Jump to content

Talk:Wedge strategy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Goal
No edit summary
 
(454 intermediate revisions by 87 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
==Large deletions by joshuaschroeder==
{{WikiProject Creationism |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|religion=yes}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Evangelical Christianity |importance=high}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Wedge strategy/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index= }}


==Two audiences==
Large deletions should be discussed before effectuated. It is a fundraising letter that was intended for supporters. It can be misconstrued out of context. What I added was a factual statement about what the DI says about the context of the original document and about false allegations made. What the Discovery Institute says about it, and about the allegations made by others, is very relevant and important for balancing this article. There should be consensus before such massive deletions.
--[[User:VorpalBlade|VorpalBlade]] 01:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to expand our coverage of how the ID movement (1) reveals the religious nature and purpose of their approach to one audience but also (2) denies that ID is in any way religious to another audience. One place to start would be the "designer". Does [[intelligent design]] '''begin with''' a premise that life began because it was created (as in [[Creationism]]) by The Creator (as in [[God]])? Or does it '''simply''' argue that scientific observations lead us to the logical conclusion that cells and organisms show evidence of "having been designed"?


I'd like to see a list of quotations from proponentsists (hee, hee!) acknowledging and boasting about the religious basis of ID. This would look great alongside a similar list of denials, evasions, rationalizations, etc., as they try to promote ID as properly secular and academic - having no connection to Creationism.
:This wasn't a large deletion, and even so removal of irrelevent or inconsequential material does not need to be discussed beforehand. We can talk about your grievances on the talkpage and I am certainly hopeful that we will come up with a solution that is a good NPOV presentation of the material. [[User:Joshuaschroeder|Joshuaschroeder]] 01:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


To ID opponents, this is all obvious, perhaps, but I'd like to make it more explicit for the reader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 14:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
So why do you think it is irrelevant? As noted above, I think it is. If you think I made what they said sound like fact, then we can make changes to make clear that it is ''their'' explanation. You can also add what others say about it, like B. Forrest, I think?--[[User:VorpalBlade|VorpalBlade]] 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:There are plenty of sources in the articles: for example, [[Timeline of intelligent design]] may help. . .[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:I think much of it was irrelevant because many of the quotes seemed to be fighting against an argument that wasn't made in the article. I will consider your new additions. [[User:Joshuaschroeder|Joshuaschroeder]] 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Adding the heading is a good solution. I left out some of the text you deleted, but adding a little more is appropriate in explaining the strategy.


I have just modified 7 external links on [[Wedge strategy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=782100482 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
One of the main problems I have with this is the the Wedge Strategy doc is not the best place to find out what the strategy is. That was a fundraising letter, but the best exposition was Johnson's book with the same name. That book explained it for all readers. The fundraising doc. assumes that the target audience is sympathetic and understands the context, the means, etc.--[[User:VorpalBlade|VorpalBlade]] 02:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/05%20Wedge_edited.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.discovery.org/a/2101
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614003725/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20050911%2FOPINION02%2F509110732%2F1087%2Fopinion
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906051325/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729032153/http://aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm to http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:I must respectfully disagree with you here. The assumption of the target audience needs to be mentioned (as we try to in the introduction), but just because the target audience isn't vetted for public consumption doesn't mean that it isn't a good source for finding out what the strategy is. To claim this would be akin to claiming that it would be better to find out about any company or country's policy from publications that they design to be released to the public rather than through internal memoranda. [[User:Joshuaschroeder|Joshuaschroeder]] 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
The main point of the strategy as Johnson lays it out is to stop the inappropriate domination of science by the a priori philosophy of naturalism. This doesn't come out in the article. This article is really about the Wedge Strategy ''document'', not really about the strategy. --[[User:VorpalBlade|VorpalBlade]] 02:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
:I think it does. The philosophy of naturalism and its association with secularism seems very clear to me. [[User:Joshuaschroeder|Joshuaschroeder]] 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
==Attempted reincorporation==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Many of the quotes used that go on in length about the magnamity of the Discovery Institute with respect to not wanting to impose ideas are a bit of a stretch from a NPOV sense. We should stick to consistent arguments that are made rather than ones that require detailed explanation. I'm not sure how one can NPOV formulate the claim that the Discovery Institute opposes the imposition of any ''a priori'' assumption while only supporting ID projects. [[User:Joshuaschroeder|Joshuaschroeder]] 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:the above contains absolutely nothing but vague personal opinion. please identify policy justifications for your edit. thank you. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 04:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::It is not a personal opinion that the Discovery Institute sponsors only ID scientists. [[User:Joshuaschroeder|Joshuaschroeder]] 06:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::Not personal opinion that princeton sponsors only evolutionary scientists, either. what relevence? reverting until you provide a justification for your gutting. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I have just modified 3 external links on [[Wedge strategy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=799825584 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::::The current article contains about 33 lines that for the most part selectively quote from one DI document. The explanation contains 17 lines that explains the larger context and explains the DI's position with respect to the way that doc. has been interpreted. I don't see how that is unreasonable. I cut down the explanation section somewhat in response to your objection. I think the first 33 lines give way more time than this one document deserves, but I have not deleted any of this section (just edits for accuracy). I don't think you should take out more of the last section before reaching a consensus here, so we do not end up in an edit war.
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/05%20Wedge_edited.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207030634/http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0605/discovery-darwin.php to http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0605/discovery-darwin.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714233945/http://www.6newslawrence.com/news/2006/jul/07/many_question_groups_move_elections_nearing/ to http://www.6newslawrence.com/news/2006/jul/07/many_question_groups_move_elections_nearing/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::::By the way, I appreciate Joshua's changes to the intro to make the context clearer, and your header for organization is good. I think the article needs a good neutral summary of how Johnson explains the Wedge in his book. --[[User:VorpalBlade|VorpalBlade]] 14:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::I'm all for this, Vorpal. We should be explicit though that it is Johnson's take on the matter we are trying to describe and we should also be clear that his agenda as one of the "founding fathers" of the ID movement is apparent. I don't think it is relevant to count lines in the article. NPOV does not mean equal time is necessary. You may feel that there are irrelevant statements -- if so, remove them or rework them. As it stands, Ungtss is simply knee-jerk reverting rather than trying to work here. I welcome the opportunity to work with you, VorpalBlade. [[User:Joshuaschroeder|Joshuaschroeder]] 14:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::::As usual, the above contains nothing but personal opinion. you are deleting attributed and relevent material without justification. justify your deletion. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
==Justified edit==


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 02:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is the version that Ungtss likes (version a):


== External links modified ==
"...It lists examples of activities that directly contradict many of the allegations, including sponsoring a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation of church and state.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
"It stated that, far from trying to impose its worldview on science, one of its main aims is to oppose the imposition of any ''a priori'' philosophy on the interpretive freedom of scientists. It "rejects all attempts to impose orthodoxies on the practice of science, and challenges "scientific materialism--the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone." It articulates a "strategy for influencing science and culture ''with our ideas'' through research, reasoned argument and open debate."[http://www.pubtheo.com/savedpages/discovery-institute-wedge-document.pdf]"


I have just modified 3 external links on [[Wedge strategy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=800660556 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Here is my version (version b):
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081115032044/http://smu.edu/dedman/viewpoint.pdf to http://smu.edu/dedman/viewpoint.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206075308/http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day6AM.pdf to http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day6AM.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051110033847/http://windowview.org/science/arn.files/notinkansasanymor.html to http://www.windowview.org/science/arn.files/notinkansasanymor.html
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_DisciplinedScience_102802.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
"The Wedge strategy is claimed to be an opposition to the dominant ''a priori'' philosophy and a support of the interpretive freedom of scientists. The goal of the strategy is described as "influencing science and culture ''with our ideas'' through research, reasoned argument and open debate".


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
"The defenders of the Discovery Institute point to examples of activities that directly contradict many of the allegations made with respect to the Wedge strategy, including sponsoring a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation of church and state."


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Now, first of all, the pronoun is not well-determined in version a. What is the "it"? Is it the Discovery Institute? Wedge document: so what? What is it? To say that one of the major aims of either the Discovery Institute or the Wedge strategy is to oppose the imposition of any a priori philosophy is a bit misleading because DI sponsors solely ID researchers. It is important to point out that they oppose what they see as the dominant philosophy. More than this, the bit about the critique of scientific materialism is discussed above obliquely at least, but according to the wider goals of the Wedge strategy, it is only an oblique mention anyway. Johnson may talk more about scientific materialism in his book on the subject -- if so, that should be included in that bit there. But as it stands here, the mention of materialism above should suffice and it seems extremely redundant to reinclude it in the defense of the strategy. Other than that, everything else is included in a more stylized fashion, so Ungtss' objections mystify me once again. [[User:Joshuaschroeder|Joshuaschroeder]] 16:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Thoughts, Vorpalblade? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


== Socks ==
::Haven't had a chance to read the above carefully, or look at all the changes, but here are some observations: 1. after a quick read, the current article doesn't look too bad to me- joshua seems to have left in a lot in the explanation; 2. he seems to be making an effort to improve the article overall, rather than just deleting whole chunks with no explanation like some others have done. I don't have time at the moment to look more carefully, but I hope to. I think Ungtss makes very good points and I have found him to be very reasonable and constructive on other pages. I don't think he is being knee jerk at all. I definitely agree more with Ungtss' comments, but need more time to look at the current details. --[[User:VorpalBlade|VorpalBlade]] 21:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Noting that Ethanfgrant and Cimerondagert were socks of Allenroyboy. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 07:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


== Shouldn't Wedge strategy (diplomacy) be the main article? ==
== NPOV ==


It seems weird to me that "Wedge strategy" in the Creationism debate has the main article whereas the more widely understood "Wedge strategy" from diplomacy has the (diplomacy) in parenthesis. Shouldn't it be the reverse? [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 14:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of this is pretty biased, in my opinion. For example, the wedge document that is the basis for the whole thing is referenced on a man's website that is clearly against all that Discovery may be about, and, from what I've seen, largely misunderstanding them. This article does not generously provide counters to suspicion of ID and Discovery. I don't have the time go through it right now, but should someone else come across this, please provide your comments as well. I'll be back for more later.


:I agree with you...I'm guessing that since [[Wedge strategy (diplomacy)]] is such a small and undeveloped article that that is the reason...but that doesn't mean it needs to stay that way.---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 01:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
--[[User:Swmeyer|Swmeyer]] 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:I see your vigorous denials of the obvious in your campaign to return all ID-related articles to the Discovery Institute-approved content continues apace.
:The Discovery Institutes's [[Steven C. Meyer]] has confirmed the Wedge document. [[Phillip E. Johnson]] is explicit in his statements about the Wedge strategy.
:This is all in the article, and well-cited with supporting links to credible sources. The article is NPOV and factual.
:You may want to reconsider your own strategy here though; going to every ID-related article with an ideological ax to grind is not contributing to wikipedia's goal, which is compiling a complete and factual encyclopedia. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

== Goal ==

Currently the article states in its lead section,
: ''This religious goal, advanced chiefly by means of the wedge strategy, seeks to establish that life was created as the result of intelligent design.''
The Wedge Document on the other hand states,
: ''However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.''
and
: ''The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds.''

The ultimate goal of the Wedge Strategy, is therefore to replace science. It does not state what should replace science, but probably they are thinking of a form of [[scholasticism]]. [[User:Markus Schmaus|Markus Schmaus]] 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:04, 29 September 2024

Two audiences

[edit]

I'd like to expand our coverage of how the ID movement (1) reveals the religious nature and purpose of their approach to one audience but also (2) denies that ID is in any way religious to another audience. One place to start would be the "designer". Does intelligent design begin with a premise that life began because it was created (as in Creationism) by The Creator (as in God)? Or does it simply argue that scientific observations lead us to the logical conclusion that cells and organisms show evidence of "having been designed"?

I'd like to see a list of quotations from proponentsists (hee, hee!) acknowledging and boasting about the religious basis of ID. This would look great alongside a similar list of denials, evasions, rationalizations, etc., as they try to promote ID as properly secular and academic - having no connection to Creationism.

To ID opponents, this is all obvious, perhaps, but I'd like to make it more explicit for the reader. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources in the articles: for example, Timeline of intelligent design may help. . .dave souza, talk 20:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Wedge strategy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wedge strategy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wedge strategy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

[edit]

Noting that Ethanfgrant and Cimerondagert were socks of Allenroyboy. —PaleoNeonate – 07:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Wedge strategy (diplomacy) be the main article?

[edit]

It seems weird to me that "Wedge strategy" in the Creationism debate has the main article whereas the more widely understood "Wedge strategy" from diplomacy has the (diplomacy) in parenthesis. Shouldn't it be the reverse? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you...I'm guessing that since Wedge strategy (diplomacy) is such a small and undeveloped article that that is the reason...but that doesn't mean it needs to stay that way.---Avatar317(talk) 01:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedge_strategy&oldid=1248419816"