Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch. Options

[Sxeptomaniac]

I had really hoped they'd keep themselves under control after FeloniousMonk's desysopping a while back, but they appear to be back at it again.

Cla68 seems to have stirred them up by trying to add a "Scientific theories" category to the Intelligent Design article. Don't think it was a really good idea, but it doesn't justify the reaction.

Now Hrafn has decided to tag various articles as being Creationism stubs, including James Tour, a guy who has specifically said that he's not an intelligent design supporter. He signed a petition, so therefore he's a creationist, even if he says otherwise, right? Never mind that he's done nothing else related to creationism, and all indicators are that he never will. Now Guettarda's gaming to try to keep the tag in (since when is the burden of evidence on the one removing material from a BLP?).

I really did not want to get involved with these people again, but I'm not letting them go back to messing with BLPs like they did in the past.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

[lonza leggiera]

... Elohim (the gods) really should be plural in genesis, and Elohim really does say "let us make man in our image." What is this "us" and "our" stuff? ....

Perhaps His Divinely Omnisapient Majesty was an early proponent of the royal "we"?

Looks to me like a lot of it is a fight between people who believe in NPOV on one hand and people who don't understand the concept on the other. Either of groups may or may not have religious convictions or be atheists, but that's largely irrelevant. Even a fair-minded atheist hasn't got a look in.

That's utter nonsense. None of the combatants in that fight is fighting for NPOV, which is a concept that's even more incoherent than intelligent design. They're all fighting for their preferred religious belief, or else proxying for someone else's preferred religious belief. All of them are going to claim that they're fighting for the "neutral point of view", of course, because the game requires it.

I call BS. As with the CC fiasco, some participants aren't arguing for a particular POV. At least if you consider me a "participant", anyway.

I just want Wikipedia's policies followed. If that's even possible, which I increasingly question.

But if you want WP's policies followed, then surely you should be "arguing for a particular POV"—namely, one that's supposedly "neutral" according to what you have so aptly categorised as its "wacky rules". Presumably what you really meant here was the standard mantra of nearly all participants in a POV dispute—namely, that your own POV is neutral, and that of everyone who disagrees with you with isn't.

The problem with this is that in the area of pseudoscience, Wikipedia's rules on neutral point of view are not merely "wacky", or incoherent, as Kelly says, but blatantly self-contradictory. Presumably, you, Cla68 and Doc Glasgow are relying for your advocacy of a bland he-says-she-says style of exposition on the first bullet point in Wikipedia's explanation of what is supposed to be a neutral point of view:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Fair enough—I would prefer it myself if Wikipedia's article on the Intelligent Design scam were to be constructed somewhat along those lines.

But the so-called ID Cabal can just as easily support a claim to be advocating a "neutral" POV by pointing to the section of the policy dealing with pseudoscience:

... Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate with the scientific view. Likewise, the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such [emphasis mine—lon. leg.]. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.

Such inconsistency in the "rules" is a perfect recipe for generating the sort of acrimony that bedevils the talk pages of any WP topic on which a sizable population of cranks holds strong points of view.

This post has been edited by lonza leggiera: