Talk:Discovery Institute/Archive 2

message: The lead of this article is by no means awful, but it's a bit short and low in content, and the lead sentence, indeed, even the second sentence, say very little of importance. I don't want to make unilateral changes, but what if we started off something like "The Discovery Institute is a think tank best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to get anti-evolution sentiments taught in schools." Adam Cuerden talk 11:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea, Adam. Mr Christopher 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it does not start some sort of war like at Intelligent design.  But I like Adam's suggestion.  Orangemarlin 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: $20 says  is DI Fellow David Berlinski. Odd nature 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. IP tracks to France. He still there? Adam Cuerden talk 18:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlinski 

message: I see no agenda in the changes. In fact it makes the text more clearer and accurate.
This is one long sentance BTW:
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case' and thus accepted in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section
Playing dumb: what decision? and what case? was it accepted purely because it was partly responsible for a previous decision? (sounds like circular reasoning, no something I'd think would be part of a judicial process)
Compared with
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program used to determine the content and extent of copying between drafts of the "intelligent design" textbook "Of Pandas and People" for the Kitzmiller case, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science compared to the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section the DI criticized in particular, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section.
This specifies what program exactly we are talking about - the comparsion program designed to detect copying. What case - the Kitzmiller. And doesn't assert that it was accepted purely on the basis of previous use.
It's more accurate and easier to read.--ZayZayEM 08:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the more precise version is more accurate, easier to read, and avoids POV concerns. There is some deep irony when the author of the program suggests some text, it is proposed, and the editors insist on reverting it away. It's not like a critic of Elsberry is trying to undermine him: he himself suggests this as an accurate way to describe (in a parenthetical clause) the role of the program. Veritasjohn 16:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war? Why? 

message: She is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
The RFC concerns whether it is appropriate or not to include a disclaimer noting that Picard is outside of her speciality, and that the petition was an absolute failure of an appeal to authority.
There have been no supplied WP:RS that utilize this argument. So it has been argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:NOR--ZayZayEM 09:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: [[Rosalind Picard]]

message: In light of the revert war today (of which I have no involvement) and some past discussions on this page, I thought it would be a good time to discuss which, and when, blogs can be proper sources for the DI article. 
Perhaps a general policy cannot be agreed upon, but at least a discussion would move the ball forward more than deleting some references and re-inserting them without discussion. Veritasjohn (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is well established WP policy  on the use of blogs as sources at WP:RS and other places. Why not go look for it? --Filll (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Do I think you're stupid?  No.  In fact, I think you're very clever.  It takes a lot cleverness to skirt around and/or blatantly violate or ignore Wiki policies and get away with it.  It also takes a lot of cleverness to portray Nature's perusal of Technocrati rankings as "a study."  There are a lot of other high ranking blogs which cannot be used as reliable sources.  As for PT "approaching peer-review," I'll simply say, "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades."  Jinxmchue 04:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It also usually helps when the bloggers are commenting on their own articles in prestigious journals much of the time. Adam Cuerden talk 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe the articles in the "prestigious journals" are the sources that need to be cited. Jinxmchue 04:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nick Matzke is definitely notable, has his own wikipedia page, and therefore his blog is suitable as a source in my opinion.  WLU 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michelle Malkin is definitely notable and has her own WP page, too, but I don't see any of you defending her blog as a reliable source now or at any point in the future. Jinxmchue 04:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is no editorial oversight, then yes, it is a self-published source. Jinxmchue 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Define "editorial oversight".  What is the formula for establishing editorial oversight?  By whom must this oversight be undertaken?  Answer these questions without descending into obfuscatory verba sine ratione. •Jim62sch• 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs as proper sources 

message: Now that I have gotten past the problems in the first sentence, I am finding that the rest of the lead paragraph is criticism. While the criticism is legitimate, it seems inappropriate to pack it all into the lead paragraph. This is not how we write articles on Wikipedia. That information should be moved into the body of the article. - Crockspot 07:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the massive reaction to the Discovery Institute by virtually all mainstream science bodies in the world, and their total lack of anything but a public relations strategy, I'm of the opinion that the article, and thus the lead, should be mostly criticism.  The DI promotes Intelligent Design and therefore creationism, and does so at a political and public level.  This is their purpose, and all of their actions have been towards this.  I don't really know what else you could say about them.  A huge, well-referenced book (Creationism's Trojan Horse) was written with this in mind, doing nothing but document that the DI is a creationist propaganda tank.  Controversy is the discovery institute.  WLU 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A stream of consciousness reply does not really help your case. You have no consensus. I could go through your post point by point and demonstrate it is pure nonsense, but we both know that it is nonsense. So please go to Conservapedia or some other wiki to promote your religion.--Filll 01:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now you question my good faith? FYI, I am not religious at all, and the last two times I have seen the inside of any religious institutions were to bury each of my parents. Keep it up. You're digging your own hole here. - Crockspot 03:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Huh? - Crockspot 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Crockspot, you're talking crap, we know you're talking crap, you know you're talking crap, you know we know you're talking crap, we know you know you're talking crap, and we know you know we know you're talking crap. What we don't know is why you're talking crap when you know we know you're talking crap. Why are you talking crap? •Jim62sch• 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the lead paragraph

message: *What I am seeing in the above replies is a) a fundamental misunderstanding of what ID is, as opposed to creationism, 
Actually, we are just reflecting what is in the mainstream, as we are required to do by NPOV etc. Here is what is written in the intelligent design article itself on this issue: "The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.• "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.• Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District RulingWise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30–35.Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319–323
The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,  Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, . and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".; Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 224 p.,  "Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism."  He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position?  The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability...", from Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski, Robert T. Pennock, p. 645–667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Robert T. Pennock (editor),  Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001, 825 p., ; Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge, MIT Press, 440 p.
The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott,
NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16–17, 23–25, July/August, 1999.; Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p,   "
*and b) a hostile attitude of POV. Huh? I and the other editors support science, and follow mainstream science. This is a "hostile attitude of POV"? Aside from being bad English, our edits have been completely inline with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE etc
*Admittedly, I have paid little attention to the ID articles up to now, because it is not really an issue I care all that much about. So why are you here engaging in bullying tactics? 
*ID is a new concept that I personally am not attracted to. I see. However, not really. 
*Creationism is as old as the Bible. If you believe this, I think you do not understand creationism. I might suggest you read some of Ronald L. Numbers books and other publications on creationism if you do not understand. Creationism is really at most 100 years old, and in its current incarnation is really only about 45 years old.  
*What I do care greatly about is NPOV. So do we. So why do you object when we are following NPOV?
*From my thus-far limited contact with this group of articles, my impression is that they are owned by a group of anti-ID editors who lack a fundamental understanding of what ID actually is, and will gang up on any editor who comes along and attempts to correct this misunderstanding or remove POV from the articles. I have not seen where this is true. Editing out the reference to a blog which is explained to be a WP:RS by several editors above does not really strike me as doing something about NPOV. 
*Calling my complaints baseless is both incorrect, and decidedly uncivil. I do not think this rises to meet the standards of incivility. Please show me where it does.
*I would suggest that all editors conduct themselves strictly in accordance with Wikipedia's core content and behavior policies, and spend some time in self reflection in regards to the motivations behind the edits they make. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Physician, heel thyself. --Filll 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Apparently, you did not read my actual rationale for removing the source that I removed, because that rationale has yet to be addressed in any way. Please explain to me how that citation sources the statement that it is actually attached to. It introduces new criticism, which should be worked in to the article in another place, not in the lead sentence that simply says what the subject is. My removal had nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of the source. Telling me to "get a dictionary" in your last edit summary to the article is both uncivil, and a personal attack. Please address the content, not the contributor. Expressing skepticism about my personal feelings on ID, as you did above, is not addressing content, it is addressing the contributor. - Crockspot 02:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Stating that my complaints are baseless, as a fact, without qualification, is uncivil. You are not the arbiter of what is baseless and what has merit. That is only your opinion. The civil way would have been to say "I disagree strongly with your complaints". Is that simple enough? - Crockspot 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I used the word "simple" in reference to my explanation, not to your IQ, and said that in response to your implication earlier that I was typing long stream-of-consiousness replies, which is a bit ironic, considering the length of the replies that have been posted back to me. This discussion has become very unproductive, and I no longer wish to engage you. Have a nice evening. - Crockspot 03:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And now, a threat. Look, for anyone who reads this, I am really stunned that someone wants to claim that me stating that their argument "appears to be baseless" is an uncivil comment. In fact, I am quite taken aback by this, and feel that this sort of tactic to silence dissent is really inappropriate. I find the claims that the article is biased in some terrible way, or the use of blogs is inappropriate (when it was explained repeatedly how this was wrong), or that the cited article is not relevant to the LEAD sentence is just someone trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult. I did try to confront Crockspot in an admittedly humorous way, in an attempt to defuse this situation. I did not intend to badger him or offend him in any way and I apologize to anyone if I have given anyone affront. I do not mean to be insolent or to engage in contumelious comportment. --Filll 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point by point

message: Due to the edit warring and apparent meat and sock puppetry here and at Of Pandas and People, I've protected the article until things settle down. FeloniousMonk 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message:  
On the third citation in the article, the link to the American prospect site no longer shows the article. I would link to repoint the URL from this to this which is the wayback machine's copy of the original article (earliest copy is December 18, 2002, article date is December 2, 2002). I do not see this as controversial. spryde | talk 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --- RockMFR 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need source URL Changed 

message: Needs trimming per WP:GTL. I might do that after the protection is lifted. Any problems with that? Thanks and sorry to interupt your edit wars with trivial house cleaning, Cheers! --Tom 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Some of those are already linked into the article, and those that are not, someone should try to work in. I would do it but of course it is locked at the moment.--Filll 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed all the duplicate links from see also. There seems to be many others inside the article itself that I will also try to work on. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also section

message: Serious question: is this in any way connected to the Discovery Channel or to Fort Discovery? Or do they just happen to share the same names? Sweetfreek (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.--Filll (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are they connected with? 

message: I've made an attempt to provide subsection headings to the (very long) 'Controversy' section, in an attempt to give it some structure. Although I think it's an improvement, I'm still not entirely satisfied with the results. For one thing, the remaining un-subsectioned paragraph, on Chapman's transformation sounds like it more belongs as part of a larger section (perhaps on the DI's anti-intellectualism/anti-science theme) than as a general introduction. On the other hand, it does to a certain extent give a lead-in to the religious aspect of their agenda. I'll leave it for the time being, until either I see a smoother way of fitting this together, or until somebody else comes along to improve the fit. HrafnTalkStalk 07:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Controversy' section 

message: Is there any good reason that articles are be linked too multiple times? Per WP:GTL, that does not seem necessary? I removed a FEW but there still are a LOT more still in the article. I brought this up a while ago but here we go again. If this has aleready been addressed or there is a different consensus I apologize ahead of time. Cheers! --Tom 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did mention this under "See also section" in the last archives with not much comment. Anyways, --Tom 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the standard is that more than once per link per section is deemed excessive. HrafnTalkStalk 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people just don't know otherwise. It might be an idea to check the history in such cases and inform the editor responsible of the layout conventions. Richard001 (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people also don't know how to spell - please learn the difference between "to" and "too" for your future comments! Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.2.112 (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles are linked too muliple times

message: There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of the term "non-partisan." Describing DI as non-partisan doesn't mean they're not ideological, nor does it imply they never lobby for legislation introduced by Republican Senators. What it means is that they aren't formally affiliated with, and don't support particular parties or candidates. Non-partisanship is a requirement for 501(c)3 status, so the fact that they've achieved 501(c)3 status means that the IRS, at least, regards them as non-partisan. The fact that you don't like their ideological views (and frankly, I don't either) doesn't make them non-partisan. Binarybits (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By The way, it might be helpful to consult the category "Nonpartisan organizations in the United States" (not sure how to link to it). Wikipedia classifies organizations ranging from the liberal (and Democratic-leaning) Center for American Progress to the conservative (and Republican-leaning) American Enterprise Institute as non-partisan. It also defines single-issue organizations like the NRA and the NAACP that way. I'm having trouble thinking of a definition of "non-partisan" that would include all of those groups but exclude this one. Binarybits (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, there seems to be what amounts to a definitional issue here in that the category is being primarily used in the technical sense of the term rather than any colloquial sense (under whaich CAP, AEI, NAACP etc. would all be partisan). The link incidentally is :Category:Nonpartisan organizations in the United States. The correct syntax is :Category:Nonpartisan organizations in the United States (note the colon in front). Given that it might be appropriate to figure out if the category as currently composed makes sense. I doubt when most people think of nonpartisan they are thinking of the tax code's sense of the word. If the decision is made to continue to use the category in that fashion then it would make sense to include it. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would you define "non-partisan," and which groups would you include under the category? (And thanks for the pointer on categories) Binarybits (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the IRC, bb is correct.  Just trust me on this.  •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Doesn't that mean that the cat is so broad that it's useless?  Isn't every organisation not associated with a political party "nonpartisan"?  In other words, shouldn't it be one of two subcats under :Category:Organizations based in the United States, the other being "political parties in the United States"?  Guettarda (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, there are a variety of organizations, such as PACs, College Republican clubs, campaign committees, etc that are partisan. Obviously, the categorization is irrelevant for organizations that aren't involved in politics, but for organizations that are involved in politics I think it can be an important attribute. Binarybits (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You needn't split hairs quite so finely.  It's still a trivial proportion of organisations in the US.  As for "not involved in politics" - how do you propose to source a negative?  Most organisations are at least somewhat involved in politics.  Looks like a useless category that should be sent to CFD.  Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I've reverted this edit as a newspaper evidently getting its info from John G. West is dubious as a source, and this is clearly a nuanced question which should be put in context, not just baldly asserted in the lead. If non-partisan is discussed, it must be made clear that this is a technical US definition which is at variance with the general meaning elsewhere in the world, and that's appropriate for the body of the article rather than the first sentence of the lead. Otherwise it gives undue weight to DI claims. . dave souza, talk 15:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, it doesn't cite West as the source of the nonpartisan claim. And is your claim that any news article that quotes someone affiliated with DI is disreputable? I'm still waiting for an alternative definition of non-partisan. Binarybits (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Further on this, the DI routinely self-describes as "a non-partisan public policy center" (a self-description the Oxford Press, of the great metropolis of Oxford, Ohio, presumably accepted without fact-checking) and an article on one of its former board member demonstrates how 'flexible' the 'non-partisan' self-description has become. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more important is that the lead is supposed to summarise the article.  If you think that a discussion of this issue is relevant to the article, please add sourced content to the body of the article (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind).  Adding trivia to the lead simply to insert a dubiously-useful category isn't an acceptable manner of editing.  Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Additionally, the "non-partisan" view is contradicted by the Smithsonian Institution, in the New York Times here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might want to re-read that article. What it says is that the Smithsonian approved the movie despite having a policy against sponsoring religious or partisan activities, suggesting that the film was not. Binarybits (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they eventually returned the donation -- which is why I initially misread this passage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, as I said, if you want to add a section about this in the article, please add a relevant discussion of the political affiliations of the DI, supported by reliable sources.  And bear in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to be comprehensible to people who are neither American, nor political junkies.  Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It would be more appropriate to have a paragraph on the DI's political ties in the article body, rather than a single-word, potentially-misleading (based upon an idiosyncratic "non-partisan"='explicitly affiliated to a political party definition), label in the lead. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: M-W defines it as "free from party affiliation, bias, or designation," which seems more to the point. Binarybits (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, so should not WP:ASTONISH its British Commonwealth readers just because its American ones would interpret this word the way you'd expect. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Common? Perhaps. But hardly unambiguous. Last I checked, the IRS only had jurisdiction over a minority of English language speakers. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, I would suspect that all US think tanks are "nonpartisan" in the IRS sense of the word, so "nonpartisan think tank" would (in this sense of the word) be redundant. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. Again, if this is the standard we're applying, then we have a lot of work to do cleaning up articles like Los Angeles National Impeachment Center, which baldly states in the lead that an organization dedicated to impeaching Dick Cheney is non-partisan. Binarybits (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Binarybits, you're using the most narrow possible definition for 'partisan' here: Devoted to or biased in support of a particular party. But every dictionary says partisan also means devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause:  The Discovery Institute is clearly devoted to or biased in support of a particular cause, if not party. Meaning they are still partisan. Sorry, but the reasoning given they aren't, not supporting a particular party, doesn't hold water. Odd nature (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partisanship 

message: A week ago, an editor reverted a "bold" change that I made to the top section.
My change had two parts:
First, I referenced the following sources as saying that the Discovery Institute proposes creationist beliefs:
* wedge_and_response: Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, 1999.
* kitzmillerP131: Ruling, page 131 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
* nejm: Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006
Second, I changed the quotes in the references in the top section to use block quotes instead of inline quotes. For example, I changed:
:"ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely inﬂuenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
to
:Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
::ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely inﬂuenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory.
This second change affected the following references:
* wedge_and_response: Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, 1999.
* kitzmiller_pg89: Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89
* kitzmillerP131: Ruling, page 131 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
* mooney: Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
* arn: Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? by William A. Dembski
* pandasthumb: No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11, 2006
* aaas: AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006
I suggest we discuss which (if any) of my changes should be applied to the top section.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  top section ([[WP:BRD|Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle]]) 

message: This article appears to include information predominently about this organization's advocacy for the Intelligent Design (ID) idea.  In fact, it makes the organization look like that is it's major mission.  Is this really true?  Is ID the major platform of this organization, or is it but one of many ideas the organization promotes? Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it by the non-response that no one has bothered trying to find out.  I'll take a look myself. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They have another arm arguing for certain local projects in Seattle. The article mentions this. Most of the institute's money is directed toward the Center for Science and Culture. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  The current lede doesn't summarize the article very well, instead concentrating on criticism.  I'll try to get it rewritten over the next couple of days. Cla68 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I looked at the Institute's website, and although they do appear to be promoting Intelligent Design, the idea does not have a predominent presence on their website.  Any article about an idealogical or political advocacy organization like this one should first describe the mission of the organization as they see themselves and then any reliably sourced outside views including praise, neutral comments, or criticism should be included, but not with more weight than any other section.  Obviously, that is not currently the case with this article. Cla68 (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I take it from your statement that you aren't willing to help me out with it.  OK. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly willing to help you out. I'm not sure why my statement gave you any other impression. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "I'd love to see you [emphasis mine] take a crack at it."  You may be right, however, I'll check some news databases today if I have time to see if this organization does anything else besides promoting ID. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, the emphasis was not supposed to be on you! I'm just not sure I'm going to be able to fix it myself. But help I will. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus on Intelligent Design

message: Is there actually a credible challenge that the Discovery Institute is a conservative thinktank?  Or is somebody trying to make a WP:POINT? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funding comes from conservative (and in such cases arch-conservative) sources, it's founder's conversion to conservatism is well documented and (AFAIK) not in dispute, and its highest-profile project, ID, is most certainly conservative. Barring substantial contrary evidence, I think the label is safe. HrafnTalkStalk 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credible challenge 

message: Would it not be a good idea to replace hatnote with link to disambiguation page? Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, Bus stop! Thanks for doing it, Hrafn! --Kevinkor2 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  hatnote 

message: Hi, I think it's safe to say there is probably a consensus to start adding organizations like these to Category: Cults.  Wikipedia's definition of a cult is, "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre."  I think we can all agree that this organization and others like it fall under that definition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.231.231 (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to Category: Cults? 

message: The information presented in the introduction is highly slanted, and calls greatly for a re-evalutation.  I would suggest citations from the Institute's website.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.165.23 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 September 2009
:The "Institute's website" falls under WP:SELFPUB, and generally fails it as "unduly self-serving". The article follows WP:DUE in giving weight to prominent viewpoints that overwhelmingly condemn the DI & its members for rank dishonesty. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you agree, it's an accurate description. We have to be clear about that to meet WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI policy. . dave souza, talk 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

text: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
It does not matter whether or not you, you, or I think that Intelligent Design is Creationism. The question is: What has been published in reliable sources?
The opening paragraph has the following sources:
* .
** I believe this is a self-published source, and therefore not reliable.
* Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate ABC News, November 9, 2005
** This is from a reliable source. However, it does not say that Intelligent Design is Creationism.
* Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
** The American Prospect could be a reliable source.
** This might be considered to be an editorial rather than a news article. Therefore, it might reliably state Chris Mooney's opinion rather than putting the magazine's own reputation on the line.
** The article does not state that Intelligent Design is Creationism. It says that Intelligent Design is anti-evolution and religious. It gives a book title, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, but does not assert that the book title is accurate.
* Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? by William A. Dembski
** Access Research News is a self-published website. As such, it might be supposed to reliably state what Access Research News or William A. Dembski believes, but cannot be used as a support of a bare fact.
*No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11, 2006
** This is a blog. Therefore, not a reliable source for anything but Nick Matzke's opinions.
* Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89
** I suggest that a court judgement is a reliable source.
** The source does say that Intelligent Design is Creationism through the following statements:
**: ID posits that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer.
**: The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” 
* Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281  May 25, 2006
** This is a reliable source.
** It reports as fact the following statement:
**: The judge concluded that "this compelling evidence strongly supports plaintiff's assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled."
* AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006
** This is a self-published source.
* Ruling, page 131  Kitzmiller v. Dover.
** I suggest that a court judgement is a reliable source.
** The source does say that Intelligent Design is Creationism through the following statements:
**: ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
* Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, 1999.
** This is a copy of a self-published paper, and cannot be used as a reliable source for anything except the opinions of the Discovery Institute.
** I found the following interesting section in this paper about the governing goals of the Discovery Institute:
*** To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
*** To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
*: From this, I conclude that whether or not Intelligent Design is Creationism, a goal of the Discovery Institute is to replace Evolution with Creationism.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias