Talk:Intelligent design/LeadVoting1

message: The suggested options for "competing leads" presented below were submitted by User:Adam Cuerden, a WP administrator, on 25 April 2007.: (this noted after the fact by Kenosis 03:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, I only listed the first three, based on what had been getting used in the edit war, and the fourth, based on discussion. Anything after that is probably someone else. Adam Cuerden talk 04:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear ya'.  It's reminiscent of Godel's theorem, by which, in one rendering, there are not enough people around to check up on everything that people do in the world. No sweat here, though.  I peronally would prefer to see the discussion proceed totally on the merits, both point by point and with an ongoing eye towards the overall editorial style (which, within the contentious nature of the topic, is more or less what's been happening). ... Kenosis 04:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competing leads 

message: :*In order, 2, 3, 1.  2 still in the lead.  4, 1, 3. I believe that 2 best represents the NPOV of what is Intelligent Design.  However, I can live with 3.  I think 1 is least acceptable to me.  Orangemarlin 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I prefer 3's version of the second paragraph by far to 2's version. What if we combined them, as per new combination 4? (My order: 4,3,2,1, due to a particularly strong dislike as to how 1 and 2 handle the pseudoscience and junk science sentence. Adam Cuerden talk 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *To note, I'm perfectly happy with 2, as long as we fix the offending sentence. I'm uncertain about 5.  Adam Cuerden talk 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *2 by a country mile, then 4, 1, 3, with my concern about "hypothesis" in the last sentence repeated. Tevildo 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * 2 is my first choice, followed by 1 then 3. No support for 4. Odd nature 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * 5, 1, 3 -  2 & 4 are an absolute no go and a violation of NPOV.  There are over a dozen editors that have objected to this intro.  This will go before Arbitration before 2 or 4 get the lead.  Also note that you changed the order.  #1 use to be the old #2... so everyone.. don't get confused on the numbering... #2 is the lead from a month ago that started this month long editor war with over 20 editors.  Most have agreed to some version of 1 or 3 and it drives me nuts that we're back to square one with this!!! Morphh  (talk) 0:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **Arbitration isn't for disputes over article content. You mean mediation, I believe. Adam Cuerden talk 00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute is that it violates NPOV policy by stating an opinion as fact.  This is certainly something that could go to Arbitration. Morphh  (talk) 1:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * 5 (well, duh, i took it out of the trash and put it in, so it should be obvious.) 2 and 4 is contrary to Wikipedia policy for reasons repeated multiple times here.  to begin with, the definition is OR. r b-j 22:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 4,3,2,1 basically per Adam's logic. JoshuaZ 02:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * 16 editors that expressed issues with the first sentence of 2 & 4 Morphh  (talk) 3:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preferences

message: Shall we cut "During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals." to simply "During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of intelligent design has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals."
* Yes. Adam Cuerden talk 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "no evidence for the intelligent design hypothesis"

message: I don't think it is, it does state two seperate facts, but it draws no new connection between them (hence not WP:OR), and is the phrasing that made it through the Featured Article discussion. I find it hard to believe that a violation of Wikipedia policy would survive that. However, comments? Adam Cuerden talk 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe it is. In what way could they be OR? We are quoting experts in the field, and the extensive findings of a US federal court that weighed a huge amount of evidence and testimony under oath. It is not up to us to declare a US federal court's ruling as nonsense...THAT would be OR. And just plain creationist nonsense. We quote the findings of the court. If the court had found otherwise, then we would have an interesting situation where experts in the field disagreed with the court, and we would have to come to some different accommodation. However, when the court agrees with the experts, and only a few extremists adopting nonstandard nonscientific positions are frantically claiming otherwise, then I think we are on firm ground.--Filll 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We never said it was OR (well.. perhaps rbj).  We said it was in violation of NPOV.  "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute...  Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone... But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them." 2 & 4 state ID is God as a statement of fact, without attributing the opinion and without stating that ID does not identify the designer.  Over a dozen editors complained that this sentence violated policy.  As for the FA discussion, it was a self promotion, which shouldn't have been allowed.  The discussion was of those that wrote and approved the sentence.  It is a conflict of interest for the editors of this article to vote for themselves, which is what happened on this FA allowing it too barely pass (as almost half the votes opposed the FA). Morphh  (talk) 1:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A federal court agrees with the statement and accepted it as a finding of fact. That's hard to argue with and is a reliable source. Find a reliable source that seriously disagrees with the claim and then maybe it will matter. But as of right now the only claims otherwise are in unreliable sources like the DI's press releases. JoshuaZ 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it be agreed that one or more of the variant first sentences listed below is an acceptable compromise to everyone? If they are, we may be able to sidestep this argument completely. I mean B is probably not only less controversial, but more informative and accurate, and there's several other good versions in there as well.  Adam Cuerden talk 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is version 2/4 a violation of Wikipedia policy?

message: Here are several variant first sentences that aren't present in the current versions. I like some of them better than the ones currently on offer. They consist of several of the ones that came up in the previous discussion, and a couple other variants. 
A. "Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of biological life and the universe did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent, usually, but unofficially, identified as the Judeo-Christian God"
B. "Intelligent design is a variant of a traditional argument for the existence of God that claims certain features of biological life and the universe are too complex to arise by natural processes such as those of evolution, but must have been created by an unspecified intelligent agent.
C. "Intelligent design is a conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of natural processes." (Modified Wiktionary definition)
D. Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the design argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not identify the nature or identity of the designer. Adam Cuerden talk 01:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been through this over and over again Adam.  All of these are weasel wording to placate the complaints of a grand total of two editors.  This is NOT a compromise, but a total cave-in.  Factually, neutrally, and plainly speaking, ID is an argument for a G_d.  Whether individuals here choose to place propaganda on this lead is up to them, but I won't buy it.  I vote against all of the phrasing.  The compromises you spent time doing above is all that counts.  It appears 2 (and maybe 4) is getting the most support.  Orangemarlin 02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it amazing that your still stating this two editor nonsense knowing it to be untrue (the list).   Morphh  (talk) 2:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  if Orange thinks it's true, he thinks it's true. r b-j 03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you really saying you prefer the direct quote from the DI of 2's second half to these rather more elegant, neutral ways of phrasing it? Relax and have another look at them. Sometimes change can be a good thing. And I honestly feel that B is more accurate to Kitzmiller's findings than 2 is, so it's probably not that useful to tell me that I'm caving in. Adam Cuerden talk 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rephrasing of first sentence

message: Would this be more conveniently phrased as simply "Its leading proponent, the Discovery Institute"? Pretty much the same information, but in a much more natural-sounding phrase. Adam Cuerden talk 02:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute"