Talk:Intelligent design

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Intelligent design FAQ. Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Important pointers for new editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia. To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Wikipedia talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point. Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

Archives

2002–2004 (2002-2003) (2003) (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb) - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant? (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb) - Is ID theory falsifiable? (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb) - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean? (Nov-Dec 2004) (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005) 2005 (Jan-April 2005) (April-May 2005) (Early - Mid June 2005) - Structured debate; the Pryamid analogy; Article Splits) Archives 11, 12, 13 (Mid-August/Mid-Sept 2005) - ID as creationism; ID proponent's religious agenda; ID as scientific hypothesis (Mid-Sept/Early-Oct 2005) - Computer simulations & irreducible complexity, Criticisms of criticism, Footnote misnumbering, NPOV (Mid-Oct 2005) (Mid to late-Oct 2005) - Mainly involving users from uncommondescent.com and admins (Late Oct to early Nov 2005) (early to mid Nov 2005) (Mid Nov 2005) Tisthammer's and ant's objections (Nov 2005) Enormous bulk of text (30 Nov - 3 Dec 2005) various proposals, peer review (Early Dec 2005) - Mostly chatter concerning the current pool of editors (Mid Dec 2005) - Whether intelligent design is to be upper case or lower case (Late Dec 2005) Two major re-orgs and the Kitzmiller decision 2006 Marshills NPOV objections Reintroduction of Vast discussion Archives 27, 28, 29 July 2006 August 2006 DI warning, DI and leading proponents again 2007 First archive of 2007 January 22, 2007 Jan – early Feb 2007 Feb 9 - Mar 30, 2007 - April 19, 2007 Initial work towards a consensus lead in April 2007. April 19-April 26, 2007 April - early May 2007, including work on lead. May 2007 unproductive discussions Archive 41. Reference formatting and other minor issues. 24 May - 8 July 2007 7 July - 3 August 2007 2 August - 21 August 2007 21 August - 5 October 2007 5 -14 October 2007 October-November 2007 December 2007 2008 late Dec 2007 - mid Jan 2008 28 January - late Feb 2008 late Feb -May 2008 late May 2008 - early July 2008 July – August 2008 September – early October 2008 October – December 2008 Points that have already been discussed The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again: Is ID a theory? Fact and Theory Does ID really qualify as a Theory? Theory, focused on sources Is ID/evolution falsifiable? Falsification Falsifiability ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable, etc. Is the article too littered with critique, as opposed to, for example, the evolution article? Criticism that the Intelligent design page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations What ID's Opponents Say; is it really relevant? Bias? Various arguments to subvert criticism Critics claim ... Anti-ID bias Apparent partial violation NPOV policy Why are there criticizms Critics of ID vs. Proponents Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution? Argument Zone The debatability of ID and evolution Isn't ID actually creationism by definition, as it posits a creator? ID in relation to Bible-based creationism What makes ID different than creationism Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism? ID not Creationism? Are all ID proponents really theists? ID proponents who are not theists A possible atheist/agnostic intelligent design advocate? Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID? Scientific peer review Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody) Yqbd's peer-review arguments Is ID really not science? ...who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community... Meaning of "scientific" Why sacrifice truth Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant Intelligent design is Theology, not Science Philosophy in the introduction Why ID is not a theory Bad philosophy of science (ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable etc.) The "fundamental assumption" of ID Peer-reviewed articles Figured out the problem Is ID really not internally consistent?; Distingushing Philosophical ID (TE) from the DI's Pseudo-Scientific ID The many names of ID? Removed section by User:Tznkai Pre- & post- Kitzmiller, proponents seek to redefine ID Defining ID Figured out the problem "Intelligent evolution" ID on the O'Reilly Factor Is the article too long? Article Size Notes The Article Is Too Long Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views? Inadequate representation of the minority View The "fundamental assumption" of ID Is the intelligent designer necessarily irreducibly complex? Is a designer needed for irreducibly complex objects? Irreducibly complex intelligent designer Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time The "fundamental assumption" of ID Irreducibly complex Irreducible complexity of elementary particles Repeated objections and ignoring of consensus Suggested compromise Resolution to Wade's & Ant's objections (hopefully) Discussion regarding the Introduction: Intro (Rare instance of unanimity) Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests) Assertion, view or theory? Is this article is unlike others on Wikipedia? Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule Call for new editors Archives 22, 23, 24 Is this article NPOV? NPOV Archive 25 Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts? Support among scientists "Neocreationist" social, not scientific, observation Archive 26 How should Darwin's impact be described? Pre-Darwinian Ripostes\ Peer Review and ID Peer review? Lack of peer review Peer Review: Reviewed Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents Are all leading ID proponents affiliated with Discovery Institute? Archive 32 /all_leading_proponents Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case? Renaming Intelligent design as Intelligent Design Is the article trying to equate ID with Christian Creationism and the Discovery Institute too much? The article discusses the formulation disseminated by the Discovery Institute affiliates WP:NFC & images in this article Pictures in this article Image nominated for deletion NFCR review of images on this article Fair use review Non-fair use problems and in the two talk sections that follow Fair use Temporary image removal IfD Time evolution wars.jpg Problem area(s) FAQ

Fundamental Flaw

The Intelligent Design article suffers from a fundamental flaw: It says nothing about the physical mechanisms by which complex organisms developed in our time-variant, three-dimensional world. Surely, someone in the ID community has described a physical mechanism that produced the cilium, for example.

Creationists can point to the creation miracles described in the Book of Genesis as subjective explanations for origins. These, however, provide no objective insight into the physical mechanisms involved in the miracles themselves.

According to Modern Evolutionary theory, Genetics produces variants in a biological population that are tested by Natural Selection for viability in the prevailing environment. The accumulation over time of variant traits produces speciation. Evolution describes a physical process that requires no supernatural intervention to succeed. Furthermore, the same general theory decribes the processes by which all living organisms could have developed - from algae to aardvarks.

Does ID provide explanations for the physical development of complex organisms in our world? If so, it should be stated here. Otherwise, ID is just arm-waving from an objective or scientific point of view. The article provides subjective insight into ID but provides no objective insight into the means by which the gap between designer and design is bridged. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me why viewing all of creation in it's complexity is not good enough for empirical evidence (by just observation alone) as proof of a creator? And if, as an experiment, I created new life, wouldn't this be proof of intelligent design in the first place? And doesn't the 1st law of thermodynamics show us that it is impossible to create or destroy matter, which means you can't get something from nothing? Petrafan007 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

i think you would benefit greatly by learning more about what science is about, and how it works, eg: scientific method. abiogenesis does not involve the creation nor destruction of matter either -- again, go read the relevant articles! good luck Mjharrison (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If ID assumes it's science, which it does, then how do you scientifically describe a designer? You can't, since supernatural beings are outside the scope of science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Zbvas had it when he stated that "ID is just arm-waving from an objective or scientific point of view". Accurate description. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. It's not the article that's flawed; it's ID. There is no discussion in the article of mechanisms proposed by ID proponents because they haven't proposed any. As William Dembski put it: "You're asking me to play a game: 'Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.' ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dembski Lowell33 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem, as I stated in the creation science discussion, is definitions. If you make up a word, then ascribe to it the definition you want (to fit whatever preconceived idea you have), then you can never have a fair argument. The line of questioning in the scientific method is "redefined" as being impossible to have an answer for Intelligent Design, or God. I personally would argue that it could (in theory) be used to describe it, but most people would deny it. If it doesn't answer the question you asked (whether the question is flawed or with bad intentions), then it can't be right...ever. This aside, it is no one's place to give their opinions IN the article itself. It seems to be painted in a "foolish" light because the majority of editors probably don't agree with it. It is nearly impossible, in my opinion, to have a NPOV/unbiased article on this matter because you really only have 2 choices: intelligent design (or creationism, which most agree is nearly the same) or evolution. So how can we have an unbiased figure write about it? There simply isn't enough people in the middle, and WP:CONSENSUS would overrule them in the nay-sayers position anyways. So, this fight will continue till the end it seems. Petrafan007 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A nondirected reminder, Wikipedia talk pages is not the place for us to argue about the merits and flaws of ID itself, but argue the merits and flaws of the relevant article. This conversation seems to be conflating the two.--Tznkai (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All this energy on this already FA article

There is so much effort on this article, yet it is already FA and IMO near perfect. If only editors were directed towards other (and much more interesting) religion-related articles, such as argument from evil, it would benefit the encyclopaedia much more, wouldn't it? Of course, people are free to edit what they want, but maybe all this fun arguing about minute points of this article could be carried over into articles that really need improvement?? Vesal (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Apparently ID is a magnet for this though. I've got to go check out the article you noted... •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a sort of connection, as Paley's theodicy was based on God creating by rules rather than poofing species into existence in the ID manner, and Malthus concludss his essay by describing his "catastrophe" as a divine plan to get people to act properly, while of course Darwin was persuaded by the problem of evil that a benevolent deity could not be responsible for wasps paralysing caterpillars as food for their young. References available on request. . . dave souza, talk 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree the article was nearly perfect. One problem I noticed straight off is that it says that ID was "developed by a group of US creationists". This is a problematic term. Firstly the IDers quite often vehemently dispute the tag, and one of the foremost experts on creationism, Ronald Numbers, argues that the label is inaccurate when it comes to ID. He also argues that it is primarily used because it is "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design" (cited in the Washington Post [1]). Given this, the introduction probably needs to be changed to something more accurate and neutral such as "academics". Slowansure (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that certainly wouldn't be POV. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, and to list the diverse academic fields the founders come from (biochemistry, geology, law, philosophy of science etc.) would be too long-winded. That's why I think "academic" does the job nicely.Slowansure (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was being tongue in cheek. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why?Slowansure (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ID was developed by known and open creationists who drafted Of Pandas and People before introduing the term iD in place of creationism, and was further developed by Johnson's crew so that "creationism could not lose". It was later that they distanced themselves from the term "creationism". See the timeline . . dave souza, talk 12:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much whether some of the founders of ID are or were creationists that is at issue. It's more that identifying ID as creationism or it's founders as creationists has been described by a world expert on creationism (Ronald Numbers) as inaccurate and used mainly because it is the easiest way to discredit intelligent design. In other words, it's taking a cheap shot at ID. So even if it was accurate it would still be problematic for that reason. Far better with a neutral term like "academic" which is true, indisputable, and does not imply a motivation that may or may not have been present and/or important.Slowansure (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Slowansure, Numbers' comment needs a much better source to overturn opinion here. The AP source to the comment provides no context for Numbers remarks, so it's difficult to gauge if the claim is his own personal opinion or whether he's speaking of the consensus of opinion about ID. I will say that ID is given a lengthy chapter in his book, The Creationists, and in his book he writes that such authorities on creationism as the NSCE do consider ID a form of creationism. Numbers does not express any disagreement of the association except to emphasize that IDers are not YEC creation scientists. Numbers' thesis in The Creationists is that modern YEC creation scientists effectively co-opted the term "creationist"; the strength of the movement since the 1970s overshadowed other forms of creationism in the public mind. In that context, Numbers is taking pains to point out that YEC/creation science and ID are two very different ideologies to make clear that calling both of them "creationist" doesn't mean they're the same ideology. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course ID is carefully arranged to be compatible with both YEC and OEC, and has leading supporters of both persuasions, so the difference is more in what's "officially" left out of ID. . dave souza, talk 18:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So, we have a term, "creationists", that the IDers don't like, that Numbers seems to have said (is reported in the Washington Post as having said) is inaccurate and is a cheap shot, and so may well actually be inaccurate and a cheap shot. And we have another term, "academics", that is obviously true, accurate and in no way a cheap shot, but the consensus here is to use the potential cheap shot in the introduction. Strange!

If I do some digging and find that Numbers does indeed say what he is reported to have said, will the text then be changed from the controversial term to the non-controversial one? That is, if I can find sound sources that show that there is a dispute over this terminology in the way suggested above, will the terminology be changed to something more neutral?Slowansure (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you'll need to find a preponderance of significant source that say otherwise. Think about it this way: Barack Obama is widely considered to be liberal. If, like many Democratic candidates he chooses to shy away from that label, and a few scholars and political scientists also decide to call him a "centrist" or a "hopeist" or a "federalist", great. However, the most relevant and useful label is "liberal."--Tznkai (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Slowansure, you're not being called out to verify Numbers said it. But we would need a ref to the full discussion in which Numbers said it in order to understand exactly what he meant, the full context of the remark in other words. It's indubitably true that many of ID's antagonists go out of their way to call them creationists ad nauseum because they know IDers choke on it. However this doesn't necessarily mean the consensus view is that ID is not creationism.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe we're arguing with an SPA over whether or not ID is a form of creationism. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not what is "obviously true". One source apparently saying ID is not creationism is nowhere near enough to outweigh, oh, for example the statement that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Including here. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To Tznkai, so, if Obama repeatedly insisted that he was not a liberal, and further insisted that his opponents only used that label to discredit him, you would still say "Obama the liberal" without even noting the fact that he has disputed this many times. And even if some political experts explicitly stated "Obama is not a liberal and opponents only use that label to discredit him" you would still say he was a liberal, and you would write the article identically to an article where the politician in question openly and always acknowledged that label. Some might argue that withholding information of that sort is inconsistent with providing a full and fair account of a topic.

To SheffieldSteel, I am not arguing that anything outweighs anything. I am saying that a certain term has been identified by an expert as pejorative, and that the appropriateness of that same term has been rejected by the people who are the subject of the article. In such a case it does not seem to me to be appropriate to just use the term in the same way one would when there was no dispute at all.Slowansure (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I would, because the preponderance of experts and laymen would say "Obama is a liberal." We might note somewhere that Obama says he's not a liberal, and has whined about it (in this alternate universe) but we would still write it. As for that note, take a look at the lead where the proponents insist that ID is science. It isn't, they say it is, but there we go. As for academics, that isn't accurate, because I don't think all of them are. Infact, some are probably business men with no other qualifications whatsoever. Furthermore, more specific and relevant answer would be "A group of American non-evolutionary biologists, including a biochemist, a computer scientist and a theologian associated with a creationist think tank." Which isn't included in the article for which I hope is obvious reasons.--Tznkai (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are the experts on what is and is not creationism you feel you can cite on that point, and how many do I need to make a preponderance? Slowansure (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that we have an immense amount of evidence that intelligent design is creationism, I think you would need a good 5-10 peer-reviewed mainstream journal articles in mainstream publications (not religious publications or creationist publications) making this claim to outweigh the preponderance of contrary evidence.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well since I take theologians to be the experts on whether something is creationism or not it will be difficult to get many sources if religious ones are banned. Who do you take to be the experts on this matter?Slowansure (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually you want the religious studies, historians on religion, Philosiphers of religion, sociologists, anthropologists, social scientists of all types. Theologians study God, religious studies studies theologians. Try jstor if you've got access to it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so how many of those types of sources do you have for the "creationism" tag. My rough count suggests zero, so with the Numbers source cited above I seem to be in the lead.Slowansure (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, since intelligent design purports to be science and not religion, as well as most of modern creationism including creation science, I think you need PhDs in mainstream science at prominent schools. I think you need experts in biology and anthropology and sociology for example. A good half dozen would be a good start. Even then, I suspect you would have an immense fight on your hands.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, we have a lot more than zero. As a small subset of what we already have showing intelligent design is a form of creationism, consider:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s. The scientific and academic communities, along with a U.S. federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism; and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".

If that is not enough for you, we have plenty more where that came from.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You might also consider [2]. However, there is still lots more than this if you are not convinced. This has been argued and argued and argued by thousands of people for several years and I think you will find this is a fruitless exercise. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost none of your sources meet your criteria of being peer reviewed mainstream anthropological or sociological sources that you set for me above (I discounted biology sources because biologists are no experts on creationism). By my reckoning you maybe have two that you can use from your list, and since one of those two explicitly refers to the dispute over this term, there would be a long way to go before you could take the point as so proven that it can just be assumed as true.Slowansure (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the FAQ section and the links from it. I see much dispute (not in the FAQs but in the links) and I see many people accepting that to assume the truth of one side in a debate (exactly the point I am making) is not the way to write a neutral article. If this is a disputed point then the dispute should be noted. At present, one side of this debate is presented as fact, while the other side is completely excluded from the article. AS central players in the article, the IDers' denial of the creationist label has to be acknowledged, not hushed up.Slowansure (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That IDers claim not to be creationists can be noted somewhere, and I'll find a place to work it in.--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be welcome but it only partially addresses the issue at hand. I found this on the NPOV policy page:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth"... in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. ... Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

It is perfectly clear that by describing IDers as creationists, that view is being judged the truth. Many above have said exactly that. But it gets worse. That view is being judged the truth to the extent that it is being presented as a simple fact, and it is being judged the truth to the extent that we don't even need to bother the reader with the "conflicting verifiable perspective". And worse still, what is being judged the truth may turn out to be nothing more than a cheap shot.Slowansure (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Slowansure (talk · contribs) = Davkal (talk · contribs). — Scientizzle 20:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Assigning Ulterior Motives

I've noted a trend on the anti-creation side of the fence (to which I belong) of regularly ascribing ulterior motives to any concept that is not fundamentalist Darwinian theory. In this article, right from the gate, ulterior motives are ascribed by saying, "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer." (emphasis mine.)

Similarly, in the talk page of the article Strengths and weaknesses of evolution, authors insist that the phrase can only be defined as "a creationist strategy designed to introduce 'unscientific objections to evolution into public school science classes.' " Again, ascribing ulterior motives.

As a strict evolutionist, I firmly believe that the science is sound. My faith in it is so firm, I have no fear of any depth of examination of it's alleged weaknesses from any quarter. Science is all about OPEN examination and inquiry, but there seems to be a nearly fascistic element among evolutionists (especially on Wikipedia) which adheres to a POV that creationists should be censored, stomped into silence with hobnail boots, and generally treated with as much scorn, disrespect, and derision as can possibly be mustered. I find that offensive in the extreme.

In the arena of science there is no such thing as a theory that is "above dispute." The very notion is unmitigated fascist BS.

Assigning ulterior motives to any and every school of thought that challenges evolution or even individual elements of evolutionary theory is wrong. If they offer a challenge, meet the challenge and best them with science and logic. Only a coward or fraud runs from the challenge. Their motive is not ulterior: They believe there are specific weaknesses, and they want students to look at the arguments on both sides of the discussion. Do they hope to win the argument? OF COURSE! Will they? No! Calling it a sinister ulterior motive is disingenuous and an attempt to de-legitimize the very idea of critical examination. As if evolution were sacrosanct and the mere thought of critical examination of it is an abomination to science.

Just my 2 cents on the subject of the underhanded and dishonest tactic of ascribing ulterior motives. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Where have you noticed any of this? In the article itself or on this talk page? I haven't seen any in the article and people on here who wish to push creationist pov are usually just told it's not the mainstream scientific viewpoint and that wikipedia must adhere to mainstream science. I've enver seen anything aout "alterior motives"...--Patton123 00:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't understand your objection. Intelligent design is a modern form of the teleological argument. It is also modified to avoid specifying the nature of the designer. There are no motives, ulterior or otherwise: this is just a summary of the argument. Moreover, ID proponents also agree (see, for instance, the testimony of Scott Minnich in the Dover trial). See also this article at the Discovery Institute. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to re-read the article, and pay special attention to the sources (which are backed up through labourious and repeated consensus). ID proponents themselves, through documents like the wedge strategy and elsewhere, have claimed that ID is a step in a socio-political battle to have creationism taught in schools. Court rulings have affirmed this. On Wikipedia, we can only report what has been said in reliable sources, and we must avoid giving undue weight to fringe or minority views.

It's noble to want to preserve a sense of neutrality, but others more eloquent and educated than I am have been over these issues with many, many others.

If you have a concrete suggestion or alternate wording, that can be backed up by reliable sources, though, by all means suggest it here. Quietmarc (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My view is to nod to the originators or holders of a view in their self-definition, FIRST. Then, if their definition is problematic, address those concerns as an opposing POV. Let's take an extreme example: NAMBLA. Everyone who is sane will agree that the group are a bunch of pervs who want to legitimize child molestation. THEY define themselves differently. So strictly speaking (although I wouldn't touch the topic with a 10-foot pole), I would advocate citing their definition first. "Nambla purports to be...." and then follow that up with a reality check of what they REALLY are. Probably a bad comparison, but I wanted to make sure it was something everyone would agree on. Or sane people anyway. Point is, give the holders of a POV the benefit of defining themselves (especially if you disagree with them) before you slap them back into reality. I've had this argument with people who insist that progressives have an ulterior motive in dropping "liberal" and adopting or re-adopting "progressive." Ulterior motives. Who cares. Let then define and label themselves however they want. Hope this helps clarify my deep objection to assigning ulterior motives and denying a group the ability to self-identify before we put them through the grist mill. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand your objection. Here is the sentence that you objected to:

"It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer."

This is fully supported by references on both sides of the debate; in the text, it is sourced to the book by Ronald Numbers. Moreover, I don't see any ulterior motives. It is an assertion of fact: ID is a modern form of the teleological argument, and it is modified to avoid specifying the nature of the designer (e.g., space aliens). No POV. No ulterior motives. What exactly is the problem here? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The anon says that sentence ("It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.") incorrectly implies the IDists have ulterior motives. Silly Rabbit says that the IDists don't have ulterior motives, and that the sentence doesn't imply anything of the sort.

The anon is wrong because the IDists do, indeed, have ulterior motives. This is established by the leaked Wedge document, which proves that ID is simply a trojan horse designed from the ground up to avoid court decisions, and sneak creationism back into the science classroom, and the IDists are fully aware of all of this.

So - I don't know if that sentence implies they have ulterior motives (I don't think it does), but even if it did, there's nothing wrong with it because it's absolutely true. Raul654 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I say IDists don't have ulterior motives? I said that I didn't understand how the sentence under discussion assigned ulterior motives. Anyway, since both sides of the debate agree that ID is a modern form of the teleological argument, modified to specify the identity of the designer, I don't understand why this is being contested. I mean, the sentence is a characterization of a completely non-controversial point. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't argue with you, Raul, because you are honest that you have no problem assigning ulterior motives. I do. The danger I see is that majority mob action often rules the process, not neutrality. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sabotaging a groups ability to self-define is my objection. You don't see a problem in the definition of ID becuase YOU AGREE WITH IT. Fine. But I seriously doubt you will find an ID advocacy group which says, "Intelligent Design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer." That is a definition applied from outside, not their self-definition. The term, "to avoid" is itself ascribing motives. We can debate ulterior or not. But again, it is not a self-definition from the group or idea, it is applied TO the group or idea by those who disagree. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sabotaging a groups ability to self-define is my objection. You don't see a problem in the definition of ID becuase YOU AGREE WITH IT. - we're not sabotating their ability to define ID. We give the DI's definition of intelligent design, verbatim, in the first sentence. Then we give the rational, sourced, non-misleading objectively-correct definition in the second sentence. I do not subscribe to the Stephen Colbert school of journalism where the media should just write down what the DI says and repeat it uncritically, which is exactly what you are arguing for when you say we should "allow them to self define". Raul654 (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any obligation to allow groups to define themselves, but it's a good idea if we mention their definition without affirming it. Spotfixer (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

True, spotfixer. See my NAMBLA example. BTW.. I made the mistake of looking at the entry for that group, andindeed it is allowed to self-define FIRST before being correctly debunked. Now pardon me while I go wash my eyes out with bleach..... 24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Now read *this* article again. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm... ok...... I did. It still suborns the IDers' self-definition in favor of a definition more favorable to those who oppose ID. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The very first sentence is sourced to the Discovery Institute. In fact, the first 3 footnotes are related in some way to ID proponants. I'm having a really challenging time seeing your objection. Quietmarc (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have issue with the implications of the second sentence, and the fact that it suborns the self-definition of IDers.24.21.105.252 (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is completely uncontroversial, as I have already said. ID proponents, critics, and neutral commentators all agree, and it is a fairly straightforward summary of the main point of the argument from irreducible complexity. Absent any specific objection, backed by sources, I suggest we move on. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "ulterior" motives are specifically claimed in the Wedge Document. As such, they are not ulterior motives (hidden, controlling motives) but rather avowed motives. --FOo (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ulterior - adjective: going beyond what is openly said or shown and especially what is proper - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ulterior

Given that the wedge document was never supposed to be released or read by anyone outside the DI and its allies, it is most certainly correct to call the motives it describes as ulterior. Raul654 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Reflecting on the above replies, it seems that the sentence under debate may be insufficiently precise, in that it admits different readings depending on the orientation of the reader. For example, in my own opinion it is a straightforward summary of the argument from irreducible complexity, which I believe was the original intent of the sentence. However, it can clearly also be interpreted as suggesting that the position of intelligent design was modified to avoid specifying the nature of the designer for the legal reasons subsequently indicated (the improperly so-called "ulterior" motives). Now that things have settled a bit, perhaps we should address what the intended meaning of this sentence is, and how to make sure that this meaning is properly conveyed. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm a newcomer to this discussion, and I quite agree that "avoids specifying" is easily read as implying ulterior motives in a POV way. What about simply changing it to "does not specify" (or "does not take a specific position on", etc)? Thus, it can be viewed as a generalization or weak form of the teleological argument. It could also be viewed as a "big tent" under which people who agree with the overall argument but differ about the nature of the designer (God, aliens...) can unite. RVS (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The source used the word "avoided". The motive, especially initially, was said to be to distance their arguments from those made by creation scientists who were trying to find support for the Genesis-style creation and such. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Weighting on the peer

There's been some to and from on the addition of DI spin claiming that ID has peer reviewed support:

To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,< ref name=kitzruling_pg87 >< ref name="aaas_pr"> although Discovery Institute claims to have a list of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications.< ref >"CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-edited publications supporting the theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)".< /ref >

"Although" gives undue weight to discredited claims which fail to stand up to examination, in court or elsewhere. The addition is unnecessary, and if it is to be cited it needs to be presented without giving "equal validity" to this pseudoscientific claim. . dave souza, talk 21:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The link to the discovery institute with the list of peer-reviewed publications for ID keeps getting reversed. Hrafn argued that it violated WP:SELFQUEST and WP:DUE, then orangemarlin reversed the revert(s) and said it fits the NPOV policy. Then dave souze reverted it and said it "undue weight to a creationist argument discreditied in court". Are you serious? This has NOTHING to do with what is "fact" or not in the court of law. This is factual statement backed up by a reference pertaining to the subject at hand. Saying it is pseudoscientific has nothing to do with it. I'm adding a factual claim with a reference, not arguing whether their claim is true or not. That is not my place; that is not YOUR place. Petrafan007 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPS, WP:QS, NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". . dave souza, talk 22:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the term 'peer review' inherently implies a scientific context, the opinion of the DI doesn't change the fact that no peer reviewed literature places exists, making the opinion of the DI (or indeed the opinion of others who try to argue that intelligent design has been peer reviewed) irrelevant as anything but a testament of its (their) dishonesty. As such, I wouldn't agree that the word 'although' gives undue weight to the DI. Rather the opposite, though subtly. The text shows to the observant reader what the DI is trying to do.

That said, while I don't agree that the current sentence gives undue weight to the DI's claims, I would agree that a change should be made. Wikipedia articles shouldn't subtly criticise anything. -- Ec5618 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're going back to whether or not the "claims" are true or not, the claim was made, therefore IMHO the sentence deserves to be there for the reader to come to his or her own conclusion. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, NONE OF US have the right to say what the reference is stating is correct or not, just that the article is pointing to a valid reference and it relates to the topic of the article. P.S. NPOV: Giving "equal validity" IS given. There is a claim that there are no journals but there is a counter-claim that there are publications (I'm being general here). This fits the NPOV policy perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrafan007 (talk • contribs)

What 'own conclusions' are you talking about? The term peer review has a very specific meaning in science, and none of the articles giving credibility to ID have passed such peer review (meaning actual peer review). We could specifically spell that out, if you would prefer. But we should certainly never suggest that the opinion of the DI is a valid use of the term peer review, nor that it is their right to redefine terms in this way. -- Ec5618 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that numerous of the DI's self-serving claims have been debunked:

• Darwin's Black Box#Peer review controversy -- the purported "peer reviewers" include people who haven't even read the book".
• Numerous papers in Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum -- currently an infamous purveyor of pseudoscientifc claims, under the editorship of creationist Giuseppe Sermonti.
• William Dembski's No Free Lunch -- described as "written in jello" by one of the co-discoverers of the NFL theorems.
• Stephen C. Meyer's infamous The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, published under dubious circumstances by crypto-creationist Richard Sternberg, and immediately disavowed by its publisher.

The remaining members of the list appear to be numerous other ID books and papers published in ID anthologies (and thus have not gone through any meaningful scientific peer review), and papers that on closer reading do not in fact provide any support for ID (e.g. Axe and Behe & Snoke). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Dave and Hrafn here. Allowing the claim of DI unqualified like it is now gives undue weight to the DI's position. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This article and discussion page is so obviously run by people who are against intelligent design. Any hope for a NPOV article have long vanished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.141.161 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that substance-free complaint. Do you have any reliably-sourced facts to rebut the WP:CONSENSUS that the DI claims are nothing but fallacious & self-serving spin-doctoring (and thus inadmissiable per WP:SELFQUEST)? Or is this simply baseless WP:FORUM on your part?Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any good reasons other than your opinion, and the opinion of 1-2 others, that it should not be on here since it a) has to do with the article b) is a npov insertion about a claim and c) is not claiming to be fact or not and d) referenced properly? Petrafan007 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You obviously (1) haven't read Hrafn's post above, (2) evidently don't understand WP:NPOV and what it means to give "equal validity" to WP:FRINGE views. The proverbial ball is now firmly in your court to provide good evidence that these claims do indeed stand up to scrunity. Examples of reliable sources may include: (1) supreme court rulings, (2) publications in properly peer reviewed sources. Statements by discredited advocacy groups are generally not considered to be reliable for such claims. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that it is a 'NPOV insertion' is at issue here, Petrafan007. Please remember that our job is not to give a platform to the DI. Why should the opinion of the DI be given authority here? It is simply not true that peer reviewed articles exist, and without evidence to the contrary, we shouldn't print the contrary claim. -- Ec5618 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to say I am slightly surprised to see it claimed that it gives undue weight to a claim to include it in a sentence that, essentially, states that it is a lie. The sentence states as an objective fact that there are no peer-reviewed articles on ID, before stating that the DI "claim" to have a list of such articles. I'm not sure I see how to mention the claim specifically as a lie (because it is contradictory with what is stated earlier as fact) is to give it any weight at all, much less an undue amount.

(added) Is it Wikipedia's job to seek "evidence" in that sense? By my reading of policy, we're not here to weight evidence and decide what is true; merely to report what our sources say. The suggestion isn't that the DI's opinion be stated as fact; merely that the fact of the opinion be reported. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (WP:NPOV) It is a fact that the opinion is held, and by a body extremely relevant to the subject of the article. The fact of the opinion seems to be both well-established and relevant. Whether we agree or not with that opinion doesn't seem to be the call that Wikipedia policy calls on us to make. TSP (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can "assert facts", but to present those facts as anything but either unnoticed and largely irrelevent to the scientific community at best, or thoroughly discredited by national academies, court rulings, well-known scientists and philosophers, does not serve NPOV (see WP:NPOV#FAQ/Giving "equal validity"). The DI's claims to peer review should be adequately balanced against the ironclad sources (such as the Dover trial) that these either were not properly peer reviewed or, in some cases, disavowed by their publishers (!), per Hrafn's remark above. Even mentioning the DI list opens a whole new can of worms that I'm not sure it is the article's place to address properly. But, of course, anyone is welcome to propose an additional paragraph (here on talk) that presents all sides of this. I for one don't see that it will add much to the article, but will happily be surprised if someone makes a compelling case. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't "either unnoticed and largely irrelevent to the scientific community at best" cover basically everything that the DI has ever said? Given that, as the article says, the DI includes all of ID's leading proponents, to exclude its views from inclusion on that basis would seem to rather reduce the chances of giving a balanced view of the topic. This doesn't quite seem to be what WP:NPOV requires.

I'm not sure that I can see how stating DI's view as explicitly untrue can fail to give at least adequate balance to it. TSP (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"unnoticed" would certainly be inaccurate -- as a number of scientists have commented upon it & it came up, at least peripherally, in KvD (cross-examination of Behe's claims, I think). As I see it, the problem would be to give WP:DUE weight to the scientific community's rebuttal (which given it is a lengthy list, would also be lengthy & detailed) without yielding excessive coverage. Far better, in my opinion, simply to omit this prima facie untrue & self-serving claim altogether. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would note that 24.21.105.252 has chosen to escalate this to WP:NPOV/N#Intelligent Design: Peer Review. You may choose to comment there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins sentence

The sentence "Richard Dawkins, another critic of intelligent design, argues in The God Delusion that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex." (under "Specified complexity") cites a very recent work, The God Delusion, which is certainly not the first Dawkins book to raise this argument. Additionally, this point is repeated again later in the article (more aptly citing The Blind Watchmaker. Maybe it's just me but I find the amount of repetition a little bit too much in this article, and I think removing repetitions wherever they are not for some reason essential might be a good way to reduce its length. Richard001 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Useful references?

• Padian K, Matzke N (2009). "Darwin, Dover, 'Intelligent Design' and textbooks". Biochem. J. 417 (1): 29–42. doi:10.1042/BJ20081534. PMID 19061485. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Scott EC, Matzke NJ (2007). "Biological design in science classrooms". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMC 1876445. PMID 17494747. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (both have free-full text). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Book covers

Please do not let random book covers slip in to the article. Unless the covers themselves are in some way significant (like, if they are discussed in the article) then there's no need to show what they look like. If you are looking for random illustrations to make the article prettier, I reccomend images of authors, as are used in some places in the article. Note that some of these images did not even have fair use rationales. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they did not "slip in", but were thought through quite thoroughly and quite thoroughly vetted w.r.t. their non-free content status. A brief check of the image pages would have disclosed that all four of the cover images contained in the article do indeed have appropriate rationales which mention this article specifically. This article has been through once Featured Article Candidate proceeding and two Featured Article Reviews over the past two years, all with the same cover images and similar or identical illustration captions. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand why anyone would object to these relevant images. Spotfixer (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the non-free content criteria. It's pretty standard practice that cover images are not used outside of the main subject article unless they are specifically discussed; for instance, album covers are rarely used on pages about musical artists, book covers rarely used on pages about authors. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As Kenosis states, this is carefully justified fair use of images. Your idea of "pretty standard practice" goes beyond the policy. . dave souza, talk 13:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm slightly alarmed that people believe this use is so obviously justified, but let's actually look closely at this. Per the non-free content criteria, specifically point one, what's to stop these images being replaced with free images of the authors, instead of the non-free images of the book covers? Per point eight, what are these actually illustrating, what are they adding to the article? (Also, I do see now that there are specific rationales, they were just presented in a slightly unusual format. However, I do still question the legitimacy of said rationales). J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for some input to this discussion at the guidelines talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to side with J Milburn. The images don't substantially enhance anyone's understanding of the topic, and aren't particularly germane to the article. If there was something in particular about one of these covers that illustrated some point in the controversy, and that point of controversy was discussed, I'd buy it. These just seem to be being used decoratively.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

From memory, this issue has been done to death at least once before. Can somebody point newcomers to the appropriate section in the archives? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as we don't use stamps or coin images to be used on articles about the person or object that are represented on them, book covers would fall under the same improper use of images. You can link to the book where the book cover is expected, and if in the rare case the actual cover of the book was a critical part of a debate on ID then it can be linked but the uses here are not appropriate. --MASEM 15:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. This has been discussed and your POV was not accepted. This has been done to death at least 4 times in the FAC, FAR, and various edit-wars. Note that during all those times, intelligent rational editors were involved, and the book covers stayed. And it will stay here again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The images will not stay if they are not needed. If these were discussed previously, that's great, surely that means you can point us to a carefully reasoned argument as per why these images should be treated differently to other cover images? Furthermore, Orangemarlin, I really don't think that attitude is going to help issues. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RE "The images will not stay if they are not needed" : Question: Is this written in the imperative mood or the declarative mood? ... Kenosis (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Declarative. Would anyone care to answer my questions about the specific points of the non-free content criteria, rather than analysing the linguistics of my comments and patronising me? J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I'm not interested in repeating conversations that were settled once, twice, three, four times. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Patronising"? Since your insistence on a more direct response is now made quite explicit, here is a more direct response. Plainly you joined in on this article with one purpose, with one agenda only, which was to remove the NFC book-cover images. You've already given several divergent reasons why you want, or expect, or perhaps demand, to remove these images, at least one justification for which has already shown to be untrue upon even a cursory inspection of the image pages the presence of which you dispute. That's not exactly participating in discussion, but rather is more like having already made the decision about what should or shouldn't be in this article, an article in which you've not participated before AFAIK. So, why beat around the bush? You've already decided these images, what? are in violation of NFCC #8? Are you purporting to replace WP:CONSENSUS with your decision on whether these images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? Or is there now some other ground for the images' removal other than that they will not stay if they are not needed? ... Kenosis (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite reasonable to edit an article for the reason of removing policy and content guideline violations. The vast majority of my edits are removing policy and content guideline violations from articles that I take little to no personal interest in. Will one of you people that are so tired of talking about this provide one pointer to a discussion that justified the use of these images with respect to NFCC #8?—Kww(talk) 16:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides decoration, what purpose do these images serve? Is it the CONTENT of these books important to the topic or the physical appearance of the artwork important? How is this any different from album covers? (how many album covers are on band pages?) Seems like ILIKEIT, but I could be missing something.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold up a second please. If you're not familiar with the articles, how on earth might you be in a position to properly ascertain whether something is in violation of NFCC #8?
..... As to prior discussion of these images-- well, if you're in a hurry, it's in a number of places, at various length, throughout the archives. If you're not in a hurry, I'll track down a couple of them as soon as I have a chance. Maybe the simplest way, without putting additional unnecessary work on those who've already done a great deal of work on this article, is to simply go through the talk archives and type in "NFC" in your "find" function. You'll find at least three, maybe four, significant clusters of them. Also perhaps look through the edit history in those period when it was under discussion on the talk page. As I'm sure you're already familiar, consensus is reflected also in the actual ongoing edit history of the article itself as well as in the talk threads. I think you'll also find that in general the only objectors are those who've charged themselves with the task of enforcing the NFCC around the wiki. Funny thing about that NFCC#8-- wiki history has taught us that when one is on NFC patrol one gets into the habit of going into an article space or talk space and saying, essentially, "OK, prove to us that this "significantly enhances readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Well, here we go, again. So, may I suggest becoming familiar with the significance of the three book cover images to the topic, since that is a central element of an NFCC #8 analysis. Thank you in advance for your willingness to discuss this issue in sufficient depth to conduct a reasonable analysis of NFCC #8 w.r.t. the cover images for which you've disputed the legitimacy of use. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When we do find the archive that this was last gone through in, can we add it to the 'Points that have already been discussed' list, so that we can simply point to it the next time this comes up. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could provide some valid answers to simple questions, so that there is no need to discuss this. J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

Look, can we drop the crap, this discussion is going nowhere. I have two primary objections to the inclusion of these images. Could someone please answer these questions in a simple, logical way, without appeal to CONSENSUS!!!! or SOMETHING SOMEWHERE IN THE ARCHIVES!!!!. J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Replaceability- why could these images not be replaced by free images of the book's authors, as is done in other cases in this same article?
2. Significance- what point are the book's covers actually illustrating? What is added to the readers' understanding by being able to see the book covers?

• The answer to that for the Of Pandas and People pic is simple: (i) the discussion is of the book not the authors (who aren't mentioned) & (ii) it has two authors -- meaning that two pics of these unmentioned authors would be needed (assuming that we could find them (neither of their articles has a pic). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• So why is an image needed? What is it actually illustrating? Sure, the book is discussed, but what does a picture of its cover actually tell the reader? J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong standard! Neither WP:NFCC nor WP:NFC demand that an image be "needed". We've seen such standard-creep before, so do not tend to be particularly tolerant of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Answers to the questions about replaceability and significance include but are not necessarily limited to:
(1) None of the three book cover images could effectively be replaced by a mug shot of the author(s) and have equivalent value for the purposes of this topic. Although, I suppose, in the case of Phillip Johnson we might reasonably revisit the issue, if a "free" image is found to be available, the reason being that he is also generally regarded as the "father of intelligent design", thereby placing as much stock in the author's personality as on the publication itself, arguably at least. In the case of William Dembski, the choice was made to include a "free" face shot in part because he made frequent public appearances over a lengthy period of time advocating his "theories" and also, in part, because his book cover images were rather nondescript in comparison to the three that were included, i.e., they would be of less help in conveying to the reader any sense of the topic than are the three cover images that are displayed in the article. In other words, consistently with WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, a "free" image was available that was fully capable of replacing the available "non-free" images and still have equal information value to the reader.
(2) The representations of the book cover art call to explicit attention these three major markers in the history of intelligent design. The history is not one of proponents appealing to audiences based on their public persona such that it might equally well be represented by a face shot, but rather has been done by appeal to the issues under discussion, issues that are represented in part by the chosen visual icons on the covers. Further, each illustration serves as a conspicuous callout to direct attention to the associated captions in a way that enhances readers' understanding by calling these important markers to the attention for the reader in a way that a non-pictoral callout box cannot accomplish with equal effectiveness. Further, the reader of the article is, by the presence of the images, given a visual sense of the presentation of the topic chosen by the authors and publishers. For the very significant proportion of WP readers whose educational intake is supplemented to varying extents by visual learning, the visual image itself is by its very nature a contributing factor to such readers' understanding of the topic.
I hope this helps give some perspective on why these images were included, and why it's not because they're just gratuitously thrown in there, or because somebody thinks they help make the article look good, or because, as Andrew_c said above, "ILIKEIT" or whatever. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, what you've said is all well and good, but there's still no reason to include the covers. If I understand what you are saying, your argument is basically that using the covers attracts readers to important elements in the article. Well, that's not a valid argument, at all. The articles should be written in summary style, so the important points are fairly obvious and clear. Images should add to the understanding, not draw attention to what needs to be said. These images are not illustrating anything in particular. Their use is decorative. A non-free image must be used to illustrate a specific point in the text, or for identification purposes. Identification is clearly not valid here (for the same reason that we do not use album covers in discographies- merely mentioning a publication is not enough to warrant a non-free image) so what are these covers illustrating? What can a reader not understand without seeing them? J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RE "there's still no reason to include the covers" : In other words, you didn't care if there were demonstrable reasons for their inclusion when you first started this thread, and now still don't care if there are demonstrable reasons. I'm sorry to say this should have been fairly predictable not later than your first change in your reasoning for removing them. In other words, this is not really a discussion, is it? Why? Because you've already arrived at your conclusion, which obviously was, and is, that book-cover images are purely decorative. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The substantive issues regarding the use of the three book cover images have already been well discussed. Lacking something new in terms of a genuine substantive discussion that hasn't already been hashed over in depth on this talk page, I'm moving onto something else for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact you keep resorting to these kind of non-arguments is rather reflective of where your opinions stand in relation to policy, guideline and precedent. You're the one who stops this discourse being a discussion by constantly dropping back into attacking my motives. J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing I've said that isn't readily demonstrable, based entirely on what you have said in this talk thread, to any reasonably objective set of observers should it become necessary. Please desist from attacking me for merely describing what you're quite obviously doing and saying here. You've already quite plainly arrived at your preferred conclusion, and have already made it quite plain what your objectives are. Thank you. Good day. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have concerns about my motives or my conduct in this discussion, raise it with me on my talk page. This constant background chatter means that the real topic of discussion is lost. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• To sort this out, a simple explanation of how the use of these images passes WP:NFCC#8 would be a start, because I don't see any way that the cover of a book helps me understand Intelligent Design in a significantly improved way. J Milburn has asked numerous times, and hasn't yet received an answer that isn't either patronising, or refers back to some "consensus" in an obscure talk archive. If it's so completely obvious that this usage is OK, it shouldn't be beyond someone to actually answer the question. Black Kite 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that every one of the book/magazine covers is in clear violation of policy, namely WP:NFCC#8. If the !owners of this article can't come to terms with this, maybe it would be better to open up an RFC. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the use of the book covers cannot be justified. I disagree that an RFC is needed because this isn't even a borderline case. CIreland (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's perhaps worth noting that WP:NFC specifically okays the use of "Cover art from various items, for identification in the context of critical commentary of that item". There is critical commentary about each of these books, and these images help our readers to identify in a bookstore or library the book that that commentary relates to. Explicitly per policy, that clears the bar.

Discussion of NFC needs to be considered in the context of the legal position. Nobody is going to be sued for showing these covers. Not us, not our commercial reusers, not in the USA, not in Europe. Precisely nobody is helped by removing this material. WP:NFC deliberately reflects that, in the explicitly more permissive standards it sanctions for cover images. Jheald (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's important to note that fair use, with an appropriate, well thought-out rationale (like these here) actually allows for far freer (re)use than does the GFDL or cc-by-sa. To begin with, the licensing of most of our "free" images is based on the say-so of pseudonymous editors. Secondly, as far as I know, the GFDL and other forms of copyleft have never been tested in court with regards to the idea of someone saying "I changed my mind", or (and this is especially appropriate to Wikipedia) "I was underage and not legally able to surrender those rights". Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this any different from album covers? I don't see any arguments unique to this situation, that wouldn't apply to someone wanting to include the Bringing It All Back Home album cover in the "Going electric" section of the Bob Dylan article, or in the Electric Dylan controversy article. I'm just curious about consistency and the precedent this may set, especially in regards to how cover images more generally are already used on wikipedia. I just want to know, are those who are arguing for inclusion of the cover images here, also supporters of album cover art on musician's pages? Either we are discussing something bigger than this one article and we should discuss it in that context, or there is something unique about this one situation, that I'm missing, that makes the use of book covers for decorative purposes acceptable here, but not on band pages. The main thing that I'm focusing on is that the physical, visual appearance of the books are not important to the discussion of the books. Perhaps if the art and design of these covers were discussed in the article, then it would make more sense that we need a visual aid. But since it is simply the books being discussed, I really don't get it.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew_c is again right- again and again, the "this helps readers identify the book" argument has been shot down, with the most obvious example being cover art on discographies. Cover art is not an exception to the non-free content criteria, it's just an example of a type of image that will often be acceptable. However, as far as I can see, in this case, it is not. The "identification" argument applies only to the article about the book itself. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Outline answers

File:AnonymousDesigner.jpg

Serious consideration has been given to various alternative images.

The question of fair use pictures has already been the subject of extensive discussion on this article's talk page, the linked discussions come to hand,[3][4] and there are probably more, as well as being discussed at length in fora devoted to image deletion. The outcome was that book covers of two books of pivotal importance to ID have been shown, rationale as below. It should be clear from the article that ID has essentially been created and presented in popular books, with no published scientific papers. The term originated in the supplementary textbook for schools Of Pandas and People which presents a collection of old creationist claims in a cover which could be a National Geographic publication, both in image and font use, featuring a cuddly panda which does not seem to be a significant part of the wording of the book. Darwin's Black Box is the main presentation of ID's central argument of irreducible complexity, written by Behe who accepts common descent while claiming that irreducible complexity is demonstrated by several microbiological systems, including the cilium, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system and intracellular gated and vesicular transport. The book cover shows the common creationist theme of man from monkeys, though this is not an argument in the book. Thus both books are central to ID and as covered as such in this article, and the covers convey information beyond a simple textual description. Rationale checklist provided below. . dave souza, talk 10:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Nearly forgot Darwin on Trial, the book that introduced Johnson into what became his ID wedge strategy, with a cover reflecting sensationalist coverage of trials, showing a small Darwin crushed by the large red letters. Rationale added below. . dave souza, talk 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Of Pandas and People

• The image shows the first significant published work advocating the idea of intelligent design and introducing the term.
• The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section of the article dealing the origins of the term "intelligent design".
• This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for the intended audience of the book.
• The image of the book cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the book in a manner that prose cannot.
• The image does not threaten to replace the commercial value of the image to the copyright holder, but instead increases such value to the copyright holder.
• The use is minimal, and involves no internal content from the book, but rather illustrates the copyright holder's publicized presentation of the topic.
• Its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Darwin's Black Box

• The image shows one of the most significant published works advocating the idea of intelligent design.
• The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section of the article dealing with irreducible complexity.
• This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for browsers of the book on irreducible complexity. The impact is concerned with questioning evolutionary relationships; whereas the book is often being touted as questioning evolutionary processes and not being opposed to shared ancestry. The cover iconography is a graphic demonstration of how ID works are used as a kind of stalking horse for creationism.
• The image of the book cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the book in a manner that prose cannot.
• The image does not threaten to replace the commercial value of the image to the copyright holder, but instead increases such value to the copyright holder.
• The use is minimal, and involves no internal content from the book, but rather illustrates the copyright holder's publicized presentation of the topic.
• Its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Darwin on Trial

• The image shows one of the most significant published works advocating the idea of intelligent design.
• The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section of the article dealing with the book's influence and the author's status as "father" of the "intelligent design movement".
• This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for browsers of the book on intelligent design.
• The image of the book cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the book in a manner that prose cannot.
• The image does not threaten to replace the commercial value of the image to the copyright holder, but instead increases such value to the copyright holder.
• The use is minimal, and involves no internal content from the book, but rather illustrates the copyright holder's publicized presentation of the topic.
• Its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

You are discussing the visual appearance of the books (how the one is similar to a NG cover, how another uses specific monkey to man themes, etc). However, the article does not discuss these topics, nor do we have reliable sources saying the appearance of this cover art is significant. I'd be more inline for inclusion if this were the case.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To echo Andrew c, those argument would hold sway if the article presented that information and if it had reliable sources to support its presentation of that information. The constant repetition of Its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding is simply false: a reader would have just as deep an understanding of the underlying issues without these images as the reader does with them. What information about intelligent design do you believe the reader might fail to grasp?—Kww(talk) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So, once again we appear to have drive by deletionists disrupting editing on a well tested article without attempting to follow the information presented in good faith and with some knowledge of the uses of graphic design. The books are critically described as an integral part of the subject of the article, and the message presented by these specific book covers contributes significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject. A reasonable rationale is provided in full compliance with policy requirements, the fair use is well within legal requirements and within explicit policy, and while I do appreciate that some editors feel that the policy should be applied more stringently than the letter of the policy, this is a difference of opinion and not the cut and dried case you seem to blindly assume as newcomers to the article. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, simply stating that "the message presented by these specific book covers contributes significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject" does not make it so. The book covers are not discussed. I am not learning anything new from seeing the covers, and I'm mystified as to what you believe people will learn. What are they illustrating? What do you believe they are showing people that the text isn't? J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy barbarians are at the gates (again)

We've heard all the above questions and assertions before at this article. They're actually standard approaches by NFC deletion advocates who've already concluded that such images add no useful information to articles. I'm for throwing the images into the volcano-- one more little sacrifice, for what I do not know. But this is more work than it's worth. Blind arbitrary policy-wonkism perhaps; circular reasoning with no way to show any real evidence in support or against NFCC#8. The arguments go, essentially, "I think they add useful information that significantly enhances the readers' understanding..." and "I don't see any useful informative value-- it's just an image." (User:Calliopejen1, if (s)he's paid attention to her/his studies, will recognize all such arguments as "conclusory".)
..... But I'd like to seek some consensus among editors familiar with the article to get rid of the three book cover images. For those unfamiliar with this article, immediately below are some of the fora in which the issue has previously been discussed, and at times, intensively argued. Personally I'm not willing to do it again. I say trash'em all. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive43#Pictures_in_this_article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive44#Image_nominated_for_deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive44#Fair_use_review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_2#Intelligent_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive45#Non-fair_use_problems and in the two talk sections that follow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive45#Fair_use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive45#Temporary_image_removal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_October_12#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_54#Problem_area.28s.29

... Kenosis (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added all these to 'Points that have already been discussed'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS

There is a long-standing WP:CONSENSUS (as evidenced by the voluminous archives that Kenosis has unearthed), that the images currently under dispute should be kept. The claim in this edit that there is no currently operative consensus is therefore false -- and serves as no basis for removal. If J Milburn wishes to develop a new consensus for removal of these images he may do so -- but he is likely to run into not unreasonable resistance to further argumentum ad nauseam on the topic. It is not reasonable to expect this existing consensus to have to repeat itself de novo each time some self-appointed judge jury and executioner of NF images sweeps into town. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a large number of people opposed to the use, all presenting extremely valid arguments. If the use is, as you claim, so valid, it should not be difficult to convince the editors in opposition to the use (many knowledgable about the non-free content criteria, all experienced Wikipedians) that the use is valid. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Milburn, you're ignoring what others are saying. Try again without dismissing the long history of image discussions here. I assure you people here will be more willing to listen to you if you don't blow off years of hard work and discussion. You make it sound like only the No position editors have any knowledge or experience. Perhaps you're unaware that's how you sound; I hope so; I am willing to presume you meant something entirely different. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that it is not enough to simply say "no, we've discussed this, look at this" without providing any reasoning. The archived discussions make interesting reading, but I am more concerned with this discussion now. My point is that this is not just someone drudging up old discussions, looking for a fight- we have a large number of experienced editors expressing concnern at the current use of the images, all presenting valid arguments. They (myself included) cannot be dismissed by saying "look at the archives". That's all I'm saying. Any connotations were unintentional. J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning is in the prior discussions. I take it the "interesting reading" you've done has familiarized you with those discussions? Which reasons did you find lacked substance? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have failed to find a clear definition of what part of intelligent design a reader might have difficulty grasping in the absence of a book cover. I see a lot of assertions that the book covers will assist in them achieving an understanding, but a paucity of detail. What assertion does the article make that, in the absence of a book cover, a reader might have difficulty understanding?—Kww(talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. I keep asking this, but I am not getting an answer. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No J Milburn, there is a small number of your fellow "self-appointed judge jury and executioner"s. Do any of you have any knowledge of the topic of this article, and thus of what images are most closely associated with it? Your interpretation of WP:NFCC & WP:NFC appears unreasonably narrow (e.g. your "needed" demand above). That you are willing to delete images, against a pre-existing consensus, without a new consensus for their removal is evidence of your high-handedness. I have seen nothing in this latest round to convince me that further argumentum ad nauseam on this already done-to-death topic would be productive, or change any minds -- either of this article's regulars or of the self-appointed NFC police. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the "article's regulars" has already changed their mind about the issue. The fact that the issue is continually raised should be indication enough that there is a problem, and continually raised by people with a good knowledge of policy should be further indication of the problem. And, for what it's worth, yes, I have a good knowledge of the intelligent design theory. I recently sat an exam where it was discussed, in fact. Thankfully, that doesn't matter. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Hrafn, the consensus that such use of non-free images is unacceptable is both long standing and the result of discussions involving vastly greater numbers of editors than those that happen to frequent the talk page of any single article. CIreland (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation "We own this article, we know what's best for it, and our own consensus says that the images stay in (oh and for some reason WP:NPA doesn't apply to us - "high-handedness", "drive-by deletionists", "self-appointed judge and jury", "blind arbitrary policy-wonkism", "disruptive")". Seen it before, I'm afraid. Now, can we have an actual rationale as to why pictures of book covers significantly increase the reader's understanding of Intelligent Design? Black Kite 18:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd -- nobody brought up "drive-by deletionists" until you did (but hey, if the shoe fits) -- methinks you doth protest too much. Could it be that you have been called that so frequently that you just assume somebody will have called you it in any conflict? Could it be that there is an element of truth to this solely (if accidentally) self-bestowed title? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=266563378&oldid=266551796 Personally, I prefer to be called a "non-free content nazi", if only for the irony. CIreland (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Ahem²: if you use quotation marks inaccurately (it was "drive by deletionists"), you have to accept that people doing a search, which requires an exact pattern match, won't find it.) However, all the characterisations seem to have sufficient truth and substantiation to them (per WP:SPADE) and seem to be insufficiently offensive that it is highly questionable if WP:NPA applies. Per WP:POT, I would note that the longstanding WP:CONSENSUS on this talkpage was described as "majority rule ILIKEIT" on WT:NFC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I wouldn't have used that description myself, as this thread seems a bit below the length at which we'd normally expect to see such a reference in keeping with Godwin's Law. ;-) It is, however, a strategy of image policy enforcement that is blind to virtually any reasoning in support of the position that a book cover image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic", no? ... Kenosis (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy that's being cited is explicit. "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof." A valid rationale has been provided, discussed and accepted. Those seeking to remove the images are arguing against the validity of the rationale, with the claim that their unexplained disagreement with a consensus about that rational validates immediate and disruptive edit warring. This is not a collegiate way of working, and is at best disappointing. The fact that some of the newcomers claim to have done the same elsewhere looks like an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and an improvement in behaviour appears overdue. So, again, a bit more patience and a reasonable opportunity to discuss and agree about the alleged shortcoming in the previously agreed rationale is in order. . dave souza, talk 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Before accusing us of failing to discuss, please answer this question that was asked in response to one of your statements, and I asked again here. It's the failure to receive a clear answer to it that is causing difficulty.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Patience! I've endeavoured to show an answer at short notice and, as stated, at a time of other commitments. Sorry that you find the answers unclear, an issue I've discussed is explicitly stated as an expert view which I've added here, in my opinion the contrast between the image presented by the covers and the contents is reasonably implicit in the other images. Hope that helps, . dave souza, talk 20:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would probably go for that one for that individual cover, actually, even though I see that someone else reverted it.—Kww(talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Those kind of edits are very helpful, and that has definitely warmed me to the use of that cover in this article. I feel that the issue could be less controversial still if (a comparatively minor point) there is discussion of the image in the main prose of the article, as opposed to merely in the image caption. I think it would be better if the caption merely pointed to something discussed in the article itself, but I doubt it's actually necessary. J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is ignored every time it is brought up. For instance when it was re-raised at the recent FAR. Other issues took precedence, and when time came around to re-discussing it, it was claimed to have already been resolved. Yet, despite this, no clear fair-use rationale (that does not stray into original research) has yet been provided for why this images are appropriate for this particular article. Their fair use on other articles does not mandate universal fair use.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it

The Time magazine cover is completely superfluous to the article as well. There is no need to see the cover in order to understand that ID was discussed in the magazine. Per long-standing consensus with respect to magazine cover use, they can only be used when the actual cover art is the subject of discussion, such as in More Demi Moore or the OJ Simpson covers in photo manipulation. howcheng {chat} 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Time cover is one of the few images that does meet NFCC/NFC standards. The article includes limited discussion of the cover content, and a Time cover is a fairly immediately recognisable context of importance: ZOMG its on the cover of TIME, This is serious Mom.

caption: The controversy over intelligent design received wide public attention in the United States while the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was being conducted in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The cover of this August 15, 2005 issue of TIME reads: The push to teach "intelligent design" raises a question: Does God have a place in science class?

in text :The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005. Prominent coverage of the public controversy was given on the front page of Time magazine with a story on Evolution Wars, on August 15, 2005. The cover poses the question: "Does God have a place in science class?"
The eventual decision of the court ruled that intelligent design was a religious and creationist position, and answered the question posed by Time magazine with a firm negative, finding that God and intelligent design were both distinct from the material that should be covered in a science class.[5]

Further discussion of the iconography could be included in the main text, discussing the use of The Creation of Adam etc. This would enhance reader-gained knowledge, but can be much more easily be replaced by the image at hand.--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's so not sufficient. You don't have to show the actual cover to make the point that the controversy appeared on the cover. Verifiable discussion of the iconography is required for its inclusion; if you don't have anything in the text that the reader needs to see, then you don't need the image. It's that simple. Just so you know, this is not the first time anyone has tried this argument before, and it's shot down every single time. The article needs to discuss the cover in and of itself in order to be included. See WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #8: "However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover (or book) does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." There is nowhere in your blockquotes above where the cover itself is the subject of discussion. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Unacceptable use I8 is specifically about the use of an picture as the main image used to illustrate a person, because we want people to come forward with free images of people. That is not the case here.

A substantial theme of the article is about the cultural presentation of the ID debate. The detail of the Time cover helps illustrate that. Jheald (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you really going to wikilawayer about the exact wording of the prohibition here? The spirit of it is clear: Don't use covers unless the cover art is under discussion. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my interjection here please. Howcheng, having interacted and debated with you before, I respect your views, and have told you so in the past-- even notwithstanding our sometimes directly opposing viewpoints. However, after habitual advocates of maximum possible removal of what is very misleadingly termed "non-free" content from WP prove wiki-wide that they are well in the habit of quoting "book, chapter and verse" (read that: "wikilawyering") to local article participants as they roam the wiki on their mission to purge WP of the scourge of "non-free" images to the maximum possible extent within the language of the NFCC (the guideline) and NFC (the policy) -- of which neither the policy nor the guideline truly achieved consensus but rather was a hard-fought compromise, a product of a long fight at WP:NFC and related pages -- for you to accuse participants here of engaging in "wikilawyering" in defense of the presence of the cover images is, frankly, a good bit of a stretch to me. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, "wikilawyering" is the act of quoting and abiding by the exact terms of the policy/guideline/whatever all the while ignoring the spirit of it, which is exactly what Jheald is doing here. Just because the guideline in question specifically calls out people doesn't mean its application is limited only to people. And I don't see how the term "non-free" is misleading. "Free content" is that which meets the definitions elaborated at [5], written by the Deputy Director of the WMF. "Non-free" is thus everything else. It's a pretty bright line. howcheng {chat} 06:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng, also with all due respect, the "spirit" of WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline is very much the topic of the current set of arguments. Fact is, it's quite plain that anti-NFC advocates are hard at work here at the moment, and it's very evident what the anti-book-and/or-magazine-cover advocates think is the "spirit' of the policy. As it turns out, there isn't even any semblance of consensus among those arguing against the presence of these images in the article on [[intelligent design[[ about what is the justification for removing the images, but rather is a "willy-nilly" set of arguments based on one or the other or yet another of a set of "policy" and "guidelines" the language of which never achieved consensus?. And yet you assert you understand the spirit of the "policy" (NFCC) and "guidelines" (WP:NFC)? Yet the argument among some opponents of the images at issue is now that we must abide by the "letter" of the policy and guideline (WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, respectively)? But it's not wikilawyering by your definition? or it is wikilawyering by your definition? Or is it the confused, confusing, often subjective, self-contradictory language of NFCC and NFC? Or is it the "spirit" of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC? Please. Your notion of the "spirit" of WP:NFC and WP:NFCC is already well demonstrated. Similarly, others' notion of the "spirit" of the NFCC and NFC is on the other side of the current set of arguments about the proposed removal of the cover images presently at issue. ... Kenosis (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Verifiable discussion of the iconography is required for its inclusion" -- please quote the passage in WP:NFCC/WP:NFC that states this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If the sole rationale for this claim is I8, then I would point out that it is off-point. This is not a case of its use solely to "illustrate the article on the [topic] on the cover" -- it is to demonstrate "wide public attention" by demonstrating that the issue made the cover of a highly prominent magazine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is 100% on-point. The magazine article is about the ID debate, and you want to use the cover to make to illustrate the fact that the debate appeared on the cover, which has been disallowed time and time again. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"use the cover to make to illustrate the fact that the debate appeared on the cover" (as being illustrative of "wide public attention") is not mere use to "illustrate the article on the [topic] on the cover" -- so is not covered by this exclusion. You have therefore established no policy basis for your "Verifiable discussion of the iconography is required for its inclusion" claim and I can only conclude that the fact that this "has been disallowed time and time again" has its basis in an aggressively conducted over-policing that has no basis in policy. Do not expect such illegitimately expansive interpretation of exclusions to gain much credence here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"use the cover to make to illustrate the fact that the debate appeared on the cover" fails this part of WP:NFCC#1: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" It's perfectly adequate to state in text that ID made the cover of some magazine, or was the subject of some book. There's no need to show the actual cover in order to convey this fact. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking a sufficiently narrow interpretation of this criteria, and a sufficiently broad definition of "adequate", you can exclude any use of NFC. Is it adequate to "state in text that ID made the cover of some magazine"? I would suggest that this loses the visual impact of a Time cover (an aspect that Time staff probably spend a great deal of time crafting). As to "was the subject of some book", ID is to a large extent a campaign that has been fought through books (and, to a slightly lesser extent, opposed through them). Books are therefore very frequently the major characters in this narrative. The covers of many of them would be far more recognisable than their authors. Is it possible to rewrite this article to merely talk about rather than show these aspects? The answer would be yes. Would such a rewrite be an adequate portrayal of them? I would, as somebody with considerable experience with this controversial subject, argue no. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is interesting and, if CBM's interpretation is correct, would indicate that the NFCC are quite self-contradictory, a veritable enforcer's paradise. The policy demands that the cover image be discussed in the body text in order to be included, yet if it can be discussed in the body text, it isn't needed (sorry, "needed" isn't in the policy language, but was among the dictates put forward by present advocates of deletion of these images, and I suppose is therefore in the "spirit" of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC). ... Kenosis (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no self-contradiction here. Just a misunderstanding from your part, Kenosis. Discussing the cover-image is one thing. Discussing the fact that some topic made the cover of Time is another. While the first asks for an illustration (and the policy allows it), the second can be done with text only (and thus, can't be illustrated with non-free images). --Damiens.rf 12:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all nitpicking; they're low res images which enhance the article while doing no conceivable damage to the copyright holders. If images are only used when absolutely necessary, why have pictures of (eg) people in biographies etc. which do nothing to further the understanding of them? Pictures are to increase the article's whole appearance and "consumer appeal" surely. "Not necessary" is something that could be said about much of many articles on WP but such things make articles readable. As long as no law is broken or unfair advantage taken by their inclusion they should be permitted. The whole reason for the existence of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge and anything which makes the reading experience better (such as images) should be encouraged, not bickered over. (-Just my 2 cents) TheresaWilson (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, our policies are not designed to cover our asses from a legal standpoint. This is the primary misunderstanding of the non-free content policy. The main goal is to minimize the amount of non-free content material in accordance with our m:mission of being a free-content encyclopedia. howcheng {chat} 06:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng, what you've said here is substanitally wrong. Fact is, the issue of "who's been sued by whom, and for what?" was a major aspect of the arguments put forward in favor of the most restrictive possible language in WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, arguments which AFAIK were highly influential in arriving at the hard-fought compromise manifested in the present form of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. To further point out part of the absurdity of the situation here, since the policy says an image must "significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the topic", all images should be deleted, because pictures are not for readers , but rather are for viewers ! ... Kenosis (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ... Sorry, what I just said is true of "non-free" images that are freer-then-"free", that is, freer to use for virtually anything except putting on your own book, magazine or website in a way that it would mislead people into believing that the product is yours rather than that of the holder of the copyright, freer than many of the permissions actually granted by many or most holders of "free-licenses" today, and as such it's not true of "free" images which commonly have more restrictions than "non-free" images. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of a tangent, but Kenosis, you really do not understand copyrights. "All rights reserved" means that only the copyright holder has the right to do anything with it, including reproduction, dissemination, etc, except what they allow you do or what is permitted by fair use (in countries where fair use or fair dealing exists). Although our usage here probably is fair use under US law, our policies are deliberately stricter than that because our free content m:mission, as I explained to Theresa above. "Free content" is stuff you can do anything you want with. There are few restrictions like always attribute the source (CC-BY) or always attach the license (GFDL) and there are other laws you have to contend with (trademarks, personality rights), but you don't have to ask permission, you can plaster it all over the place, you can completely subvert the original intent of the work if you want, because it's free. howcheng {chat} 06:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not "kind of a tangent" Howcheng. Though peripheral to the present debate, it's right smack in the middle of the core of the extremely misleading "non-free-content" paranoia on the wiki. In fact, there is not, AFIAK, one lawsuit for displaying a low-resolution cover image that hasn't been dismissed as frivolous, "frivolous" meaning that a defendant in such a lawsuit would thereby be allowed the defendant to recoup costs, attorneys' fees and in occasional instances punitive damages against the party that filed the frivolous lawsuit. In reality, copyright holders of book, magazine-- even album-- cover images actually encourage display of such cover images, because it gives their product public exposure, even if the enterprise that displays that image is for profit ! If there's an instance where somebody or some organization had a legal judgment levied against them for reproducing a low-resolution cover image without purporting to be selling their own product in such a way that might confuse people into believing that the person or organization displaying that image on their product is the person or organization that holds the copyright, please show some reliable sources that point us to such real-life results of displaying a low-resolution cover image without pretending to be the proper proprietor of such an image. The notion that this might happen under any real-world circumstances is ridiculous. Fact is, cover images such as the ones used for the past couple of years in the article on intelligent design are, within every rational and legal standard in the civilized world, free to use as WP users wish so long as they don't pretend that the images belong to WP or to any WP user other than the copyright holder of that cover image. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis, this has nothing to do with "getting sued" etc. There are hundreds of thousands (I am not exaggerating) of images we could use throughout Wikipedia without fear of legal action but choose not to. Not out of "copyright paranoia" but because we are a free-content project. CIreland (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. As I said, the notions of "free content" and "non-free content" are at minimum highly misleading from the getgo. What we have here is a largely irrational compromise, not by any means a consensus, about what are the policies and what are the guidelines, w.r.t. proper use of such images in widely divergent topic areas around the wiki for which one centralized set of rules is not rationally defensible short of strictly eliminating all copyrighted images, period. More to the point, what we have here at the moment is the current presence of a roving group of "anti-NFC" advocates who are good at --pardon me here-- "wikilawyering" in support of their preferred POV w.r.t. the presence of NFC files, of which this present argument is only a current manifestation. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The cover, and its appearance is discussed: "The cover of this August 15, 2005 issue of TIME reads...", " The cover poses the question". NFCC does not demand the image be necessary, but that it give the reader significantly enhanced understanding. The manner in how the cover poses this question is information that enhances the readers understanding of the concept at hand. Describing this, and its classical iconography would be permitted in the text, and would not constitute OR, however it is much easier to use imagery. This is stretched fair use, but much more acceptable than mere use of book covers when discussing book content (here we are showing a cover while discussng cover-content).--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan | 39 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to explain this again

The main argument seems to centre around WP:NFCC#8 which says

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Bear in mind that's a pretty subjective criterion. What is a significant increase in readers' understanding of the topic?

Of Pandas and People Pandas was originally written as a creation science textbook, but after the Edwards verdict it was converted to an "intelligent design" textbook (yielding the famous "cdesign proponentsists" transitional fossil). Although it pre-dates the Wedge document, Pandas is the Wedge personified - it was made to look like a biology textbook, but was actually a trojan horse, designed to slip creationism into the classroom.

The cover design is a key part of that. The panda is the symbol of the WWF. It's an icon of the conservation movement. It's also a symbol of evolution - The Panda's Thumb is not only the title of an important evolution-education website, it's also the title of Gould's book from 1980. Simply using the title of the book only conveys half of the double entendre that is Pandas. Seeing the actual cover image significantly improves the reader's understanding of the role of the textbook. It conveys both a sense of inoffensiveness generally, and also plays on pro-science images. To any reader who is a visual thinker, this conveys significantly more information that could be conveyed in its absense.

Darwin's Black Box Taken most charitably, DBB is a call for the restoration of wonder and the rejection of faceless reductionism. It seeks to call people back to God. The image of human and chimpanzee together contemplating the heavens is something of a Rorschach test - we read it differently, based on our preconceptions. And that is at the heart of DBB - people who look for God in a materialistic world, who believe that God must have a hand in evolution, are told what they want to hear - that evolution is a "black box", that scientists don't understand what they are saying. To them, the man is as foolish as the chimp in thinking he can understand the world. To someone who sees evolution differently, the man and chimp contemplate the heavens in brotherhood. The are less likely to agree with the book, but the presentation makes it more appealing, less defensive.

The solar eclipse with the words "Black Box" across it, on the other hand, convey a sense of foreboding, a warning, a call to wariness. There is danger in "playing God". There are dark forces out there.

All of this is part of the intent of the book which cannot be conveyed without the use of the images. Thus, the book cover significantly enhances the understanding of the reader, and of how the intelligent design movement was built by Behe's book.

Darwin on Trial The cover of Darwin on Trial shows an elderly, angry-looking Darwin crushed by the huge letters of Johnson's book. It shows a defeated-looking Darwin, obviously headed to jail. To the Darwinian, the image is spirit-crushing in a way that the title is not. To the anti-Darwinian, the image is triumphal. This conveys the tenor of the intelligent design movement throughout the 90s up until Kitzmiller.

This is just a weak attempt to explain "significance". Sadly this isn't my strong suit...I'm not good at converting visual images into words. But it's a shot at trying to explain what seems obvious to me. Hopefully this is a little more clear what "significant understanding" is all about. Guettarda (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, please. This is, IMO, a praiseworthy attempt at explaining what an image might convey to a reader, but appears to me to neglect the fact that your argument has no genuine audience among those determined to delete free images around the wiki (sorry about my misuse of words here: within WP they're presently termed "non-free" images despite that images such as low-resolution book and magazine cover images are far freer to use for virtually anything than are many or most "free-licensed" images-- you could hardly make this up in a dream, but it's presently a fact on the wiki). .... Kenosis (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say about the significance of the covers. However, I do not feel that this reflects the need for the covers in this article- put simply, it's entirely original research. If that kind of discussion of the covers was included in this article, then yes, 100%, I would agree with their inclusion. However, it isn't- this article is about the theory of ID, not the books, and so there is not really any place for that kind of in-depth discussion in this article. Your arguments are compelling for the significance of the covers within the ID debate, but not particularly compelling for the inclusion of the covers in this short summary article. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Editorial decision-making, including on inclusion and placement of images is all (and quite legitimately) "entirely original research", as is assessment of whether images meet WP:NFCC criteria. If we had RSes to state what Guettarda just did, we could indeed include them in the article (though lengthy discussion of them would be off-topic here). We don't have such RSes, so we simply let the covers speak for themselves, as emblematic 'visual summaries' of the rhetorical devices underlying this contentious topic, alongside critical analysis of the rhetoric itself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Query: why is it that the above intepretation of the covers isn't sourced and in the Intelligent design article, the books' articles or the images' Fair-use rationales? CIreland (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This defence is rife with wild speculative OR that would not be permissable in text form. Panda = WWF, Panda = cute and cuddly, Panda = S. J. Gould, Panda = website/meme. (I'll accept the connection to the panda's thumb meme is more tangible than the others). Panda's are also linked to China. Is the Disco Institute making an attack on communism, too (wouldn't put it past them). Even if we were to accept this as an acceptable rationale (without references) for the "significant increase in knowledge" for the reader, can we really establish that the reader would actually interpret the image as such.

It's funny that Rorschach has been invoked in this debate in this, because that is precisely what is happening. Subjective interpretation of images by a reader.

And further is this relevant to intelligent design, the idea/theory/notion/argument. This sort of false marketing ploy and tactics by the Wedge strategy are far more pertinent to the intelligent design movement, and specifically the articles these textbooks and their publishers/authors. They do not enhance any significant increase in understanding the topic at hand on this page, the argument that an unknown intelligent agent created life in more-or-less the form it is today.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by CBM

There are two issues: is there consensus that the images meet the requirements of NFCC, and is there consensus to use the images in this article? The answer to the former is certainly "there is no consensus that the images meet the NFCC requirements". For example this was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_2#Intelligent_design. However, some editors who frequently edit this page are very vocal in defense of the images, which has led to the images remaining in the article despite the lack of sound rationales to include them. At least that is my overall summary of the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)