Category talk:Intelligent design advocates

message: I have created a list at List of pseudoscientists to replace the deleted category.  The list format will work better, as it allows for annotation of the entries and it should thus be less controversial to add items to the list.  I have added Intelligent design movement to the list but have not added any explanation as I am not sufficiently well-versed on the topic.  As such, I am removing the defunct Pseudoscientists category from this page.  --Wclark 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscientists 

message: Politicians and people who are not notable for being ID advocates should not be placed in this category. Currently, there are many dubious inclusion to this category. Mainly members of Congress, whose advocacy is unsourced and irrelevant to their notability. Even if this took a stance on the issue or a vote relating to the issue they do not belong in the category as ID advocates anymore than a politican who votes pro-choice should be included in a Pro-choice activist category.  99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politicians 

message: Currently, this page refers to the Discovery Institute as a conservative Christian think tank. Looking through the website of Discovery Institue, they never make the claim to be a Christian or conservative organization. They do reference being a nonpartisan organization. I had removed it but a few members who seem to believe that there opinion is as good as a source have reverted my edits. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Discovery Institute, where I have started a thread which has already been replied to. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsecretarian and Nonpartisan 

message: I sugget we apply to this category the same guidelines applied to those categories which would be:
"This category is not a list of anyone who is pro-intelligent design or believes in intelligent design (such as actors, musicians, or politicians)."
This would eliminate all these politicans whose stance on intelligent design is irrelevant to their notability. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I think it is very useful to know which politicians have taken an affirmative stance on ID. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: First of all, there is absolutely no such policy.  Just because consensus to exclude politicians from those categories has nothing to do with whether they should be included here.  Second of all, categories are supposed to be useful for people who have an interest in a subject.  The purpose is to facilitate navigation through related articles.  I see the inclusion of politicians who have taken an affirmative stance as quite topical and important.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: But these politicians are notable for having taken an affirmative position on intelligent design, since not that many politicians have taken a stance at all.  I would not object to a :Category:Intelligent design opponents category, which included politicians who had taken a stance against intelligent design.  To my knowledge, not that many politicians have taken such a stance: it doesn't make it onto the radar for most of them.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You're probably right -- but "advocate" requires far less direct involvement that "activist". HrafnTalkStalk 18:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-choice activists and Pro-life activists