On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: There is constant "creationist review" of these articles; new people come along, raise complaints, and one of three things tends to happen: (a) they are pointed towards the copious supporting citations, (b) they point raise a point that gets discussed at length, often with the wording being adjusted or (additional) supporting citations are supplied (c) since they rant about evolutionist POV, but fail to supply concrete suggestions, there is no progress. Bear in mind that the blog posting admits that, in violation of WP:AUTO DI employees have tried to alter the article to their liking. One of the perennial complaints about the article is that it states that "all" of the major proponents of ID are connected with the DI (the complaint being that it should be changed to "most"). That sounds like an eminently reasonable request, until it is examined carefully. To begin with, the statement is referenced and supported by sworn court testimony by both sides. In addition, no one has been able to come up with a major supporter which isn't affiliated with the DI. While it might seem like common sense to replace "all" with "most" it would require replacing what sources say with one's own opinion. If a major proponent was found that was not affililated with the DI, the statement might have to be modified to reflect this, but even so, since "all" comes from an external source the article would still have to reflect what the source says, rather than our interpretation of what the source says. Another perennial complaint involves the statement that ID supporters have produced no publications in peer-reviewed science journals. Again, this is a statement from sources - it isn't really our place as editors to argue about what constitutes "peer-reviewed science". There is a list of "peer-reviewed publications" which Dembski says he compiled in preparation for the Kitzmiller trial. This list has been posted to the ID page several times to "disprove" the assertion. However, the statement has not been changed for three reasons: (1) while Dembski's list is presented as being connected with the trial, Dembski withdrew from the trial, so it is just speculation to consider whether he would have stood behind that list under oath; (2) Behe, another major proponent of ID said that there are no ID publications in peer-reviewed science journals; and (3) it's easy enough to look at Dembski's list and see that most of the publications he lists don't do what he claims (e.g., he lists a publication by Behe). A third change that is made regularly to the article is to redefine ID into something much more broad than the article currently addresses, usually unsupported by references ("I think...") or, most recently, using a letter to the editor to an Iowa newspaper by what appears to be just any old person. Ian --

On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying

I think they still don't have a point. So many people edit these articles that sooner or later they have been NPOVed, cited, wikified and brought to at least good article status. We have our standards, and they're making very opinionative comments as if they were facts. On 9/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 07/09/06, Sage Ross <ragesoss(a)gmail.com> wrote: Heh. Has saying this on the talk pages helped? Excellent! (Personally, I suspect ID is best treated as a matter for sociology. Probably not abnormal psychology, but anyway.) - d.

Ben McIlwain wrote: I suspect his suggestion was review of what we say about them. A group so unpopular that they are characterized as they have been on this thread probably has some legitimate concerns about being misrepresented. SKL