Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 2

message: The state of Wisconsin has proposed legislation that will forbid supernaturalism (which included ID/C) from being taught in public science classrooms.  Dembski is offering $1,000 to any teacher in Wisconsin who will break that law (assuming it is passed).. 
"I’m offering $1000 to the first teacher in Wisconsin who (1) challenges this policy (should it be enacted) by teaching ID as science within a Wisconsin public school science curriculum (social science does not count), (2) gets him/herself fired, reprimanded, or otherwise punished in some actionable way, (3) obtains legal representation from a public interest law firm (e.g., Alliance Defense Fund), and (4) takes this to trial. I encourage others to contribute in the same way."
How many "recent controversies" can this article take before it becomes too long? Mr Christopher 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Controversies and article length

message: I've removed the following line:
:The committee also considered the legitimacy of research into intelligent design and gave it a lukewarm endorsement: "research on the logical structure of mathematical arguments for intelligent design have a legitimate claim to a place in the current discussions of the relations of religion and science."
The quote does not support the statement: research on the logical structure of mathematical arguments for intelligent design does not in any way bestow legitimacy to research on intelligent design. The line simply recognizes that the study of some forms of arguments is legitimate; it says nothing about the tenability of a scientific research programme on ID. Sir Paul 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Sentence

message: :William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian, and neo-creationist known for advocating the controversial idea of intelligent design in opposition to the mainstream theory of evolution through natural selection. Currently, Dembski is the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and the first director of the school's new Center for Science and Theology.  
:Dembski believes that the scientific study of nature reveals evidence of design, and opposes what he regards as mainstream science's commitment to "atheistic" materialism or naturalism, which rules out design a priori. His main proposal is that specified complexity, a type of information, is the hallmark of an intelligent designer. His work is controversial: his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community, with leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences describing intelligent design as pseudoscience, and significant voices within the science community challenging his credentials as a commentator on science, philosophy, and mathematics (for one critic of note, see []).
Main changes.
*Moved the word controversial from the first word to about the tenth word. This is consistent with other WP biographies of controversial living people.   .
*Added sentence about his current position at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Also see above discussion about adding him to :Category:pseudoscience. FloNight talk 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've piped some of the links. It's a bit odd using his title; articles on real scientists, etc., generally don't.  In other discussions I've often seen the view expressed that academic titles should be used in the summary only when they're not relevant to what the subject is mainly known for (for example, a politician or musician might be called "Dr"). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making the title change. I completely missed it. It is my understanding that titles are left off articles. Any other changes needed? FloNight talk 11:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I fixed it. That they are both Fellow Travelers so to speak should have been caught a long time ago. We're not paying enough attention to this apparently. FeloniousMonk 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated introduction for your consideration

message: I made this point previously but I think it got buried in the sea of discussions surrounding it...So here's my second attempt:
The article reads,
While at Princeton Theological Seminary, Dembski was involved in forming a group known as the "Charles Hodge Society", ostensibly a group concerned with resurrecting positive evaluations of Old Princeton Theology. The Society organized discussions and informal colloquia, but its primary work centered on reviving Hodge's own journal, the Princeton Theological Review. The PTR (over control of which name the society and the seminary wrangled) received funding from conservative Presbyterian backers (the Presbyterian Lay Committee), and primarily wrote from a conservative angle on theological issues of the day. Perhaps the most volatile of these issues was the PC(USA)'s consideration of the ordination of gays/lesbians, in which writers of the PTR (including Dembski) disagreed with Seminary faculty and their writings in nearly slanderous terms. All of which is to say Dembski welcomed controversy and political theological struggles, and was becoming increasingly familiar with the deep pockets of ostracized conservatives in the Church.
To me this seems like an awful lot of historical data without any supporting evidence.  It reads like someone who witnessed it giving a personal report.  Without cites, it sounds like original research, no?  I am not questioning the historical acuracy, rather I am suggesting some cites or some sort of supporting evidence would be in order.  Anyone else have an opinion?  Mr Christopher 05:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any idea who added the text? And have you looked for it online? I quickly looked through the article history and didn't see an obvious edit where it was added. I googled the first sentence and didn't find any obvious supporting source. Since it might still be verifiabel from a reliable source lets leave it for a little bit longer and try to find the source. I'll go through the history and find the editor that added it. Hopefully, they will know a source. FloNight talk 14:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added by  in this edit. . No help unless the IP editor is someones who edits the article but forgot to sign in that day. Oh well! What now? FloNight talk 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a note to that IP's talk page, hopefully the person who was responsible will see it. JoshuaZ 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They don't seem to have any edits since then, so I doubt they are still around. JoshuaZ 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid we need to remove the text. First, I'll spend a little more time looking for a supporting source online. Okay? FloNight talk 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objections. JoshuaZ 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I made some changes to match the source I found. At this point, the paragraph doesn't give any details about the actions of the "Charles Hodge Society" that caused the ruckus at the school. Any suggestions about where to find a reliable source for this material? FloNight talk 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Princeton History and Supporting Data

message: The photo in the article is a copyrighted photo from Dembski's website that specifically says no reproduction, with an exception for personal use. Would wikipedia qualify as "personal use"? I'm asking this question because I've never seen this before. FinFangFoom 03:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Well, no. Appears the uploader claimed fair use and the someone else changed the tag to promotional. Neither of these honor the request on the website for personal use only. We need to look for another one I guess. FloNight talk 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My US$.02 -- Don't bother. Just get rid of the photo.--CSTAR 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suggestion: He was on the Daily Show, I think they are generally very nice about letting people use stills from their show, maybe someone could email them and find out if they have a problem if we use a capture of him when he was on the show? JoshuaZ 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that they would release a still under an acceptable license, but chances are you could claim fair use on a screen capture from the show.  I agree with CSTAR - get rid of the photo until we can find one that has either an acceptable license, or to which fair use rationale is clearly applied.  Guettarda 04:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. JoshuaZ, are you going to find an image from the Daily Show and upload it as a fair use image? If so, we are suppose to use it next to text where the image content is discussed. So we need to put it lower on the page and make sure the text discusses his appearance on the show. Since this is an article about a living person, we need to be sure that it is not too unflattering. (Not saying you would do this on purpose. The content of his appearance on the show may make it difficult to discuss and remain encyclopedic.) FloNight talk 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will do, it may take me a few days to track down an appropriate one. JoshuaZ 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you do get a photo, then use that. Until then, the photo is fair use.  — Dunc|☺ 17:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I can provide a photo of Dembski that I will give Wikipedia the appropriate rights to use. I'll try to get to this relatively soon. --Wesley R. Elsberry 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Photo 1 and Photo 2. Let me know if either of those will suit you. They were taken by me at Dembski's lecture at UC Berkeley on 2006/03/17. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first one looks good. It would do excellently. JoshuaZ 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you need anything in particular from me in order to use it? Let me know. --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I uploaded the first photo to Image:Wad_by_wre_20060317_2972.JPG . --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted photo 

message: I just saw this  and this . Might merit mention, although more details and better references are needed. --CSTAR 16:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * See Mims-Pianka controversy - added link to the article as well. DLX 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief--- little wonder that users like myself are so reluctant to get involved in this mess.  Still, it sticks in my craw that this kind of bullying discourages so many from taking the time to add their voices to the critics of Dembski's highly questionable "mathematical" claims.  Sigh... ---CH 22:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dembski and academic freedom?

message: I removed the pov tag since there was no discussion of concerns raised by editor on talk page. --FloNight talk 03:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss concerns before adding pov tag

message: I just added a sentence detailing how the co-creator of the No Free Lunch Theorem characterized Dembski's book No Free Lunch as having been "written in jello." There's a source for this on the No Free Lunch Theorem page, which has a link to the article itself, but I'm not entirely clear on how to go about adding the link here and all that, because I'm stupid. Could someone do this? Thanks. BarrettBrown
:Ah, I'd added  before I saw this.  I'm about to dash off, but if no-one's done it before I return to editing, I'll do it. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the most tabloidish comment in article. Does not follow [WP:BLP#Writing style]]. See article. William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello By David Wolpert  --FloNight talk 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that's the term that was used...but it needs a source and named attribution.  Guettarda 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Picking the most controversial statement out of an article? I'd rather us use the sound argument in the article. FloNight talk 23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the most controversial statement; it's the title of the article from the theorem's author.  It's not only perfectly acceptable to note, but necessary if we're to convey the intent and tone of the author. I've restored it. FeloniousMonk 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FeloniousMonk, last night I came back to revert myself and saw that you'd already taken care of it for me. : - ) Still mildly disagreed with it, but I knew that BarrettBrown's addition would be supported by most editors of this article. There wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that it would stay out, making my revert needlessly unfriendly to a newbie. Shame on me! FloNight talk 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Free Lunch 

message: This guy's academic "credentials" consist of teaching at some seminary in MO.  Wow, I am REALLY impressed.  I'm sure that the next nobel prize winner in the sciences will come from a theological seminary.  For heaven's sake people, let's get real here.  If you don't believe in BASIC SCIENTIFIC FACTS, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical of you to use the INTERNET??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.252.105 (talk • contribs) 
:Hi, 72.225.252.105, I assume that by "this guy" you mean Dembski.  I agree that Dembski seems prone to imply that his academic credentials somehow put him beyond criticism.  Speaking as someone who is familiar with information theory and dynamical systems theory, I am confident that I could explain very serious technical objections to Dembski's recent claims (to others with similar background), although I lack the time (and the desire to become involved in this nasty controversy).  
:However, it is important to understand that back in 1988 Dembski did in fact earn a Ph.D. in the general area of probability theory.  Indeed his first advisor, P. Billingsley, is the author of a classic textbook in this field.  Nonetheless, many of those with comparable training and ability have questioned Dembski's various mathematical claims even before his notoriety. I have been told that at least some mathematicians familiar with his case regard Dembski's brief mathematical career as something of an aberration.  It is telling that in a highly unusual step, his second advisor, Leo Kadanoff, has gone on record questioning Dembski's claims, in an attempt to counter the impression which Dembski and his admirers seem prone to promote, that Dembski's mathematical understanding/ability is beyond question or even that his mathematical claims are somehow accepted by mathematicians, which is not the case at all. ---CH 21:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous

message: I just archived about half of the previous version of this page, since it was very long.  Hope that's OK with everyone.---CH 22:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:William_A._Dembski/Archive 2]]

message: "Later, after becoming a Christian, he read creationist literature."
Regardless of what some Protestant Churches argue, it's generally accepted that Catholics are Christians.  If he was already a baptised Catholic, then what does this sentence mean?  This should be changed to something more neutral, perhaps: "after embracing Fundamentalist Christianity" or something like "after becoming an Evangelical Christian".
--GuyIncognito 05:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point, I would agree with "after becoming an Evangelical Christian" since I don't think he is a fundamentalist. JoshuaZ 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic not Christian? 

message: I've got another citation problem, this time to the last sentence in paragraph 2 of the introduction:
:At the same time, a few prominent scientists, such as Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman, regard his project of inferring design as legitimate, though they are not convinced that he himself has carried it out successfully.
The cite for Davies is a third-hand quote from Shallit's blog via Witham. That's OK; it would be better if someone could look up Witham and find out where and when Davies made kind remarks about ID. 
The problem with both cites is that don't fully support the relevant claims in the article. The Davies quote relayed by Shallit runs, in toto:
:"Dembski's attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I'm concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist."
To say that ID is useful is a bit stronger than saying it is legitimate. On the other hand, nothing in quote the supports supports the claim that "they [Davies and Kauffman] are not convinced that [Dembski] has carried it out successfully."
As for Kauffman, the citation doesn't ascribe any even slightly pro-ID opinions to him. It just says that his "autonomous agents" view is contrary to ID and that he and Dembski are going to have a debate. 
Let's fix this up these shortcomings, OK?--CJGB (Chris) 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid points, I think. I have no objection to removing the passage altogether or rewording it to reflect the first source (the second source has nothing on the topic as you say). FeloniousMonk 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davies and Kauffman 

message: Moved Dembski's web site The DesignInference.com from "Defending Dembski" as it is his primary site, not otherj's "defending" him. Updated UncomonDescent.com description to current.71.120.35.49 02:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Per this I recommend that we block an IP Dave is using on sight and revert his edits until he withdraws his legal threats per WP:LEGAL. JoshuaZ 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links 50 to 53 are dead. 72.183.101.183 23:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just another attempt to suppress the facts by Davescot with the help of Larry Fafarman now. I've updated the links to secondary sources now, which is better anyway as it put the issue in context. FeloniousMonk 17:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block Dave and revert his edits on sight.  

message: "A small number of Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have trolled blogs and forums critical of Dembski, notably Dispatches from the Culture Wars [44] and Wikipedia's Intelligent design article discussion page."
While this is true enough it's also true that Dembski has no control over what his followers do on other blogs.  The statement above seems to imply that he does.  Trolls abound on both sides of this issue.  At the least if this stands an NPOV would require it be balanced by noting Dembski has no control over these supporters and there's no evidence he encouraged or approved any of that behavior.  I'd prefer the statement simply be deleted because it isn't encyclopedic, smacks of original research, it's not NPOV unless it can be shown Dembski encoouraged these people, trolling is common on both sides of the debate, and its relevance is questionable in a personal biography. 72.183.101.183 13:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not true.  To begin with, Dembksi turned over daily management of the blog to these people, and re-instated one of them after some of the most egregious postings.  In addition, UD is famous for its disappearing posts/comments, so anything that doesn't get removed is probably approved by Dembski.  So yes, there is evidence.  Guettarda 15:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've deleted that blog stuff as non-notable and contentious. IMHO the Wikipedia's Intelligent design article discussion page is especially non-notable to be mentioned (after all it is the talk page edited by non-notables). Same applies to any other non-notable critic unless someone notable is able to be quoted as presenting this accusation. In that regards is Ed Brayton notable ? This is too much blog-wars - who gives a damn how people manage their blogs unless there is some legal obligation to keep a record e.g. financial advice BUT is isn't so therefore it's just conjecture not in the spirit of WP:LIVING. I have removed the blog bits and {fact} the one-liner on the critics. Don't take that as a positive for Dembski by me as I'm with Kurzweil with respect to Dembski (e.g. see The Singularity Is Near page 474 etc). This is a Wikipedia quality issue. Ttiotsw 15:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Brayton is notable.  How not?  UD is a major element of how Dembksi operated pre-Kitzmiller.  His promotion or encouragement of hate-speech is highly relevant, as is his use of censorship, as is the fact that he uses his followers to disrupt critics.  Guettarda 15:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two issues here: - we are talking about "freelance writer and businessman" Ed Brayton ? and I stuck his name into Wikipedia and nothing popped out. Obviously with Google lots of hits but thats the mesh of blogville. The method to get him into this article would be to first get him his own Wikipedia article with cites and bibliography etc. Then it kind of falls into place. (Playing devils advocate here). Ttiotsw 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: With regards to the  - the problem here isn't that it's unsourced, the problem with that statement is that it isn't just "his critics", it's everyone who has looked at the issue who isn't a Dembski-ite.  Guettarda 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm certainly not a Dembski-ite and it looks like a weasel worded one-liner IMHO. Get Ed Brayton or anyone else notable onto wikipedia who can then be used to cite that statement which I stuck the {fact} onto.  Ttiotsw 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  What exactly are Ed Brayton's credentials aside from the fact that he was invited to join scienceblogs even though he has no science degree?  He describes himself of a freelance writer and businessman but mentions only a couple obscure journals that have published him.  He's a cofounder of a tiny non-profit Citizens for Science group in his home state. His blog writing is reactionary and inflammatory.  If it wasn't his own blog he'd be a troll.  And by the way, I happen to know it's Larry Fafarman that has been trolling Ed's blog.  No UD moderators to my knowledge have done so.  I know a UD moderator or two got fiesty on the Intelligent Design article but knowing them I bet they remained fairly civil. And no, Dembski sees virtually none of the unapproved comments on Uncommon Descent.  That's just another example of the speculation engaged in here that's presented as fact. I'd also point out that the blog ceased being Dembski's alone and became Dembski AND FRIENDS 11 months ago.  I also happen to know that none of the authors submit drafts of articles before publishing and Dembski doesn't exert any control over what they write.  Do any of you tell your friends what to say and what not to say?  UD is a group blog. 72.183.101.183 16:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Guettarda - Dembski knew nothing of those comments on Fafarman's blog and I challenge you to find a shread of evidence that he did.  You're implying that he did and you're making that up out of thin air.  Correct me if I'm wrong with a citation. 72.183.101.183 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Guettarda - p.s. Dembski rarely approves or disapproves of anything anymore.  Authors are given complete freedom.  It's Dembski AND FRIENDS, a group blog, and has been for the past 11 months which encompasses almost all the things under contention here.  Again you're just making things up about the management of Dembski's blog to suit your arguments with no evidence to back it up.  Please start providing cites for these claims or just stop making them as it's getting quite tiresome. 72.183.101.183 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another NPOV and/or relevance issue in the discussion of Dembski's blog 

message: On WP:LEGAL I read this: 
"Similarly, slander, libel, and defamation of character are not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you feel Wikipedia content libels you or someone else, you may bring it to the attention of the Community and administrators here, or by contacting the infoteam as described on this page. In either case the offensive material should be removed quickly."  
The offensive material took a month to be removed.  If Wiki procedure had been followed by quick removal and THEN discussion about reinclusion including arbitration by BLPP before reinclusion there would have been no legal threat in the first place.  I followed procedure by deleting the offensive material and made no legal threat so long as it was gone first and discussed later.  The editors who immediately restored it before any appeals could be made were the ones who were out of line IMO. 72.183.101.183 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding Legal Threats: Follow WP:LEGAL 

message: We're heading for a revert war so lets spike it. The section on who did what to whom on their blogs quotes a certain critic called "Ed Brayton". My contention is this guy isn't notable. Unless some convincing argument is presented that makes Brayton notable then the sentences with him in it will have to go (which makes the rest of the para kind of disintegrate as WP:OR. Ttiotsw 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave's attacks above aside, Ed is a journalist and was asked to blog at scienceblogs and runs a major pro-evolution group which makes him notable enough as a critic. There's no need to confuse notable enough to have an article and notable enough for their opinions to matter. JoshuaZ 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this new section questioning his notability I'm not confusing "notable enough to have an article" and "notable enough for their opinions to matter". If he is a journalist then who employs him as a journalist ?. If he is freelance then has he been published in "notable" press (heck I'd even take regional and public broadcast stuff here from the boondocks in the US)...links and cites please. Is he just in blogshere or has he done real-world talks and debates ?. Blogs don't really count for squat when it comes to science as they are so ephemeral. His notability isn't proven yet. Ttiotsw 17:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Joshua, have you actually looked at Michigan Citizens for Science website to see what Brayton's role in it is?  He isn't even close to running it. That's an absurd claim. As to whether it's "major" it's one of 16 state non-profits.  NCSE is major. The National Academy of Sciences is major.  MCfS is a bit player in comparison. 72.183.101.183 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed the reference to Ed Brayton as the link provided is broken plus as above discussion shows very unclear if Ed Brayton is notable. Ttiotsw 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide your criteria for deciding that Brayton is not a notable critic.  Guettarda 04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the broken link - that took all of 5 minutes to fix (once I figured out which link you were talking about).  Guettarda 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "What evidence do you have the Ed isn't notable?" - next you'll be asking me "What evidence do you have that god doesn't exist?" (thats a joke - we know god probably doesn't exist but Ed probably does). It's up to you to provide the evidence not me. That aside Ed can stay as the link is fixed and it seems he'd on national radio too. Ttiotsw 06:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd disagree with you on the nonexistence of God too, but that's just an opinion.  Guettarda 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Ed Brayton ?  

message: The article has "A small number of Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have trolled blogs and forums critical of Dembski, notably Dispatches from the Culture Wars [44] and Wikipedia's Intelligent design article discussion page." (my emphasis) and my main criticism of this is simply Are the discussion pages on Wikipedia notable enough to be recorded (in truthfully a non-cited paragraph anyway). I would have though that by the very definition of Wikipedia and it's policies of no original research that any discussion on Wikipedia is not a noteworthy source. I'm after consensus that we can't use what has happened to Wikipedia discussion pages on a WP:LIVING page as it is not a notable source as the text states.Ttiotsw 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to say remove the reference to Wikipedia, unless that was mentioned elsewhere - we certainly cite news articles which mention Wikipedia; are there any other sources or is this a self-ref? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  KC is correct. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It should never be cited directly. Reliable secondary source mentions would need to be cited. Crockspot 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Wikipedia  discussion pages notable sources ?  

message: A lot of discussion has taken place in the day or so I was away, but no revert warring, so that is very good. You guys are very prolific writers. Rather than comment here and there, I'm just going to state a general case about some of the statements and sourcing in this article. I'm trying to ignore the real-world contentions, and look at this stricly from the viewpoint of WP standards.
From WP:V:
*The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
*Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
*Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
* See also WP:V#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves for all the requirements.
* The above principles are expanded upon in WP:RS.
My interpretation is that, when used in an article that the blog or blog owner is not the subject of, a "scientific blog" is only reliable when the scientist's work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications (therefore being a notable and noted expert), and it is commenting on the science that he is noted in. It would not be reliable or appropriate for social or personal commentary that strays outside of the science at hand. So notable scientific or theological critics, or even journalists, who have been previously published or published about, and have made verifiable blog posts that give valid scientific or theological criticism, may be used with caution. Dembsky's personal blog posts (posts made verifiably by him) may also be used in his own article, as long as they do not violate these rules.
Everything we need to guide us is contained within WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. There have been quite a few recent changes to all of these guidelines, so unless you have read them all in the last month, I suggest everyone take a half hour and review them again, with an objective mind. If one finds that these guidelines are an obstacle to one's goals on Wikipedia, perhaps rather than trying to find technical loopholes to circumvent the spirit of the guidelines, one should re-examine their goals here on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, used to neutrally document knowledge, and guide readers to sources for their further research. It is not a battleground of ideas and ideologies. It can be used to document some of those battles, but only if they are notable, and already commented on by secondary reliable sources. Otherwise, to even imply that something is controversial, in the absence of a reliable third party calling it controversial, is original research. Crockspot 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some general comments on sourcing 

message: Current article statement:
He concluded that randomness is a derivative notion, which can only be understood in terms of design, a more fundamental concept.
Dembski's book, The Design Inference, explicitly defines design as the set-theoretic complement of regularity and chance explanations. In other words, Dembski's work definitively seeks to determine design as what is left over when you eliminate randomness and regularity. The statement in the article either 1) is 180 degrees reversed from something Dembski said or 2) documents Dembski taking a stance inconsistent with his dissertation and The Design Inference. If (1), then it needs to be corrected, and if (2) it needs to be noted that Dembski does say completely inconsistent things about this point. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Fundamental? 

message: Is the "Category:Christian apologetics" being properly applied to this article? WP:BLP requires that cats be supported by sourced information in the article. I do not see any mention of apologetics in this article, nor do I see Dembski's name mentioned in the article Christian apologetics, which lists "modern Christian apologists". Has this cat been properly applied here, or should it be removed? If it stays, it should have supporting sourced info in the article. - Crockspot 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, he's a published apologist: Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies by William A. Dembski (Editor) I'll add a mention up front with a source in the article if you really think it's necessary. FeloniousMonk 20:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it is already mentioned twice in the article, so readers just have to actually read the article to see that the category is appropriate. FeloniousMonk 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I'm fairly ignorant of the particulars of this subject, just checking. Crockspot 20:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category appropriateness 

message: I just posted this link over at the Kitzmiller article but since Barabara Forrest takes Dembski personally by the horns (and his "vise strategy" and his gun totin', lawsuit threatenin' davescot) in her article I thought Dembski editors would find it interesting.  The “Vise Strategy” Undone.  by Barbara Forrest Mr Christopher 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great article. Thanks for the tip.--CSTAR 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forrest vs Dembski

message: The article makes the following claim:
Although the Discovery Institute touts Dembski's credentials as a mathematician and scientist, there is no record of any publication in any academic journal--peer reviewed or otherwise, written by Dembski.
However, this is simply not true.  Dembski's cv can be found at , and it lists the following academic publication:
* "Uniform Probability." Journal of Theoretical Probability 3(4), 1990: 611–626
which I have confirmed via the library. -- Cat Whisperer 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic here is peer reviewed ID articles (of which there are zero as noted in the Dover ruling), if the article is unclear then that can be fixed. "Uniform Probability" was not an ID article. FeloniousMonk 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not at all clear the way the sentence originally read.  At a minimum, the sentence needs to be reworded to make that clear.  However, I should point out that Dembski considers that paper to be an ID article, part of his "Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design" series. -- Cat Whisperer 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with "Cat Whisperer" that the sentence as given doesn't read as specifically pertaining to ID; I've noted that earlier with a comment on this page. I think there are about three papers in Dembski's CV that more or less fit the bill as being academic peer-reviewed journal publications. Then again, I don't see that the article in question is supportive of ID; Dembski's whole schtick is about trying to establish that evolutionary processes are improbable, not that there is direct support for ID. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  For the record, in that article Dembski tries  (with limited success) to establish a general notion of uniform or alternatively "maximally random" probability measure. This is motivated in order to formulate in general a "Darwinian hypothesis" in a evolutionary path space.  I'm sure Dembski regards this paper as part of  his project in ID.--CSTAR 01:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS although I agree with the assessment that it doesn't provide support for ID; it just would (if succesful) make it possible to formulate a general definition of "maximally random" measure.--CSTAR 01:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I think the point (which has been made elsewhere) is that while DI touts Dembski as a scientist and mathematician, he has no scientific publications and no recent mathematical publications.  Pointing out a lack of peer reviewed ID pubs isn't all the noteworthy - no one has any.  Dembski, of course, acknowledges his lack of peer-reviewed pubs, saying he doesn't bother, that it takes too long, etc.  Guettarda 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False statement about Dembski's academic publications as a mathematician 

message: The end of that section includes material related to his UD blog.  Should we give UD it's own header so we're not combining UD activities with the response to critics section?  UD seems to be more of a propaganda tool to sell books and discredit evolution than a means of responding to critics.  Mr Christopher 19:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the range, volume and controversial nature of much of the activity on Uncommon Descent, I think it would be worthy of its own section. Hrafn42 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: response to critics section

message: A recent anonymous edit did this:
: Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been been peer-reviewed for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim thatdebatable whether any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies.
Given the qualifications stated, this doesn't seem "debatable" to me. If it were true, it could be verified. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Reverted.  Guettarda 04:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Debatable"?

message: Here is an interesting article that indicates Demsbki was given a grant by the Templeton Foundation to write a book on Orthodox Theology that was never written   Things have been heating up on UD, PT and other sites concerning the Templeton Foundation and ID.  We may be seeing more to this story that might (or might not) be appropriate for the article.  Mr Christopher 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templeton Foundation Grant