in relevant fields, which is not always the case. Besides the Pharyngula ScienceBlogs blog, these other blogs are also free from a news outlet's editorial control:
In addition, the Trinity Broadcasting source makes no claim that it's either a scholarly enterprise or a news organization as far as I know (at least the CBN source claims to be a news article written by a journalist). WP:PARITY does not give sources a pass because of the topic or because of the favorable sources used in an article:
Drrll ( talk) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I am going to wander a bit in responding to the above, for which I apologise.
In conclusion, given the scarcity of sources, we are faced with either (i) accepting these sources as having sufficient WP:PARITY, or (ii) merging/deleting this article. Because, to be blunt, this article is not sustainable without them. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Drrll ( talk) 19:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure Deadhorse-Drrll will come up with numerous spurious reasons why he disagrees with me. I'm really not interested. Unless and until it looks like there is some possibility of a change in WP:CONSENSUS, I see little point in responding further, except to offer a pre-emptive disagreement with whatever he is likely to say hereafter. Have fun talking to yourself and/or to anybody willing to play dead horse piñata with you. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to include every view of every review ever made on the book. Three or four representative reviews are enough to establish the general reception of the book. I've cleaned out many of the incidental reviews that do nothing more than repeat/restate what the other sources have already said. aprock ( talk) 00:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
User QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV recently erased the "Main Points" section, citing WP:SOAP. As per the linked article, a SOAP designation does not apply to this Main Points section because, while it does speak of science/religion/politics, it does so as "an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Also, the Main Points section does not advertise or promote the book. If the presence of a Main Points section does do that, then an exceedingly large number of WP book articles need to be revised. Another edit, in the lede, the reference to Meyer's degrees in science were deleted and replaced with the term creationist. While I cannot find where Meyers says he is a creationist, I can find where he cites his earned degrees. Thus I am replacing "creationist" with "Philosopher of science" and adding the reference that was cited in his BLP. Best, Purefury182 ( talk) 15:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)