Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 46

message: I've added the image used by the CRSC to illustrate the Movement section. This could brighten up the FA abstract. ..dave souza, talk 12:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the actual logo though. Couldn't it be a bit misleading. (Sorry, I don7t know what the original logo was).--ZayZayEM 11:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No but it's pretty close.  – ornis⚙ 11:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a better reference and calls it a banner rather than a logo, so I've modified the caption accordingly. It's obviously the image they used, cropped and with lettering added. If preferred, it would be easy to crop the image to match the section used for the CRSC's original banner, ,,, dave souza, talk 12:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow. It's basically identical to the original banner, so yeah, no objections to using this image.--ZayZayEM 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free image (PD)

message: I nominated the Time "evolution wars" cover image (August 15, 2005), which was long a part of this article in the "controversy" section, for deletion review. Basic rationale for this is given a the review page. That cover image was, in my opinion, extremely illustrative of the public dimension of the controversy in 2005 while the Kitzmiller trial was being conducted. For those that don't remember the image, it can be found here. ... Kenosis 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good nom, Kenosis.  I've put in my 2 cents, as it should never have been deleted in the first place.  R. Baley 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DRV closed as relist.  Relisted discussion is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 12#Image:Time evolution wars.jpg opining participants are strongly encouraged to do more than merely assert that the image fails/meets the criteria, they should also explain how & why it passes/fails them.  GRBerry 02:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TIME cover image

message: ...It's hard to see the relevance of a poll of a tiny subgroup. Should we cut it? Adam Cuerden talk 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There should be a discussion about which details of the poll should be mentioned in the text, as a footnote, or just as a reference to an outside link. But the poll is notable. Also because it uniquely allows to correlate personal faith of polled physician to belief in evolution or ID. I agree that physicians are a subgroup of society. But one with expert insight into the functions of a human body, thus a notable subgroup. Northfox 06:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not that physicians are a tiny subgroup, but that the poll only looks at a tiny subgroup of physicians. I don't really know, it's interesting certainly, perhaps it might be better as a footnote.  – ornis⚙ 09:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, we probably have far too much detail on it now. Any objections to a trim down? Adam Cuerden talk 10:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems Ok, I've rolled some of the extra details into the footnote itself.  – ornis⚙ 11:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finklestein poll of Physicians. 

message: Well, at least it's not being vandalised by trolls. OH SHI—  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.144 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on making the main page guys - took a lot of work, well worth it.203.189.134.3 00:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe now those folks over at conservapedia will be happy? Ha! Yeah, right! ;-) Dr. Cash 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pass the popcorn. Raymond Arritt 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beer allowed too?  I think we might need it.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Count to five, and then check. Odds are it is. 130.126.67.144 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet. Here's a search engine for DI blogs. I agree it's only a matter of time until they discuss us putting ID on the main page. (Their previous comments show they *HATE* this article) I thought they would have been faster about updating their blogs. Raul654 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent Design? On ''my'' main page? 

message: There is no such animal as a unicorn, right? There is lots of books, fairytales, films etc. abouts unicorns though. So, there is good reason to have a detailed article on unicorns - and there is. Fine. As intelligent design is an issue of sorts in the US there should be an article about it too (but maybe an article labled US (or something like that, something categorised like the article funny farm - as the issue in question is completely irrelevant to much of the rest of the English speaking world.)
Still, of course, it's an issue worth an article, a more concise article though. But still it should be an article similar to the article on unicorns. People who disagree on certain basic principles of science & logic ... well, they exist, same as unicorns non-exist. But what do they have to do on the internet? I mean, there are monastries and there's no ban on spreading your message by copying texts by copying them in hand-writing. Go ahead and good luck to you. But once you embrace the digital world there are certain standards, you know. And everything that is outside of them - well - very cute indeed. But either you submit a report on your parallel universe - and just a report - or go illuminate books. 84.188.245.36 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I say, WTF???? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP traces to Germany so that English may not be their native language. I gather the main point is that the article is too U.S.-centric, since ID is essentially unknown outside the U.S. Raymond Arritt 01:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the complaint is that the article is too US-centric - I think the complaint is that the article is too long and detailed for a phenomenon that is, for all intents and purposes, an American thing. He is, of course, totally wrong. Raul654 01:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My interpretation was that we were crazy to have such an article.  That's why I thought he mentioned the funny farm (vernacular for the loony bin).  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the commenter was complaining about lack of "equal time", forgetting that there is an entry for God, which seems to be his point by bringing up unicorns Michael.Urban 12:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's some kind of Rorschach inkblot test. How one interprets it reveals fundamental neuroses, buried deep in the subconscious.  – ornis⚙ 12:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure / unicorns 

message: I'm not sure where this would go in the article, or if it is even relevant to the article, but UMR Research did a survey of New Zealander's opinions on morality, religion and evolution. One of the questions asked
:Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
which 40% choosing the statement:
:Human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God guided this process
Evil Monkey - Hello 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Theistic evolution, not ID. A similiar but different animal. Raul654 01:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh this guy needs to reread his source. 40% of the New Zealand people picked "human being have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God had no part in this process". Its right on page 5 and 6. 128.227.249.197 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the wrong one. It is 24% for the "God guided this process" and 40% for "God played no part". Evil Monkey - Hello 02:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The opinion people have about ID is completely irrelevant concerning to the fact about wether we should accept ID as a scientifical theory or more possibly as a pseudo scientific (and I just point scientific because ID seems to try to invade scientific fields with its pretenditiously serious rethoric) and theological conception of life: millions of people smoke tobacco, and that doesn't mean they are right. I do not see any point in stating that people in New Zealand or the USA believe that or so about ID, since it won't make it true or false, and will just point out how ignorance and supersitition is reappearing in the world 200 years after the Enlightment.
By its very nature, the theory must be pseudo-scientific. It relies on the inability of science to prove certain facts. If science proves more, science will obviously exert greater influence. I would even say that intelligent design is more appropriately described as philosophy. Ultimately the problem that science will always have is explaining why the physical properties that science is capable of explaining actually possess those properties to begin with, ie. hydrogen is flammable, oxygen is flammable, but H20 can douse fire. why? at some point science's answer is 'just because' and to a human mind that is inherently unappealing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.133.39 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand opinion poll

message: Why don't the External links and Further reading follow Notes, as suggested by the Guide to Layout? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor question 

message: Please note that this substantial edit was made, but probably missed everyone's watchlists due to some poor reverting from myself. I read "can't be taken seriously", reverted, and then realised it was a logical bit of prose, so left it to those who are more active on this article in a content sense than I. Cheers, Daniel 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments please 

message: I changed
The Zogby poll of scientists at the Sandia National Laboratories, commissioned by the Discovery Institute, show a higher percentage of support." The Zogby polls, however, suffer from very considerable flaws, and serious concerns have been raised as to its validity, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions. A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the US conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute and HCD Research showed that 63% of the physicians agreed more with evolution than with intelligent design."According to the poll, 18% of the physicians believed that God created humans exactly as they appear today. An additional 42% believed that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings. The poll also found that "an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply “a religiously inspired pseudo- science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation.” The poll also found that ”more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a “legitimate scientific speculation.”
to
A Zogby poll of scientists at the Sandia National Laboratories, commissioned by the Discovery Institute, show a higher percentage of support. Sandia National Laboratories, however, denied that the survey took place, and serious concerns have been raised as to its validity, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions. A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the US conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute and HCD Research showed that 63% of the physicians agreed more with evolution than with intelligent design."According to the poll, 18% of the physicians believed that God created humans exactly as they appear today. An additional 42% believed that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings. The poll also found that "an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply “a religiously inspired pseudo- science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation.” The poll also found that ”more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a “legitimate scientific speculation.”
Reasons for the change:
1) The link given for the poll is the wrong one, linking to an Ohio voter poll rather than a poll of scientists
2) There was a typo that needed to be fixed
3) It is important to note that in an open letter SAL denied that any survey of their institution took place 
My changes were reverted for some reason. Personally I think that the poll should just be deleted, a tiny piece of fraud taking up disproportionate space, but if it must stay the changes would make it more accurate.Sad mouse 04:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the polls are unnecessary to the article, which is the position I held in several discussions. The consensus has been to mention them at least briefly. ... Kenosis 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but why not just mention legitimate polls? Having a bad poll takes up more space because of all the lines that need to follow. Sad mouse 04:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some time ago I attempted to point out why none of them are useful -- mostly it has to do with the way the questions are framed. In the case of Sandia, it has to do with the brutally low response rate and the later misrepresentations of its significance by the Discovery Insitutue. And the HCD poll is a minor poll, conducted prior to the disclosures brought forward in the Kitzmiller trial, which failed to fully differentiate between theology and science in the most pertinent questions (though this wasn't part of the earlier discusison). ... Kenosis 04:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: When describing polls on philosophical matters, I think it's crucial to include the full precise wording of the question.  A person can readily believe that life evolved by natural selection, yet this was also planned by a deity, or that life evolves but the laws of physics follow from some mathematical idea, or... well, you get the idea.  Really, this type of poll is like trying to count the number of spaces between grains of sand on a beach.  And yet, since polls are an important aspect of the news and publicity surrounding the question, you can't just ignore them either. 70.15.116.59 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're right. Since ID is mainly a legal strategy seeking to affect public educational policy in the US, polls may be relevant. This is more-or-less how the consensus was arrived at despite my own protests that the polls available for us to cite in this Wikipedia article are, IMO, virtually useless. In the end, the scientific and educational community and the court system decided the issue, at least for the present. ... Kenosis 05:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's because you clearly don't read the sources or know the subject material. Until which time you do I suggest you stop editing this article and find one that is less controversial and you're more well versed on. Odd nature 18:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the link? The link is to a poll of Ohio likely voters. In other words it is not the correct poll. Oh, and I am actually a genetics researcher, not that it matters that I am an expert on evolution because all I am doing here is removing an incorrect link. Sad mouse 18:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sadmouse's issue with the old cited document is correct - it's about teaching evolution in Ohio, not the Zogby poll of Sandia lab employees. I've provided a new citation - an IDnet press release describing the poll. Raul654 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Does anyone actually bother to find the correct links? The correct citation is at http://www.nmidnet.org/Press%20Release%201.doc - that document clearly states how the Sandia Labs scientists were polled, and what the results were. The link is found on IDnet New Mexico's page http://www.nmidnet.org/polling.html -Amatulic 19:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right - that's the link I just put in. The link that was there before went to a different page. Raul654 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll  

message: "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute".
The above statement is simply NOT TRUE.   The associated citations do not establish that ALL ( every single one ) of the primary proponents ( however that may be defined ) are associated with a particular organization.
The statement should be edited to read  ...,  some of whom ....
Eregli bob 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simply true and attested by expert witness that all the leading proponents are associated with DI. Have you a reliable source giving a different view, preferably naming the mythical non-DI primary proponents? .. dave souza, talk 06:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So you claim our article is wrong (in that it says all major proponents of ID to be affiliated with Discovery Institute) because you are not? And who are you, exactly? And would you care to back up your claim with some evidence? Raul654 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am guessing our mysterious visitor is "a leading proponent of Intelligent Design" who has somehow never once heard of the Discovery Institute. Sad mouse 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simply Untrue 

message: Anyone have objections/suggestions about setting up a bot to take care of older threads? Anynobody 06:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that B9 hummingbird hovering keeps duplicating the page, which doubled its size temporarily. HrafnTalkStalk 06:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bot seems a good idea :) – I've just archived it in sections, and have left it where talk of some relevance to today begins, but in future automation sounds worthwhile. .. dave souza, talk 08:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We might also want to consider using a separate page for the archive list. It's getting pretty long and it will only get longer. -- Lilwik 08:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer it to stay on the main talkpage for ease of access -- but turning it into two (or more) columns might be a good idea to save whitespace. HrafnTalkStalk 09:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a huge fan of autoarchiving. Apart for the flurry today, this page hasn't seen the kind of high traffic you get on pages like ANI, that necessitates autoarchiving.  – ornis⚙ 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is auto-archiving is best whatever the load. Auto archiving avoids the often messy arguments that can result when one user is accused of selectively archiving. The only issue with auto-archiving is it can result in posts being out of order which is IMHO usually a minor issue. I don't really see any other disadvantage any decent archiving bot can be adjusted to leave a certain number of messages and the timeframe can also be adjusted as necessary. Note that a fair number of article talk pages use auto-archiving bots, some of which probably have less traffic then this Nil Einne 10:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can sometimes be useful to keep threads around longer even if they aren't being updated.  – ornis⚙ 10:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When and why? The way I see it, if editors are for their own personal reasons deciding to keep threads around for longer that is precisely the kind of thing we want to avoid since it leads to claims of selective archiving. If you feel threads are being archiving too soon then adjust the time and/or make the bot keep a larger number of minimum threads. It's simply not necessary nor is it wise for an editor to choose what are threads that need to be archived and what aren't on some undefined subjective criteria. Nil Einne 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a there are a lot of drivebys asking the same tired questions over and over again, after a matter has been settled. General practice has been to leave the thread around for a while, before archiving and indexing. And this" It's simply not necessary nor is it wise for an editor to choose what are threads that need to be archived and what aren't on some undefined subjective criteria I find frankly laughable.  – ornis⚙ 10:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page needs auto-archive bot (500+ kb)

message: Whenever one tries to edit, the browser gets stuck and the Wikipedia error message comes on after a few seconds. However, I've only noticed this with this article. What gives? 204.52.215.107 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume it's simply the size of the article, 161KB. Neobros 07:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Practical problems with the article?

message: I've just read this as the article of the day. Having been involved in a number of other science articles, including passive smoking and global warming controversy, I'd like to congratulate the editors on producing a great article, which clearly states the scientific viewpoint, while giving the anti-science position a fair presentation. JQ 10:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the interest level of the article a few weeks back. I think its a good example of allowing alternative views whilst giving each view a good run for its money. I'd certainly use it as an exemplar for interest anyhow. Hal Cross 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: The intro should make it clearer that intelligent design is a concept largely associated with the United States; it's jarring to read something like "National Science Teachers Association" without any clarification that this is an American organisation. You can bet that if it was a Chinese, Mexican or South African organisation, it'd be prefaced accordingly.--Nydas(Talk) 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've added a note about NSTA. JoshuaZ 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National vs American

message: Congratulations to all who helped make this a featured article. I think it shows how wiki-collaboration can produced high quality, balanced articles on even the most controversial of topics. Amit@Talk 14:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow 

message: Why is this a featured article?  Making it the featured article is an invitation for constant edit war and dispute.  It should be removed as featured article, since that only makes what is a controversial subject a bigger target for an edit war.  Right now, thousands of people are trying to read an article that keeps changing every minute and is being vandalized.  Fanra 14:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens with every featured article. If you think this is bad, you should have tried the Sony PS3 article! There's a faith that FA's should show our editable nature... dave souza, talk 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unlocking articles during the FA day allows unregistered intellectuals versed on the subject matter to contribute to the article, and as such may encourage them to edit frequently on other articles, thus increasing the richness of information displayed here. There may be a few morons seeking attention, vandalizing the article; however the positive result is worth the reversion time in such cases. Neobros 16:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The underlying concept of ID is "god done it". Doesn't take much to sum that up, the real meat of the subject is the artificial controversy, the court cases and the publicity stunts. Oh and and please see: NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Giving "equal validity", like it suggests at the top of this talk page. thank you.  – ornis⚙ 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, ID goes beyond making the observation that there is order in nature, and attributing that order to God.  ID is a subset of natural theology.  It claims to be scientific (necessarily, since it was "designed" to fit into the loophole that Scalia left in the Edwards case), and to claim to be scientific it needs to make the assertion that design is testable.  Order in nature doesn't challenge evolutionary theory - in fact, evolutionary theory predicts order.  129.15.105.96 20:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the OP. Only rugby players and cricket teams are worthy of FA. (j/k!) Unimaginative Username 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article?

message: Congrat.s to all involved for getting an article on such a contentious subject to FA status. The 2nd paragraph of the above-named section could use some work, particularly the sentence beginning "When it was revealed..." It's really long and hard to follow; I'd suggest breaking it into 2 sentences, the first beginning with "In 200x it was revealed..." Also, footnote #197 doesn't seem to substantiate the statement "being used by 59 schools". RedSpruce 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status outside the United States section 

message: The Time cover image from August 15, 2005 has been nominated for deletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_October_12#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg . The issue in this case is NFCC#8, which is about "significance", whether it significantly enhances readers' understanding of the topic. NFCC #8 states that an image of this kind ("non-free" content, which doesn't mean that it costs anything, but rather that it is not explicitly granted one of the "free licences" that are preferred for media files in WP) is to be used "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding".
My take is that the image's use in the article (presently in the section on Intelligent design#Controversy) very substantially enhances the readers' understanding of the public dimension of the intelligent design controversy in a way that mere text cannot possibly convey. It also is self-standing in terms of NPOV without requiring any counterbalancing examples. Further, it enhances understanding by serving as a "call-out", drawing the reader's eye to a significant dimension of the topic. And the cover illustration depicts the tension between concepts (the image of the ape and the creator) as well as poses the central question of the ID controversy, all in one "snapshot" that could not sum it up any better than by using the cover image itself. 
Whatever one's view on the use of the image is, it may be useful to participate in the discussion at the IfD. ... Kenosis 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time magazine image

message: Should quote grass-roots unquote be replaced with astroturfing? or was it genuinely a grass-roots campaign, in which case what looks like scare quotes should probably be removed. Cruftbane 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was nominally grass roots. That is  to say, they (the ID pushers) call it grass roots. Whether or not this was reality is a different story. In that sense, quotes are appropriate. Whether or not it should call it astroturfing is debatble - I'm inclined to say yes. Raul654 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree that it was "astroturfing" to some extent. But we would need sources for this -- it does appear there was a lot of ground-floor work at first, and only later did it turn into the kind of public presentation of the illusion of a ground swell that we ordinarily refer to as astroturfing. From the mid-1990s on, it was definitely astroturfing. ... Kenosis 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grass roots 

message: The point that "claim is a loaded word" has been made repeatedly on this debate. This point is correct only to the extent that all words in the English language are loaded -- they all bring with them baggage in the form of past and alternative usage and other "colour". An example is "state"/"statement" which is heavily loaded with the term's legal usage (that of a statement, under oath, and thus under threat of perjury if false) carrying a colour of truthfulness. Should we likewise include "state"/"statement" in WP:WTA? Of course not. We should use words that are neutral in their contexts, rather than pretending, as the current formulation of WP:WTA does, that there are certain words that are universally neutral, and other words that are universally loaded.
If I may be permitted to outline a brief continuum of the contexts that are at issue (and to use a modicum of legal terminology, as I will be discussing evaluations of truthfulness throughout):
*Uncontested testimony: This is where somebody is saying something and nobody is saying otherwise. In this sittuation, there is a prima facie (i.e. rebuttable) presumption that the testimony is the truth, and in this context to call it a "statement" is thus neutral.
*Contested/conflicted testimony: This is where two participants offer testimony, of which only one can be true, but where we do not know beyond a reasonable doubt which side is true (though one side may be favoured as having the weight of probability on their side). In this situation I would assert that to call either side's testimony a "statement" (except in the strictest legal sense, if they are offering it under threat of perjury) is inaccurate and non-neutral, as we know at least one of the testimonies to be false. It would therefore be more neutral to characterise both as "assertion". (NB: I explcitily "asserted" this rather than "stated" it as my line of reasoning is itself contested).
*Discredited testimony: This is testimony that has been proven (in the context of wikipedia by a heavy weight of WP:V & WP:RS contrary evidence) beyond reasonable doubt to be false or misguided. In this context, calling it a "statement" is clearly non-neutral, "assertion" is arguably non-neutral and even "claim" may be considered to be mildly flattering.
What I am suggesting is a more nuanced and contextual view of neutrality and "loaded words" than currently exists on WP:WTA, and I will be cross-posting this to Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. HrafnTalkStalk 05:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrafn, you seem to have skipped a step in your logic here.  Testimony that has been "proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false or misguided" is discredited - yes, correct.  But how does that make describing that testimony as an assertion be a non-neutral term? Neil ☎ 13:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "arguably non-neutral", as "assert" arguably gives less implication of doubt than "claim" (which I have seen defined as "assert in the face of possible contradiction"), so less accurately represents a case where overwhelming doubt (to the point that it is discredited) has been established. But I would agree that the difference between "assert" & "claim" is far less than between either and "state". HrafnTalkStalk 13:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is an encyclopaedia, we should at no point imply any doubt, no matter how crackpot the theory - we should use neutral language, present the facts, present what experts in the field have said about the theory, and let the reader decide for themselves. Neil ☎ 10:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no universally "neutral" language. When we have established (WP:RS & WP:V) doubt, using language that pretends that this doubt does not exist amounts to equivocation, which is out of place in an encyclopaedia. HrafnTalkStalk 10:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The next day ... 

message: The Abrahamic God (El, or El Shaddai) is the Canaanite High God, one of many in the Canaanite pantheon.  The Abrahamic God never says "don't worship other Gods" (and Rachel steals, and defends the theft of, her father's household Gods).  On the other hand, the Mosaic (and possibly Midianite) God, YHWH, who was, like Baal, one of the "Sons of El", is the one who demands monolatry which later developed into the monotheism preserved in Judaism and Islam (and allegedly in Christianity).  So while terminology is often used to refer to Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Bahai ideas of God, it's a modern misnomer which should not be propagated in a featured article.  (And anyway, Abrahamic God redirects to Abrahamic_religion#The Supreme Deity.  129.15.105.96 21:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very nice, but the sources don't say that, and we are constrained by whats in reliable sources. To almost any speaker the term "Abrahamic God" means the Deity worshipped by Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Ba'hai. The term isn't connected to what Abraham actually worshiped. JoshuaZ 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know where you are getting this stuff. The Abrahamic God (as the name would imply) is the God of Abraham, and as such is the same single deity worshiped by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. As far as worshiping other gods, the first commandment from Moses (which, again, are recognized in some form by all religions) says not to do it. Raul654 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I can't believe the article on God didn't survive an AfD, but this redirect was an article once upon a time. It's clear which god the sources are talking about. -- 67.98.206.2 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly - the commandment against worshiping other Gods is made to Moses, not Abraham.  And when YHWH first appears to Moses in Midian he makes a convoluted claim that he is the same God that Abraham and Isaac worshiped...but Abraham worshiped a God named El, which happens to be the name of the Canaanite High God, and whose High Priest blesses Abraham when he visits the Canaanite town later known as Jerusalem.  "Abrahamic God really isn't the most useful descriptor.  In fact, "Christian God" would be a more accurate descriptor of the statement used by ID proponents.  Simpy saying "God" is more accurate.  129.15.105.96 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 129.15.105.96 is putting forward (as fact) something that is very much a minority view held by a few scholars. 199.71.183.2 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, sorry I'm wrong. I think the "Abraham worshipped El" line is standard doctrine of one of the Christian offshoot sects, possibly LDS? I'd have to look it up to be sure. 199.71.183.2 21:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's a conclusion drawn from Beth-El and Isra-el, among others.  El is translated as the name of God.  El Elyon in Gen 14:18 whose priest, Melchizedek of Salem, blesses Abram, is another instance.  In Exodus 6 God also identifies himself as having been known to Abraham as El Shaddai.  Whether Abraham's El is the Canaanite El or not is another issue, but the claim has been made by scholars.  Anyway, the assertion that the God of Abraham (El) is the same as the God of Moses (YHWH) is a matter of opinion.  The source cited says "Christian God".  To assert that the Christian God is the same as the God of Abraham (or even the God of Moses) is a POV.  No article in Wikipedia should assume that the assertion of any one religious group is "true".  Saying "God" agrees with the source.  "Christian God" would be closer to the source, but I don't think it would be an improvement over the original wording.  Guettarda 03:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To assert that the Christian God is the same as the God of Abraham (or even the God of Moses) is a POV. - uh, no, it's commonly knowledge that Jews, Muslims, and Christians worship the same god. If they all claim that the one God of Abraham is theirs (which they do), then by definition they must all worship the same god. Nobody that I know of even disputes this.  Raul654 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic God? 

message: Congratulations to all involved in writing this article. Its informative, balanced, well-referenced, and genuinely NPOV. A fantastic job dealing with a challenging, contentious subject and deserving of its featured status.
Stevecudmore 00:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great article