This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please read before starting
Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
Also of particular relevance are:
|
|
|
|
I've seen charts which show the change from Creationist to Intelligent Design language in the editions of the book. Example here. A visual is a better way of explaining this than just pure text. That individual chart is likely copyrighted and can't be used. But if we were to get a hold of the raw data, we could reproduce the chart and then cite the source for the data. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am concerned that using the term pseudoscientific adjective to describe Intelligent Design sets a tone for this post that may reflect to some people that Wikipedia is interested in presenting biased opinions and not a neutral point of view as per Wikipedia policy.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
It seems appropriate to move that particular term to the main body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
ID is completely valid in other areas: now that is complete nonsense. ID is a specific claim about the origin of life/species/the universe, summarised as
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection, that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the areas you mention. It would be helpful if you actually took the time to understand what ID is before proposing edits on related topics. — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I have also checked the NCSE's website and their used of the term pseudoscience is also very limited and does not appear in "About" section of the website.
I think that specifically attaching pseudoscience to the beginning of ID is a fringe view. And I think that you have to produce a lot more evidence that a selective statement quote mined from one website to support your contention that this isn't the case. Mathezar ( talk) 17:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I rarely edit this article but do watch it out of general topical interest and to help counter POV pushing problems. So perhaps I'm missing some nuance that's arisen in previous conversations that I've missed. But I'm confused how describing ID as pseudoscience would be even remotely a fringe view; it is literally the predominant scientific consensus on the topic. Searching the internet for both terms together produces numerous articles from both academic institutions and major media outlets discussing ID as pseudoscience (with no potential WP:SYNTH problems as the sources flat out state it). Can you please explain the rationale for calling it fringe? Millahnna ( talk) 18:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I came to this article acause I was just on FTN for something else and went down a rabbit hole, but since the sentence in question has apparently been subject to controversy recently I figured I should ask first before doing anything BOLD. What do people think about changing
Its authors espouse the pseudoscientific[1][2][3][4] concept of intelligent design—namely that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent which is not named specifically in the book, although proponents understand that it refers to the Christian God.
to
The book presents the pseudoscientific[1][2][3][4] concept of intelligent design—namely that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent which is not named specifically in the book, although proponents understand that it refers to the Christian God—which its authors espouse.
?
My reasoning is that the current wording appears to put too much emphasis on its authors' views too early on for an article on the book, when what we are really saying is that the book presents this view and that is why it is notable. Its authors almost certainly espouse a whole bunch of views that aren't presented in the book, and mention of those doesn't belong in this article.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The book espouses...? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No comment on the objective veracity of the claim, but I wanted a bit more information on the "Banned Book of the Year" claim, and was disappointed. Nothing should appear in the timeline image that isn't also included, and sourced, in the article text. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please read before starting
Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
Also of particular relevance are:
|
|
|
|
I've seen charts which show the change from Creationist to Intelligent Design language in the editions of the book. Example here. A visual is a better way of explaining this than just pure text. That individual chart is likely copyrighted and can't be used. But if we were to get a hold of the raw data, we could reproduce the chart and then cite the source for the data. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am concerned that using the term pseudoscientific adjective to describe Intelligent Design sets a tone for this post that may reflect to some people that Wikipedia is interested in presenting biased opinions and not a neutral point of view as per Wikipedia policy.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
It seems appropriate to move that particular term to the main body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
ID is completely valid in other areas: now that is complete nonsense. ID is a specific claim about the origin of life/species/the universe, summarised as
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection, that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the areas you mention. It would be helpful if you actually took the time to understand what ID is before proposing edits on related topics. — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I have also checked the NCSE's website and their used of the term pseudoscience is also very limited and does not appear in "About" section of the website.
I think that specifically attaching pseudoscience to the beginning of ID is a fringe view. And I think that you have to produce a lot more evidence that a selective statement quote mined from one website to support your contention that this isn't the case. Mathezar ( talk) 17:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I rarely edit this article but do watch it out of general topical interest and to help counter POV pushing problems. So perhaps I'm missing some nuance that's arisen in previous conversations that I've missed. But I'm confused how describing ID as pseudoscience would be even remotely a fringe view; it is literally the predominant scientific consensus on the topic. Searching the internet for both terms together produces numerous articles from both academic institutions and major media outlets discussing ID as pseudoscience (with no potential WP:SYNTH problems as the sources flat out state it). Can you please explain the rationale for calling it fringe? Millahnna ( talk) 18:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I came to this article acause I was just on FTN for something else and went down a rabbit hole, but since the sentence in question has apparently been subject to controversy recently I figured I should ask first before doing anything BOLD. What do people think about changing
Its authors espouse the pseudoscientific[1][2][3][4] concept of intelligent design—namely that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent which is not named specifically in the book, although proponents understand that it refers to the Christian God.
to
The book presents the pseudoscientific[1][2][3][4] concept of intelligent design—namely that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent which is not named specifically in the book, although proponents understand that it refers to the Christian God—which its authors espouse.
?
My reasoning is that the current wording appears to put too much emphasis on its authors' views too early on for an article on the book, when what we are really saying is that the book presents this view and that is why it is notable. Its authors almost certainly espouse a whole bunch of views that aren't presented in the book, and mention of those doesn't belong in this article.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The book espouses...? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No comment on the objective veracity of the claim, but I wanted a bit more information on the "Banned Book of the Year" claim, and was disappointed. Nothing should appear in the timeline image that isn't also included, and sourced, in the article text. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)