Talk:Intelligent design/Townes RFC

message: Editors with an outside view opinion on this matter please post here. Outline of concerns is included in the section above.
::Kindly clarify what an outside view is?
:::Non-regulars of course. And no cabalism please. I know who's who. ;) Put it in the above section if you frequently talk to the regulars about stuff like this. --Ben 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't limit an RFC to "non-regulars." Every RFC is open to the entire community. I've corrected the language above to reflect this. FeloniousMonk 03:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *No. The issue is credibility. Many people have notable, non-credible opinions about topics. These go in along with the rest of them. His notability is a red herring. From WP:NPOV "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view." and "One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape." and "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources." So it's about being an encyclopedia, drawing from scientific sources, credibility of the scientific sources.--Ben 07:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The credibility of sources is not a central tenent of WP:NPOV, but of WP:RS. From WP:NPOV: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." ... "A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics." ... "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct." See a pattern? "All significant points of view are presented", "includes all different significant theories",  "present each of the significant views". Townes credibility is the red herring here. FeloniousMonk 07:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Is this a newspaper article or an encyclopedia topic? Significance is important when writing a newspaper article. Significance and credibility are important when writing an encyclopedia topic. The reader expects research, not just reporting. This includes the opinions of credible scientists, not just significant and notable advocates or detractors. Otherwise the article can end up solely feeding off of media reports about celebrity opinion rather than providing the reader with an expert opinion. --Ben 09:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ben removed the bolding around notable and non-notable of most of the above comments. I have added them back in. Ben, in the future, please do not edit others peoples explicit formating decisions. (If you want such editing to occur you'll be losing a lot of bolds and that thing in red will be a nicer color). Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also removed his "notes" about editors following their comments. Either he's trolling us, or they're meant to discount the comments of those who comment here and contribute to the article. Either way, they are not constructive but disruptive. Benapgar, you should genuinely rethink such behavior. FeloniousMonk 04:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * No. The issue is notability. Many people have credible, non-notable opinions about topics. JoshuaZ 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * JoshuaZ is correct, the issue is notablity. His credibility is a non sequitur. WP:NPOV: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." and "A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics." and "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct." So, it's about significance, notability. FeloniousMonk 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Townes' view of ID (normally called theistic evolution) is totally compatible with current, mainstream scientific understanding.  And that he has the qualifications to rationally determine such are not being undermined.  Fine: put the quote in the theistic evolution article.  If the point you're trying to support with this quote is that a different interpretation of ID belongs in the article, or that there is widespread belief that the term 'ID' is being abused, you're going to need more than one quote of the kind like Townes' to make that argument. Tez 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to have them discarded as "not notable"?  Sorry, but I don't have the patience for games.  All that will happen is you guys will raise the bar as high as you need to, in order to keep out dissenting opinions.  Izuko 22:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC regarding opinion of Dr. Townes

message: Hey, all.  Benapgar's been adding spurious WP:OR notices to a variety of articles on atheism, either without explanation in Talk or with a misleading explanation.  Given the lack of proper explanation and his track record here, I felt that the best response is to simply revert these additions.  Just wanted to kee you all in the loop. Alienus 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's the right move, thanks. FeloniousMonk 22:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last I checked you've argued exactly the same thing.--Ben 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And why are you lurking here if you don't even want to participate in the discussion (which clearly you don't)? Just so you can make comments about me? --Ben 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What? I posted an explanation on talk on all three pages, and not only that, I also directed the talk to my concerns on the primary page (here). And why is what I said "misleading?" You think I'm trying to pull something on you? By all means, tell me what it is on that talk page. -Ben 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ben is being bad again