Talk:Uncommon Dissent

message: Comment: I see that User:Arthur Rubin has proposed this article for deletion. However, not only the editor of the book, but virtually every one of its contributors, meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Hence, the book is notable, and not just "marginally" as Rubin claims. I also see a (probably intentionally disparaging) remark to the effect that none of the contributors to this anthology is an evolutionary biologist; that makes no difference whatsoever, since the book addresses the validity of a theory which evolutionary biologists merely take for granted, and the occupations of the contributors all arguably relate to that level of discourse (with the exception of the contributor whose occupation is not listed). According to the applicable standard, the book certainly belongs in Wikipedia. Asmodeus 19:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I looked at this as a Wikipedia:walled garden, but the I'm afraid the book does meet WP:BK.  My mistake.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the author(s) of a book are notable doesn't necessarily mean the book itself is notable. --Coppertwig 12:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion

message: Attention JBKramer: please discuss your objections here rather than using the edit summary to falsely accuse other editors of "editing disruptively to make a point". The subject of the book is not simple biology, but the overall theoretical integrity of Darwinism. Modern biologists merely apply Darwinism while taking its validity almost completely for granted; in order to neutrally critique the theory - NPOV, remember? - a higher level of discourse is required. Biologists typically don't function on that level, and therefore would not be expected to write a book like this one. I'm therefore asking you to either stop invoking this red herring in order to paint the contributors in a bad light, which is obviously what you're trying to do, or allow for some balance. (Also, please stop following me around and specializing in my edits.) Asmodeus 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this point, I strongly disagree, in regard the actual content of the article.  If (as you suggest above) the authors' occupations are relevant, the fact that none is a biolgist is also relevant, given the subject is (generally considered to be) biology.  The current sentence, "Although at least three of the contributors work in biology-related fields, none is a professional biologist." seems a reasonable compromise.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go along with the present wording, although it still seems to me that "none is a biologist" has an inappropriately judgmental tone (given that professional biologists would be among the last people to write such a book, Darwinism being a canon of their discipline). However, I stand firm on my comments regarding JBKramer's misuse of the edit summary. Answering your request to improve the article hardly qualifies as "editing disruptively to make a point". Asmodeus 19:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about Darwinism being a canon of biology.  I think biologists are generally thoughtful, intelligent scientists who apply scepticism to all parts of their science and who use the concepts of evolution the way mathematicians use "the derivative of x3 is 3x2 " -- that is, they've thought it through, probably many times, they see how the formula is derived, they see that it makes sense and are convinced, by the logic of the situation, that it's correct, and they use it in a way that may look to someone else as if they're taking it for granted.  They discuss minor variations on the theory because those can also make sense in the same way.  They've thought through the derivation so many times that they either can't be bothered thinking it through one more time just to please someone else, or that they're able to think it through in an instant the way mathematicians can do for some proofs they're familiar with.  Do biology textbooks state that Darwinism is a canon?  --Coppertwig 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention JBKramer

message: My recent edit, which cited the book's characterization of Darwinism, requested citation for a claim, corrected the figure of thirteen contributors to fifteen, and added relevant external links, was reverted without explanation.  Please explain reverts, and do not revert uncontroversial changes, like the fix to the number of contributors.  Since the revert was wholesale, I don't know which changes are actually controversial, and which were reversed blindly.  Please give feedback so we can work together. Tim Smith 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What they are criticising is evolutionary biology, not Darwinism.  There is a difference, . Paul A. Newman 12:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What they are criticizing is something they call "Darwinism"; the book's title is Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing.  "Darwinism" is an ambiguous term: according to our article, it can refer to evolution by natural selection, or to evolution more broadly, or to other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.  We therefore need to say what the book means by "Darwinism".  Accordingly, I cited its introduction, which characterizes Darwinism by the central claim that "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity."  It might help to explain in the article that the term is ambiguous. Tim Smith 00:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried a direct quote from the first sentence of our article on Darwinism, explaining that it is "a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection", but it was removed and replaced with the claim that the book's contributors use "Darwinism" to refer to the theory of evolution.  In fact, the introduction does not use "Darwinism" to mean evolution generally, but what Dembski calls "Darwinian evolution", and characterizes by the central claim I quoted in my post above.  Furthermore, because the term "Darwinism" is ambiguous, the fifteen contributors might not all use it in the same sense.  I therefore recommend restoring the quote from Darwinism, which covers multiple senses of the term. Tim Smith 05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing they are creationalists and thus they would probably be using "Darwinism" as pejorative for "evolutionary biology" and any other things they feel spin to their target audience, whether it is related to Darwin or his works or not. You're probably going to be flogging a dead horse here to remove the wording "which they use to refer to ..." as that is how they use it. I'm happy their misunderstanding stays as in the end this booklet is simply proposing pseudoscience (i.e. intelligent design) in contrast to science and thus nothing need not actually make any sense between their use of terms or understanding and science. Ttiotsw 06:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we need to explain how they use "Darwinism".  But we cannot do so by "guessing" about how they would "probably" be using it; we need cites.  I've already quoted the book's introduction, and I suggest we also use the sentence from Darwinism quoted above, which covers multiple senses of the term.  Contrary to this edit summary, the book's title does not show that its contributors reject evolution; as noted, "Darwinism" is ambiguous.  Please engage in discussion rather than dismissing citation requests or reverting to unsourced claims. Tim Smith 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't reverted anything - I just agree it's a waste of time arguing on reverts for such a simple section in the text. I'm just thinking of some other way of incorporating how they use all of "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" and "Darwinians" and remove any reference to evolution because truthfully nothing would make sense given it's a book of many authors. All those three words are found in the one-page summary at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=Book%20-%20CSC&id=3605 Ttiotsw 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, to do so would be to promote a particular point of view - that of ID proponents, as your reliance on a Discovery Institute source proves. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we would thus have to add in text on how each of these terms is used or can we just wikilink the terms ? These people have invented how they use the terms; it is not an undue bias to simply repeat what they say. We can't "neutralise" the usage ourselves - that's WP:OR - it must come from someone else notable who comments on how these IDers use the terms. Personally I'd just have a one-liner saying that the terms are used for effect and as a pejorative and leave it at that without explaining subtle differences between Darwinism and neo-Darwinism etc. If a wiki reader has hit this intellectual tarpit of ID the wikilinks on the terms would act as sufficient safety chain for them to haul themselves out to another article. Ttiotsw 01:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Ttiotsw—my last sentence applied to other editors, not to you.  You're right to observe that it's a book of many authors, and they might not all use "Darwinism" in the same sense.  So far I've quoted the book's introduction for its characterization of Darwinism, and I've quoted our article on Darwinism for a general description of the term.  I'm also open to quoting notable outside commentary on what the book means by "Darwinism".  What is not acceptable is for editors to repeatedly insert unsourced claims about what they think the book means by "Darwinism", repeatedly remove requests from other editors to supply sources for their claims, and do so without engaging in talk-page discussion, sometimes reverting without any explanation at all.  Such behavior is disappointing and inappropriate. Tim Smith 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained revert 

message: Earlier today I tried quoting the first sentence of our article on Darwinism for a general description of the term, while leaving untouched the claim that the contributors use it to refer to the theory of evolution, simply requesting a source for that claim and for another claim.  The edit was reverted and the citation requests removed, this time with an edit summary beginning "rv per talk", by a user who has never edited the talk page.
In fact, with the exception of the single sentence offered above by FeloniousMonk, the only talk contributions for the last two days have been mine and Ttiotsw's.  Ttiotsw and I agree that to insert our own views about usage would be original research: hence the need for sources.  I'd like the editors who insist on removing citation requests and reverting to unsourced claims to please review Wikipedia's verifiability policy:
# Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
# Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
# The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Please abide by this policy. Tim Smith 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim's objections have indeed been shown to be baseless time and again... Yet they still keep coming. His method of using 'fact' and 'citation needed' tags to discredit content is getting ridiculous and becoming transparent. It's clearly not meant to improve the article but to lessen or exclude a particular viewpoint while promoting the rhetoric and narrow message of the ID movement. I too wonder if he's actually read this book, his calls for sources indicates he hasn't. There's a limit to the baseless objections, constant reverts and instances of misused tags editors here have to endure.  FeloniousMonk 07:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added sources for you Tim. Since we're all here is there anything else needing support? FeloniousMonk 08:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: Regarding this revert, it is a fact that critics say Johnson, Dembski, and their associates use "Darwinism" to mean evolution.  It is also a fact that contributor James Barham writes that "it is incorrect to simply equate Darwinism with belief in evolution", and that he distinguishes "empirical Darwinism" from "metaphysical Darwinism" (pp. 177–178).  These facts help the reader to understand (1) what critics say the contributors mean by "Darwinism", and (2) what the contributors themselves say they mean by "Darwinism".  Both (1) and (2) belong in the article.  Regarding undue weight:
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them.  Wikipedia is not paper.  But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.
On a page specifically devoted to the book Uncommon Dissent, we can spell out in great detail what that book says, provided we do not represent it as the truth.  Please, let's work constructively together to improve the article. Tim Smith 04:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uncommon_Dissent&diff=100823932&oldid=100600944 seems to require a new  tag.  It looks pretty bad to me. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New new dispute tag 

message: Before I make any edits, I'd like to know the situation on this page.
Obviously, the wording of the sentence with the quote from "Stranger Fruit" is currently under discussion.  Is the whole article under dispute, or which parts?
It's my understanding that Wikipedia custom is that no editing be done on the disputed parts until  consensus has been reached on the talk page.   An editor can present a proposed edit on the talk page, wait a reasonable length of time to allow other editors to comment, then proceed with the edit if no objection has been raised to it.  On parts of the article not under dispute, an editor can simply be bold and go ahead and change something, though presenting it on the talk page first is a good idea.    I'll assume only the one sentence is under dispute unless I'm advised otherwise.  --Coppertwig 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I now dispute only the presentation of Lynch's remarks.  The current dispute tag was actually added by Arthur Rubin, who made this comment but has not since edited the article or talk page. Tim Smith 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding in light of the above comments that only the sentence about Lynch's remarks is under dispute, and that editors can be bold and make changes on other parts without necessarily presenting them on the talk page first.  This situation can rapidly change, of course, if other disputes arise.  Any reverting of edits should of course be explained and discussed on the talk page.  --Coppertwig 14:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that time, some other parts have been disputed.  (See "attributions to authors" section below.) --Coppertwig 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What parts of this article are under dispute? 

message: At the end of the Contributors section, it says "this book has been described as ..." and gives a quote from an institution favouring the same side of the debate as this book.  I think it would improve the article to follow this with a quote about the book from a mainstream science perspective.  (If no such quotes can be found, I question the book's notability.)  I did an internet search for book reviews and didn't find anything suitable, at least not available online.  Does anyone have any book reviews of this book, specifically book reviews by people not leaning towards the same side of the debate as this book?  Could someone provide an appropriate quote?  --Coppertwig 15:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance needed at end of Contributors section 

message: The link to the review by Lynch doesn't seem to work -- could someone fix it?
Thanks, FeloniousMonk, for finding just the sort of quote I was looking for to balance the end of the Contributors section.  
Could anyone find any reviews of this book in regular publications such as newspapers, magazines or scientific journals, or other books writing about this book, written from either a neutral or scientific point of view?  They don't have to be available online.  Now that FeloniousMonk has added a balancing quote to the end of the Contributors section it's not as urgent, but it would still be good to have them as sources for this article.  If no such reviews can be found, again, I question the book's notability.
I shortened the quote to make it fit more smoothly into an encyclopedia article and to be more sure of complying with fair use;  I hope it's OK with other editors;  feel free to discuss or to make additional edits to the quote. --Coppertwig 13:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book reviews needed;  and broken link 

message: I've gone through and moved criticisms of UD into a proper "reception by the scientific community" section and consolidated sources and cites while removing the use of ID rhetoric and straw men. FeloniousMonk 17:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor rewrite of criticisms of UD

message: The most recent edit changed a sentence to "The book's introduction characterizes Darwinism as "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity".Dembski, Uncommon Dissent, p. xx.".  This sentence now lacks proper grammar, having two main verbs.  The previous version was grammatically correct, with "by the central claim that" instead of "as".  I suggest this sentence be changed back to the way it was.  --Coppertwig 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, if it is ungrammatical now it was just as ungrammatical previously; my edit did not change the phrasing of the paragraph, but merely moved it:  If you are not happy with its phrasing, rewrite the paragraph. FeloniousMonk 18:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coppertwig is right: you changed the phrasing, replacing "by the central claim that" with "as".  Additionally, the claim in question is not the only one Dembski attributes to Darwinism, which is why the text said "central claim" (his phrase).  It might help to put "central claim" in quotes, to make clear that it's his designation. Tim Smith 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what purpose would that serve? (Other than repeating once again repeating ID proponent's discredited rhetoric to the detriment of NPOV and undue weight, I mean.) The point of Dembski and crew in the book is amply covered in the article already. It certainly doesn't add any clarity to the article.  FeloniousMonk 02:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Took a stab at fixing it.  Guettarda 04:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It now says that the introduction characterizes Darwinism as an "unguided physical process [that] can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity".  It does not; it characterizes Darwinism by the "central claim" that such a process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity.  And again, that is not the only claim it attributes to Darwinism, but just the "central" one.  The original wording takes into account these distinctions. Tim Smith 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's even worse than the ungrammatical version.  It's claiming that Darwinism is a physical process.  It is no such thing:  Darwinism is something that happens in people's minds or in the realm of ideas.  It's a theory or an ideology or something like that.  It's not a physical process in the world that scientists study.  Darwinism talks about physical processes;  it isn't one itself.  I prefer the original wording. --Coppertwig 06:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Just now I attempted to revert my last 3 edits to this article to the version of 18:21, 17 February 2007 FeloniousMonk.  Maybe I pressed the wrong key or ran into an edit conflict, but it doesn't seem to have taken.  I was reverting my own edits only because I just noticed I may have been doing too many reverts to this page recently.  Now that another edit has been done after mine, reverting may be redundant or impossible.  --Coppertwig 19:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting my own edits 

message: Re this bit: "...with critics such as Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross saying that design proponents seek to destroy evolution..." -- Here it sounds as if it's talking about "destroying evolution" i.e. going out into the world and stopping all those plants and animals from continuing to evolve.  I don't think those people said that.  In the quote in the footnote one of the two said something about destroying some things in quotation marks;  I think that was meant in the sense of destroying the ideas i.e. stopping people from thinking those things, not in the sense of stopping plants and animals from evolving.  Evolution is a physical process, not a theory.  The theory of evolution is a theory. In the quote in the footnote the person may have been using "evolution" as a shorthand for "theory of evolution".  Maybe this sentence could be fixed by inserting "the theory of" just before "evolution" -- or by quoting these people's exact words.  --Coppertwig 06:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, "evolution" is both the fact and the theory.  That's the way it has always been used.  Guettarda 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you're right about that.  "Teaching evolution" gets more Google hits than "Teaching the theory of evolution".  "Destroying evolution" still sounds wrong to me, though.  "Teaching evolution" doesn't sound wrong.  Maybe because destroying a theory doesn't sound right, either.  Theories are in some platonic sphere where they can't be destroyed any more than mathematical objects can be destroyed -- they can only be disproven or hidden, etc.  Anyway, in the quote in the footnote it does not say "destroy evolution".  The quote in the footnote doesn't sound too odd to me, but "destroy evolution" does. --Coppertwig 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, someone hasn't read the Wedge strategy. It is well established by the words of the very ID proponents who contributed to Uncommon Dissent that ID is a tool for their religous agenda. An agenda which seeks to replace the way science currently performed with a one that is consistent with their theistic notions and that in order to do that naturalism and evolution must go. There is no shortage of sources that support this that can be added. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find any relevant quotes that say "destroy evolution"?  If not, perhaps it can be reworded so it doesn't sound odd to me.  (I'm not the only one -- I quoted it to someone else, who laughed, imagining something like I did.  It sounds like someone going out there and shouting to all the plants and animals, "Stop it!  Stop evolving!  Stop!"  :-)  --Coppertwig 14:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking to destroy evolution? 

message: :Image:Uncommon Dissent.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Uncommon Dissent.jpg

message: In fairness, there is opposition the the above veiwpoint: Unfortunately, the author of this article describing the book, lacks any open mindedness to the possibility there may be some valid points that don't necessarily support evolution.  This dogmatic approach is not in itself scientific.  It is more of an egoic arrogance that we as humans have in defending our beliefs.  This very defensive and dogmatic stance is not a good thing for science itself.  Science is a wonderful tool for working towards gaining "truth" which itself can prove to be a bit elusive.  We see this when we realize how strongly we hold onto and defend our beliefs, only to eventually see them overthrown by new beliefs in the future.  This is more the "norm" than the exception throughout history.  We as inquisitive human beings, and we as scientists, should always be careful not to cherish our ideas so strongly that we stop evaluating new possibilities because we have closed the door on a subject.  The evolution of species has had a great deal of supporting data, and has helped our thinking to progress.  However, we must remember that the evolution of ideas must be allowed in order to hope to achieve what we are ultimately after, which is "truth" itself.
Was added to article by User:24.75.2.178. IWantMonobookSkin (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article