Talk:Intelligent design/FA attempt discussion 2006

message: 1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
:(a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.
:(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
:(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
:(d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).
:(e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
====Well written, neutral, stable discussion====
=====Intro=====
I'll start off by stating that the intro carrying a passage outlining the legal status of ID being necessary for a "lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections" as called for in criteria number 2 below is the subject of broad consensus arising from extensive previous discussions. FeloniousMonk 22:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well written, neutral, stable

message: =====Intro=====
I'll start off by stating that the intro carrying a passage outlining the legal status of ID being necessary for a "lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections" as called for in criteria number 2 below is the subject of broad consensus arising from extensive previous discussions. FeloniousMonk 22:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well written, neutral, stable discussion

message: I'll start off by stating that the intro carrying a passage outlining the legal status of ID being necessary for a "lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections" as called for in criteria number 2 below is the subject of broad consensus arising from extensive previous discussions. FeloniousMonk 22:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: 2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
:(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
:(b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
:(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).<.small>
====Manual of Style Discussion====
We have two lead sections.  The first one, and the one labeled overview.  The overview contains two sub-sections about the history of the term and its philosophical origins.  The table of contents is a good size, though section 4 goes to one level deeper than the other sections.  Too deep, IMHO, given the existence of sister articles that should hold the fine details.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of Style

message: We have two lead sections.  The first one, and the one labeled overview.  The overview contains two sub-sections about the history of the term and its philosophical origins.  The table of contents is a good size, though section 4 goes to one level deeper than the other sections.  Too deep, IMHO, given the existence of sister articles that should hold the fine details.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of Style Discussion

message: 3. It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
====Images Discussion====
Images aren't necessary, but there are some, and they're nice.  I note that people are adding even more images, which is good.  The clock is very pretty, though maybe a watch would be even nicer?  I confess to a temptation to add a picture of a fosilised person, but I'll resist.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the images after going through this page on FAC attempt. Definitely, the article scores well on NPOV per my standard and representative images would have definitely helped. I sourced the clock from the commons:Category:Watches, where you will find many more options. I intentionally chose this one as it shows the complexities in mechanism as well as the the (recognisable) face of the watch. The problem with other images was that either it was difficult to comprehend that the object shown is a watch (when viewed from behind), or the assertion that "watch is complex" not suitably backed by a complex mechanism. The image I added is a classical antique piece that has both the features. I was also tempted to add the image of pyramids in the later part of the article, but considering the limited space available for caption to explain the long philosophy, resisted myself from adding it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images have been removed by Jim62sch. That leaves the article with only one image (the Time Magazine one). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the Time cover image is sufficient. There are few relevant images to the topic that actually add something to the article, that cover being one. The article is just within acceptable bounds for length, so let's not make it longer with additional images. FeloniousMonk 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images are nice, and they don't add much compared to the whole length of it.  A bit of eye-candy doesn't go astray in helping people feel good about the page.  Maybe restore them, but smaller, perhaps the same size as the time cover?  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The Time evolution wars.jpg image needs a fair use rationale. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Images aren't necessary, but there are some, and they're nice.  I note that people are adding even more images, which is good.  The clock is very pretty, though maybe a watch would be even nicer?  I confess to a temptation to add a picture of a fosilised person, but I'll resist.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the images after going through this page on FAC attempt. Definitely, the article scores well on NPOV per my standard and representative images would have definitely helped. I sourced the clock from the commons:Category:Watches, where you will find many more options. I intentionally chose this one as it shows the complexities in mechanism as well as the the (recognisable) face of the watch. The problem with other images was that either it was difficult to comprehend that the object shown is a watch (when viewed from behind), or the assertion that "watch is complex" not suitably backed by a complex mechanism. The image I added is a classical antique piece that has both the features. I was also tempted to add the image of pyramids in the later part of the article, but considering the limited space available for caption to explain the long philosophy, resisted myself from adding it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images have been removed by Jim62sch. That leaves the article with only one image (the Time Magazine one). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the Time cover image is sufficient. There are few relevant images to the topic that actually add something to the article, that cover being one. The article is just within acceptable bounds for length, so let's not make it longer with additional images. FeloniousMonk 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images are nice, and they don't add much compared to the whole length of it.  A bit of eye-candy doesn't go astray in helping people feel good about the page.  Maybe restore them, but smaller, perhaps the same size as the time cover?  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The Time evolution wars.jpg image needs a fair use rationale. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images Discussion

message: 4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
====Length, detail Discussion====
I'm not sure what the typical length for a featured article is? This prints out at 19 pages, which seems on the long side.  Especially given that 6 pages of that is the notes and references.  We absolutely  have to keep the references, but I'm don't believe that all the notes and quotes and value.  If they do, they should be merged into the main text.  If they don't they should be trimmed.  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length, detail

message: I'm not sure what the typical length for a featured article is? This prints out at 19 pages, which seems on the long side.  Especially given that 6 pages of that is the notes and references.  We absolutely  have to keep the references, but I'm don't believe that all the notes and quotes and value.  If they do, they should be merged into the main text.  If they don't they should be trimmed.  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length, detail Discussion

message: ID as a topic and an article is a POV magnet, and as described in the article ID proponents rely upon misrepresentations of their positions and those of the scientific community to get their message across. Also, pro-ID groups have publicly declared open season on Wikipedia's ID article. The previous attempt at FA status was derailed by numerous bad faith objections to the article arising out of the personal bias of pro-ID contributors who railed against the article presenting anything other than the pro-ID viewpoint. Allowed to continue, such behavior will condemn any FA attempt to failure, thus a method is needed to halt such attempts to twist WP processes to their end.
WP:NPOV expressly states that for an article to be neutral all significant published points of view are to be presented. 
WP:NPOV also states that in cases of pseudoscience, "The task before us is not to describe disputes  as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. (emphasis in original) WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience As outlined in the article, ID is considered pseudoscience by members of the scientific community, making it subject to the pseudoscience clause of WP:NPOV.
Most bad faith objections, relying on a misapplication or misreading of policy or a wholly partisan viewpoint, will be readily apparent. Here we will suggest methods for ensuring that only legitmate, good faith and well-grounded criticisms will be applied to determining the article's FA status. Please post proposals below for discussion.
===Proposal: Move to talk===
I propose that obvious bad faith objections and those editors who insist on a tendentious and/or flawed reading of policy upon being corrected and after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Intelligent design, be moved off the Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Intelligent_design page and onto the talk page. The discussion of Featured Article status is not a vote, and blatant bad faith attempts to derail the normal operations of FAC need not be considered toward FA status. FeloniousMonk 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed wholeheartedly.  I do not expect to see arguments about the correctness or incorrectness of evolution, or how many Americans believe in creationism or ID or evolution, or argumets born of OR, etc.  The purpose of this page is to discuss whether this article meets the criteria for FA status and that is all. •Jim62sch• 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100% with FM.  Agree 99% with Jim.  The page will be about the content and presentation of the article.  So arguments about OR might be appropriate, as might arguments about whether or not the article should cover certain subjects.  But not the 'truth' of those subjects.  The challenge will be getting agreement about what is and is not bad faith.  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree but I think uninvolved admin(s) should decide what is OT, not anyone who's edited the page before. — Dunc|☺ 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reasonable point. FeloniousMonk 14:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: QED. You're suggestion is not surprising since you've made the one of the bogus or uninformed objections we seek to address moving forward.  is representative of the sort of bogus or uninformed objections that scuttled the last attempt.  FeloniousMonk 19:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Method for dealing with bad faith objections

message: I propose that obvious bad faith objections and those editors who insist on a tendentious and/or flawed reading of policy upon being corrected and after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Intelligent design, be moved off the Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Intelligent_design page and onto the talk page. The discussion of Featured Article status is not a vote, and blatant bad faith attempts to derail the normal operations of FAC need not be considered toward FA status. FeloniousMonk 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed wholeheartedly.  I do not expect to see arguments about the correctness or incorrectness of evolution, or how many Americans believe in creationism or ID or evolution, or argumets born of OR, etc.  The purpose of this page is to discuss whether this article meets the criteria for FA status and that is all. •Jim62sch• 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100% with FM.  Agree 99% with Jim.  The page will be about the content and presentation of the article.  So arguments about OR might be appropriate, as might arguments about whether or not the article should cover certain subjects.  But not the 'truth' of those subjects.  The challenge will be getting agreement about what is and is not bad faith.  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree but I think uninvolved admin(s) should decide what is OT, not anyone who's edited the page before. — Dunc|☺ 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reasonable point. FeloniousMonk 14:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Move to talk

message: I predict two sorts of bad faith objections.  The majority will be arguing that the article disagrees with their personal bias.  Those objections we should meet by pointing out that the complaint is not about what we have said about the universe, but about the way the universe is, which is beyond our control.  That is, such complaints should be completely discounted.  There will be a minority who, for biased reasons, go looking for real problems with the article.  I believe we can best meet those through this exercise we are currently engaged in - looking for problems ourselves first, then making damn sure we address them before the wreckers have a go at it.  Regards, Ben Aveling 04:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of objection

message: Encourage start by publicizing Wiki policy of Assume Good Faith Wikipedia:Faith and work towards NPOV.DLH 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: QED. You're suggestion is not surprising since you've made the one of the bogus or uninformed objections we seek to address moving forward.  is representative of the sort of bogus or uninformed objections that scuttled the last attempt.  FeloniousMonk 19:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-hand comments