Misplaced Pages

User talk:Markbassett: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:54, 7 August 2020 editMarkbassett (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,476 edits →Article talkpages← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:44, 27 November 2024 edit undoMarkbassett (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,476 edits Clean - rmv note I messed up in fixing a typo, they repaired.Tag: Manual revert 
(109 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


== More discussion on how to handle abolished noble titles ==


Some of the responses to ] thread highlight the issues that our naming, WEIGHT, RS, and NPOV policies apparently do not sufficiently cover. It's not just Austria -- in basically any country where the monarchy was officially abolished and royal/noble titles outlawed, there is some constituent that continues to idolize aristocracy, and the most accessible sources (news articles, magazines) fervently cater to them. Is the POV promoted by rainbow media and aristocratic orgs more DUE than that of the government and academia, which generally do not mention ''this specific person'' by name but only cover the disputed title--which by extension ensures that individual doesn't personally, legally claim the title himself? While it would be great if everyone interpreted the above policies as you said you do in the earlier thread (with official constitutional decrees, governmental recognition, and/or personal non-use of a title having precedence when considering article titles as well as article body treatment), there is enough ambiguity that these arguments constantly re-emerge. ] (]) 22:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
== Deletion discussion about ] ==
Hello, Markbassett,


:] General cases versus Specific items would definitely seem a useful way to make distinctions. For example, the ‘generally’ useful guide for all might give strong value on ] of the common usage, except to respect a BLP person's explicit ‘specific choices’ otherwise such as abdication or claims in dispute, plus the article should do NPOV and present both views in proportion to their prominence. And individual articles may go their own way in any case so embrace whatever is decided will be just a general guide.
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Intelligent design (historical) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at ].
: There might also be some agreement to approach things using specifics. Folks might agree to a principle of respecting ‘specific mentions’ more than of general ones. Or folks might agree to take an approach of smaller bites. Perhaps things could be broken into ‘specific kinds of cases’ (e.g. exiled vs born to title but never titled, vs born after the law, etcetera) and find that some are not contentious. Or perhaps things could be looked at as let's just get a guide ‘specific to Austria and the living ]‘ and so just needs to discuss a small number of specific articles and actual situations. Just throwing out ideas here, you may have others. Cheers ] (]) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


If you're new to the process, ] is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on ]. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.


== MOS:CURRENCY ==
Thanks, ] (]) 14:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


I sympathise with your view that something like {{tq|The '''Neptuno''' (symbol, '''♆''', ] code '''EWN''') is the currency of ]}} as an opening phrase is indeed rather deathly prose, especially as it duplicates the infobox. If there were to be a an advisory on it, ] would be the place for it but right now it has nothing to say. So if you want to pursue the question, ] would be the place to raise it. I guess one immediate riposte would be that the phrase in parentheses provides a landing zone for the (fictitious) ] and ] redirects. So you would need to anticipate that one in your proposal. ] (]) 18:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
== Reinstating edit on Creation-evolution controversy ==


*] - thank you for your note. After some thinking and searching, the relationship of lead and infobox seemed a question wider than currencies, so I posted a question at the TALK of ] and ], and will see what comes of that. The ] for mentions of currency outside of where the currency is the topic, and it's ] seemed good places for something else though -- how and why did it get this way for almost all of the ? But while I can see in the history that leads grew into this format circa 2010-2015, I didn't find any overall discussion -- though it was interesting to read such as the . Cheers ] (]) 15:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
-- here we have the benefit of the exact item being talked about on google docs, yet guy misquotes a misquote from popper and ... claims that is the better way ... Theories then are ''never'' empirically verifiable." and "These considerations suggest that not the ''verifiability'' but the ''falsifiability'' of a system is to be taken as the criterion of demarcation."; , Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1935; Engl 1959) pg 18
::Yes, good point on the more general issue of duplication. I see the infobox as being the most essential information about the topic in a nutshell. . Duplication in the lead seems to be the norm rather than the exception: years of "custom and practice" got us here. I doubt it will change: some people just like the narrative form of the lead, others the capsule form of the infobox; the fondest adherents of each despise the other. Like some people swear by categories and others (like me) swear about them. You expressed the point well at ] so I shall be interested to see the outcome. --] (]) 15:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


:::] - The IB post drew mention of ] which includes a line saying "where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox". It mentions the ISO code for linguistics and the parameters of Chembox, and I note astronomical data Infoboxes for such as ] and ] are further examples of where reference data or notation should be in the IB. Maybe not all I could hope for, but it is something. Cheers ] (]) 19:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC).
Hi Markbasset,
::::Well if you want to move it on, the mechanism is an ]. This, if it secures consensus, means that MOS:CURRENCY gets revised and the parenthesised text can be removed from articles. I can't see any chance of achieving it on an article-by-article basis. RFCs are a lot of work, it is critical to set it up properly. I've never done one, though I've seen quite a few failures (frequently at the first fence), so you would be well advised to ask to be mentored through it. --] (]) 19:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I see you reinstated I had reverted previously, which removes the word ''pseudoscience''. That word is backed by the ] used and quoting Popper directly could actually be considered ] since it's a primary source. It'd be great if you could give ] a read. When an edit you make is reverted you go to the talk page, open a new thread about it and then wait to hear from other editors' input on the issue. Reverting back is considered bad practice and doing so more than three times in less than 24 hs (I'm not saying you did BTW) is considered ].
I'd really appreciate it if you could self revert your last edit and open a new thread so we can discuss it. Thank you very much. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


== Software engineering ==
Please try the article talk since the re-creation means I've really looked and still think the edit is appropriate and so posted there. But first, please consider the desireability of having the primary source on the section topic Falsifiability (the Popper book) in favor of a lesser secondary source and on what wording would convey what is modern application or re-interpretation and where it will have gone too far in rephrasing the secondary source. To be precise, Popper defines falsifiability as a separator for science from all else, not saying the all-else is pseudoscience. Even the secondary source seems to not be making it the determinant for pseudoscience but noting it as a criteria (one of many?) for distinguishing science from psuedoscience is the Stanford extension of modern discussions. Saying a test mentioned in modern discussions is correct of STanford, but saying it as the determination of a duality was not in Stanford. Non-falsifiable pieces might equally well be poetry, law, music, acconting etcetera. And while Popper used the word pseudoscience, to him Pseudoscience usage differs from that of modern day -- he used that for Bolsheviks as epithet for his fellow Jews having to teach politically-correct Marxist views in what we now would call 'soft' sciences. ] (]) 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


Starting talk to give notes to myself .... re Hamilton claim she invented software engineering, or the term ...
Think she was the team lead for Apollo modules software (team grew up to 'have almost 100 software engineers' so not trivial but ...)


Credited to Oettinger 1966 letter as President of the ACM
== School and student project pages ==
-
"We must recognize ourselves-not necessarily all of us, and not necessarily any one of us all the time-as members of a engineering profession, be it hardware engineering or software engineering, a profession without artificial and irrelevant boundaries like that between "scientific" and "business" applications."


] - President 1966-1968 of the , founded the Computer Science and Engineering Board of the National Academy of Sciences and chaired it for six years starting in 1967.
Odd -- at illegal immigration, a Talk post mentioned being a senior at Rice University and intending to craft a page.
In Dec 1966 ""The notion of software engineering is, thank goodness, beginning to be heard of more and more". and "Unless economic and engineering criteria are brought into the picture, sterile monsters result."
] She was/is
and gotten a barnstar about ] .


Looking at her activity history led to finding another student at and a general search for 'senior at rice' with site:wikipedia.org' turned up
(and many others) who mentioned a class page


, Princeton CWI quarterly 1990 (325-334)
Love it ? Hate it ? Maybe systematically such will flush out due to low hits ... but then many small topics are in same kind of situation. Hmm.
(An expanded version of a lecture presented at CWI on 1 February 1990. It is based on researchgenerously supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.)
Begins wanting the context not just listing names, dates, and places of firsts.
So trying to determine what people thought when they first began to talk about "software engineering".
- one writer suggested originated 1965
* Brian Randell ("Software Engineering in 1968", Prof. 4th Intern. Conf. on Software Engineering , 1) ascribes it to J.P. Eckert at th e Fall Joint Computer Conference in 1965, but th e transcript ofthe one panel discussion in which Eckert participated shows no evidence of the term "software engineering". D.T.Ross claims the term was used in courses he was teaching at MIT in the late '50s; cf. "Interview: Douglas RossTalks About Structured Analysis", Computer (July 1985), 80-88
- first came into common currency in 1967 when the Study Group on Computer Science of the NATO Science Committee called for an international conference on t he subject
- As Brian Randell and Peter Naur point out in the introduction to theiredition of the proceedings, "The phrase 'software engineering' was deliberately chosen as beingprovocative, in implying the need for software manufacture to be on the types oftheoretical foundations and practical disciplines that are traditional in the established branchesof engineering."
* Peter Naur, Brian Randell, J.N. Buxton (eds.), Software Engineering: Concepts and Techniques (NY:Petrocelli/Charter, 1976; hereafter NRB)


-Michael S Mahoney, "The History of Computing in the History of Technology", Annals of the History of Computing 10, no. 2 (April 1988):113-125
- - -
"To emphasize the need for a concerted effort along new lines, the committee coined the term “software engineering”, reflecting the view that the problem required the combination of science and management thought characteristic of engineering. "


-Andrew L. Friedman and Dominic S Cornford’s 1989 book Computer Systems Development: History, Organization and Implementation. ...
: p.s. looking at contributor led to another class ] which says it is autogenerated class page ... hunh. ] (]) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Martin Boogard’s 1994 thesis, Defusing the Software Crisis ...
- 1996 Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray published their overview of the history of computing, Computer: A History of the Information Machine
- two conferences on the history of software held in Germany around this time. The first, at Scholss Dagstuhl in 1996, was dedicated to the history of software engineering and included veterans of the 1968 conference


] has
:pps now there is
"Early usages for the term software engineering include a 1965 letter from ACM president Anthony Oettinger, lectures by Douglas T. Ross at MIT in the 1950s, and Margaret H. Hamilton as a way of giving it legitimacy during the development of the Apollo Guidance Computer. "


] had
"The term "software engineering" was coined by Anthony Oettinger and then was used in 1968 as a title for the world's first conference on software engineering, sponsored and facilitated by NATO. "


The origins of the term "software engineering" have been attributed to various sources. The term "software engineering" appeared in a list of services offered by companies in the June 1965 issue of and was used more formally in the August 1966 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 9, number 8) “letter to the ACM membership” by the ACM President Anthony A. Oettinger, it is also associated with the title of a NATO conference in 1968 by Professor ], the first conference on software engineering. ] described the discipline "software engineering" during the Apollo missions to give what they were doing legitimacy.


Springer by O'Regan starts
"This chapter presents a short history of software engineering from its birth at the Garmisch conference in Germany, and it is emphasized that software engineering is a lot more than just programming. "


IEEE, N. Wirth "A Brief History of Software Engineering"
https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/Miscellaneous/IEEE-Annals.pdf here]
The difficulties brought big companies to the brink of collapse. In 1968 a conference sponsored by NATO was dedicated to the topic (1968 at
Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany) . Although critical comments had occasionally been voiced earlier , it was not before that conference
that the difficulties were openly discussed and confessed with unusual frankness, and the terms software engineering and software crisis were coined.
1. P. Naur and B. Randell, Eds. Software Engineering.
Report on a Conference held in Garmisch, Oct. 1968, sponsored by NATO
2. E.W. Dijkstra. Some critical comments on advanced programming. Proc. IFIP Congress, Munich, Aug. 1962.
3. R.S. Barton. A critical review of the state of the programming art. Proc. Spring Joint Computer Conference, 1963, pp 169 – 177.


Grady Booch
== Article talk page concerns ==
The Origins of the Term
Many suggest it came from the 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering, coined by Friedrich Bauer.
Others have pointed to the 1966 letter by Anthony Oettinger in Com�munications of the ACM, wherein he used the term “software engineering”
to make the distinction between computer science and the building of software-intensive systems.1
Even ear�ier, in the June 1965 issue of Computers and Automation, there appeared a classified ad seeking a “systems software engineer.”
All the data I have points to Margaret Hamilton as the person who first coined the term. Having worked on the SAGE
(Semi-automatic Ground Environment) program, she became the lead developer for Skylab and Apollo while working at the Draper Lab.
According to an (unpublished) oral history, she began to use the term “software engineering” sometime in 1963 or 1964 to distinguish her work
from the hardware engineering taking place in the nascent US space program


mentions him
Hi Markbassett. I would like to discuss the quantity and quality of your article talk page edits with you (and only you—No MONGO/Atsme/Levivich/PackMecEng, please and thank you). I'm hoping that I can convince you to earnestly strive for clarity, brevity, and relevance in your article talk page comments, especially at ]. I'm sorry to have to put it this way, but I find that you post a large number of comments that make little sense and do little to advance the purpose of refining content. For example, you have made in the discussion about COVID-19 in the lead. Not a single one of those comments has moved the discussion closer to resolution.
{{cot|Here are some examples from the past couple of weeks. Collapsed for convenience.}}
1. You created a new section to falsely claim that an edit proposal is "Generally running “Oppose all”". You provide no substantiation to the claim. At that point, 13 editors supported the content and 11 opposed it. I asked you to "PLEASE strive for clarity, brevity, and complete sentences in your comments?". MelanieN responded to your comments: "No, Mark, "Oppose all" is certainly not a consensus takeaway from the above discussion." With a 13:11 support:oppose ratio, I have a hard time believing that this was anything other than ] or simply lack of competence. I've highlighted portions that are ungrammatical to the point of being incomprehensible. The post was disruptive.
{{tq2|Generally running “Oppose all” so now what ?


IEEE post says
Things above seem to have gotten lots of pushback and diverging into side topics, so I thought it time to open a subthread looking for the now what...
"Many suggest it came from the 1968 NATO conference on Software Engineering, coined by Friedrich Bauer. Others have pointed to the 1966 letter by Anthony Oettingger in Communications of the ACM wherein he used the term "software engineering" to make the distinction between computer science and the building of software-intensive systems. Even earlier, in the June 1965 issue of Computers and Automation there appeared a classified ad seeking a "systems software engineer." "


1. Can we agree that response above is generally or commonly running to “Oppose all” ?
And pg 13 background
"The phrase ‘software engineering’ was deliberately chosen as being provocative, in implying the need for software manufacture to be based on the types of theoretical foundations and practical disciplines, that are traditional in the established branches of engineering"
and pg75 mentions others already at
"In the United States National Academy of Sciences Research Board one education committee being formed is precisely to study software engineering
as a possible engineering education activity."


Princeton in starts
Not to do the !count thing, it just seems to me..... a lot of oppose “all” (unusually broad), {{hl|does not seem anywhere near any one proposed line favored or a progress for defining need or approach to a consensus edit on even a part-line tweak.|#ffeeee}}
"Dating from the first international conference on the topic in October 1968, software engineering just turned thirty-five."


John W. Tukey, a chemist and statistician, is credited with the first printed use of the term "software" when he wrote a scientific article in 1958.
2. If so, then now what ?
Elsewhere saw
"From soft +‎ -ware, by contrast with hardware (“the computer itself”). Coined 1953 by Paul Niquette; first used in print by John Tukey 1958."


Bertrand Meyer writes that the term was not coined in 1968 during the famous NATO conference
I think the original thread and all proposals are toast, and this one can close soon. But maybe there are some items worth note ? Maybe noting what general LEAD principles are of interest, such as edit body first? Or a side discussion worth spinning a new thread for ?


A different blog has
- - - -|source=}}
"The term “software engineering” was first coined in 1972 by Dr. David Parnas when he published the paper, “On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules.” This paper — and the dawn of software engineering — was the result of several notable innovations that happened years prior."




History of Software Engineering includes
2. This doesn't make much sense. I guess it could have been summed up as "I agree."
"Margaret Hamilton became the lead developer for Skylab and Apollo while working at the Draper Lab. According to an (unpublished) oral history, she began to use the term "software engineering" sometime in 1963 or 1964 to distinguish her work from the hardware engineering taking place in the nascent US space program."
{{tq2|User:Rusf10 Good points, that the word ‘false’ is presented an UNDUE number of times. That WP is giving unequal treatment would need to refer to some standard though for any correction - to determine if it should be less white-washing there or less tar-and-feathers here. {{hl|Also —- perhaps you would want to present article content about the external view of ‘false’, of it being a POV narrative and unprecedented posturing over nits.|#ffeeee}} WP doesn’t need to say the ‘false’ claims as if that is factual or at all important to BLP - it is also a context of being under partisan attack and biased media coverage. To some extent, having it seems just a partisan talking point - something pushed vaguely in every opportunity, regardless of relevance. To some extent it seems just media infotainment selling to a niche - something done by deeply adversarial New York Times and Washington Post and Toronto Sun. Finer discussion of ‘false’ seems more something for the Presidency article, but the frequency here and wording here deserves extra scrutiny and context if it’s going to be said so, so often. |source=}}
Though elsewhere
also says 1963 "In 1963, Margaret Hamilton, coined the term software engineering while working on developing the software for the Apollo spacecraft." (though this is flawed by here was no Apollo program in 1963)


Niklaus Wirth wrote (2008) which includes "The term
Software Engineering became known after a conference in 1968, when the difficulties and pitfalls of designing complex systems were frankly discussed."
...
"In 1968 a conference sponsored by NATO was dedicated to the topic (1968 at Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany) .
Although critical comments had occasionally been voiced earlier , it was not before that conference that the difficulties were
openly discussed and confessed with unusual frankness, and the terms software engineering and software crisis were coined. "
1. P. Naur and B. Randell, Eds. Software Engineering. Report on a Conference held in Garmisch, Oct. 1968, sponsored by NATO
2. E.W. Dijkstra. Some critical comments on advanced programming. Proc. IFIP Congress, Munich, Aug. 1962.
3. R.S. Barton. A critical review of the state of the programming art. Proc. Spring Joint Computer Conference, 1963, pp 169 – 177.


- but I didn't see the topic or SE term in the (Aug 27-Sep 1)
3. This example is more rambling than incoherent, but it stands out as a serious ] concern. You refer to starship.paint's of reliable source articles as "useless" and then you go on to cite townhall.com which is considered an inferior source full of opinion columns.
The
{{tq2|User:Starship.paint “cherry picked” is your word, and thank you for collapsing the useless lists. {{hl|But what you need to respond to is that those failed ONUS because they’re not applied towards anything and because one can google up 10 cites for just about every POV, and it is a bit unusable for the thread to just drop in ‘here are some urls’ without context of how gotten and which proposed wording is intended to be cited for what.|#ffeeee}} We’re not going to give 40 cites for any line chosen, and LEAD really should be from body content and cites not an unrelated score of urls. Just umpteen hits at undefined randomness is basically useless and TLDR. There are billions of links on web - saying a number like 10 or 15 as if that is at all significant is just silly, you need to show something like appearance in all POV publications or WEIGHT in millions for a topic, and explain the phrase it is intended to go to. I can equally turn up URLs for say . That you did an example (or above several) simply does nothing for DUE or OFFTOPIC or picking which particular hit for relevance and information instead of SENSATION or POV. So show a few million hits and maybe you’ve got DUE. Show it from BBC and not just NYT and maybe you’ve got widely said. Show it actually is part of an impact on President Trumps life and you’ve got BLP instead of OFFTOPIC. But showing me just 10 hits from the usual partisan sources NYT et al.... just isn’t anything. Not even showing enough DUE for a ‘critics said’. |source=}}
.. I do see Barton found
and criticism of the term 'software' but no mention of 'software engineering'


Grady Booch wrote
"Many suggest it came from the 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering, coined by Friedrich Bauer4. Others have pointed to the 1966
letter by Anthony Oettinger in Communications of the ACM wherein he used the term “software engineering” to make the distinction between
computer science and the building of software-intensive systems5. Even earlier, in the June 1965 issue of Computers and Automation, there
appeared a classified ad seeking a “systems software engineer” 6
.
All the data I have points to Margaret Hamilton as the person who first coined the term. Having worked on the SAGE program, she became the
lead developer for Skylab and Apollo while working at the Draper Labs. According to an (unpublished) oral history, she began to use the term
“software engineering” sometime in 1963 or 1964 to distinguish her work from the hardware engineering taking place on the nascent US space
program7"
4 Naur, Peter and Randell, Brian. Software Engineering: Report on a conference sponsored by the NATO Science
Committee. Brussels, Belgium: NATO Scientific Affairs Division, January 1969.
5 Oettinger, Anthony. “President’s Letter to the ACM Membership.” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 9, No. 12,
1966.
6 Computers and Automation. New York, New York: Edmund Berkeley and Associates, June 1965.
7 NASA. Margaret Hamilton, Apollo Software Engineer, Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom. 6 August 2017.


4. This is virtually incomprehensible, but it does seem to insult an editor who went out of their way to cite sources to support a content proposal '''''which is exactly what we are supposed to do on article talk pages'''''.
{{tq2|User:Starship.paint {{hl|Thank you for collapsing that, but nope this cherry-picking google only shows that gives situation is unclear result - it included (a) “government slow”, as in Congress etc not “Trump”, and (b) demonstrated “critics” claim this, plus (c) did not consider the RS saying otherwise.|#ffeeee}} Such as it being a mix of good and bad - e.g. Politifact saying “slow” is incorrect or BBC descriptions of things gotten right and wrong. Cheers Markbassett|source=}}




Maybe the ngram corpus helps, at least it shows that Software Engineer peak (in print) in 1990,
5. This one is blatant ] and ]. starship.paint meticulously compiled a list of high quality sources ('''20''', not 10); categorized them according to each element of the proposed content; and quoted each one. Somehow that wasn't good enough for you. You wrote:
{{tq2|] again you did not get the point -- {{hl|that this dumping unexplained lists of about 10 cites is unusable and just meaningless.|#ffeeee}} You didn't give context of how that was crafted; or which edit wording it was intended to support; or even if those are cites in this article or the other one or intended to be added somehow. You just dumped a load into TALK. thank you for at least hatting it, but of circa one billion hits in Google finding a dozen for any particular POV does not do anything to show it is significant or that other POVs do not exist. {{Just say what was the point of the list and how you made it and how you intend it to be used -- and if your answer is to show 'only my view is right' then I'll be glad to come back with ELEVEN cites about other view, or maybe 10 cites to places saying silly stuff like that's a chihuahua on his head or he's really the love child of a werewolf.|#ffeee}} Again, just dropping 10 urls just doesn't ring as if that's a significant portion let alone as all the POVs.|source=}}


says
"The term software engineering first was used in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Programmers have always known about civil, electrical and computer engineering and debated what engineering might mean for software." ] (]) 22:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


== Intelligent Design type of creationism ==
6. Here you repeat the falsehood that "Oppose all seems the consensus", even though six days earlier I had already documented 17 editors supporting the material and 12 opposing it (17:12). ValarianB and Emir of Misplaced Pages commented in the interim increasing the numbers to 18:13 in support.
{{tq2|'''Oppose all (seems the consensus)''' - while there were variations in the opposition, the prior discussion of this thread seemed the proposals 1 2 3 had a consensus of 'oppose' and phrasing of 'oppose all' was commonly said as each one was mostly opposed by folks rather than anything having a consensus. The A B C ... through P are topics and if you're asking are they contentious then I'd have to say it depends on the phrasing and the context. {{hl|A topic of "slow" is different depending on if the proposed phrase is "initially slow" or "criticized as slow" or "falsely said slow"; and if the context is for a LEAD edit or a body edit, and whether the sole part of the paragraph of has more there.|#ffeeee}}|source=}}


Discussion on Irreducible complexity over a lead line
The argument that evolution cannot explain complex mechanisms because intermediate precursors would be non-functional was already common in creation science by 1990.


- I'm gobsmacked about the conflating young-earth Creation Science typically Flood geology and explicit biblical linkages with old earth creationsim of Intelligent Design -- I see one source said something, but not really LEAD prominent and not widespread ...
7. Then you double down on the first false "oppose all" claim.
But I do see remarks from ID that it does not take a position so can be either ? ] (]) 03:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
{{tq2|User:MelanieN Factually the answers above *did* run to a lot of "Oppose All" -- with that exact phrasing in many cases and the general theme in many more of the discussions also having a strong 'no not that' flavor. {{hl|The phrasings as shown in proposals seem toasted enough to me, and note the discussion moved along from there.|#ffeeee}}|source=}}




---
8. And again. This is now the '''fourth time''' you claimed that Oppose all seems the consensus.
{{tq2|] - '''Oppose all (seems the consensus)''' - factually is part of my input. Yes 'none of the above' isn't desired, but that doesn't mean 'none of the above' isn't part of my input - and the above snippet of MrX is a different flavor of intent that seems simply incorrect since this thread isn't yet looking at the "determine specific wording", which was part of why I'm at Oppose all. Where the thread was looking for some sense of what's more or less contentious -- I have explained that depends on the phrasing and position -- and where the ending question of which is "notable enough for Lead" -- I give oppose all because that's not a valid basis for Lead content. While I could try to give some ranking as to what seems body larger or WEIGHT more prominent -- even that wraps into it depends on phrasing and position and would still leave all these selections as 'oppose' for content and conflict reasons. {{hl|My responses would be 'not X: blah bla bla, it should ask bla beeh bla'.|#ffeeee}}
Although the phrasing topic is not the question asked, that seemed to me an important sidenote to mention and it seems evidenced at F/G and I, J, and L. I also see A as conflicting with or competing with M because of the wording, both being some prominence to a sub-area of criticism and how it's phrased. So !vote is oppose all, bu good for eliciting concerns.|source=}}


User:Dave souza - I must disagree. Please note a split occurred and ID is recognized by RS as a different branch of creationism, which Creation science#Intelligent design splits off also says. (e.g. “By the mid-1990s, intelligent design had become a separate movement.”) And as Behe’s statements are phrased as something he said, so he is an appropriate sourcing. RS means credible for what the article line says, and covering the statements of the concept origin must by nature come from Behe as the developer of the concept.
From the ref you list, The creation science movement is distinguished from the intelligent design movement, or neo-creationism, because most advocates of creation science accept scripture as a literal and inerrant historical account, and their primary goal is to corroborate the scriptural account through the use of science.
CS *is* limited to YEC as shown both by definition of trying to produce evidence of biblical inerrancy (of the creation myth and flood myth) and by the demonstrated practices of it adhering to YEC, stereotyped as flood geology or fossil criticisms. CS is also explicitly and openly espousing God as the Creator.
Please consider and remove the line stating that “The IC argument was already featured in creation science by the mid 1960s.“ It does not suit WP:LEAD guidance as not a major part of this article, and goes against portrayal that the terminology “Irreducible Complexity” is from Behe. Whether the article would have Behe’s statements in the body giving credit to Paley also seems a body content item, and optional.


--
9. Here you feed and use it as an opportunity undermine every other editor who has collaborated to improve the article. I also have no idea why you need four space between each sentence.
{{tq2|User:Mitchellindahouse - Welcome. I agree the article is biased, mostly written by critics and heavily based on sources that are critics, and has had many remark about the bias. I figure it as largely due to WP goes by WEIGHT supposed to convey in proportion to the coverage and mainstream media -- is what it is. Plus WP editors here go a bit beyond that in selection bias and phrasing, but then everyone comes with their own Bias. I suggest that if you see something specific and clearly wrong go ahead and make a ] edit on that, and be prepared to TALK about it here as it may well get reverted.|source=}}


I seem to see most RS *do* draw a distinction between CS and ID as different branches of creationism, with CS firmly as part of YEC, see Creationism#Types and Creationism#Creation_science. Common features of creation science argument include: creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, criticism of radiometric dating through a technical argument about radiohalos, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the Genesis flood narrative (see flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" or "baramins" due to mutations. For another example, Categories of creationists … “Creation science” is the attempt by YEC proponents to use scientific means to bolster their view.“ versus OEC “Intelligent design (ID) is a newcomer to the scene and while it accepts an old Earth and most science, it also claims...”
Just seems like a muddled conflation or confusion here, not desirable for an article credibility or reader understanding. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


---
10. Here, you make the blatantly false statement that {{tq|"Version 3 was already and emphatically rejected."}} against clear evidence posted to the contrary here: ] (options A-E) and here:
{{tq2|User:Bdushaw - For what help it may be, I think the “version 3” refers to the first subthread of “We have to agree and specify wording”. The top thread “Covid-19 in the lead” was originally about whether to mention “Obamacare” or to use “Affordable Care Act” and had a few variants of one proposal, then came a “We have to agree” section with 5 variants of a different proposal. That whole “We have to” section had mostly objections, and unusually said “all” in many “Oppose all” feedbacks. Version 3 was already and emphatically rejected. This part is maybe getting some info for what bits the supporters felt most positive towards. Covid has substantial articles and is at ] - and it has a section here in his biographical article, but Lead position was decided against. In the last rfc, (and this one seems headed the same way) noted at the top of this thread:
"This RfC doesn't reach a consensus about whether to mention coronavirus in the lead of Trump's article." It also doesn't reach a consensus about what to say if we did mention it.|source=}}


@ User:Markbassett, the fact is that ID accepts Old Earth and Young Earth. As the topic expert Eugenie Scott writes on p. 133 of Evolution vs. creationism : an introduction (2009 edition), "Most ID proponents accept an ancient age of the universe and Earth, but there are some prominent ID supporters who are YECs, such as Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds. These creation science adherents reject evolution altogether," . The ID movement is a "big tent", avoiding discussion of the age of the Earth, and indeed Paul Nelson was part of the Pajaro Dunes conference where Behe first presented his ideas about "irreducible complexity". TomS TDotO has got it right, in 1999 Johnson said "he wants to temporarily suspend the debate between the young-Earth creationists, who insist that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and old-Earth creationists, who accept that the Earth is ancient.


--
11. Literally no one in this discussion mentioned deplorables but you. The subject of the subthread was whether Misplaced Pages's voice was appropriate for .
{{tq2|Folks - you are perhaps having fun in that echo chamber, but it might work out better to address the concerns of other views or to at least acknowledge and show hearing in ways that aren’t dismissive and shows restraint about calling them deplorables. FWIW - is there anything of a purely factual and/or neutral content that you think could actually get widespread support now? |source=}}


Scott does not seem to be speaking of IC in particular, nor "IC argument was already featured in creation science by the mid 1960s". His "anticipated in creation science; much as in Paley's conception" etcetera comes across as a generic that "too complex" or "design" were mentioned before, not that the specific concept Specified Complexity or the assertion of the 'irreducible' concept of this article existed before. Is this just his generic blurb that design was mentioned by CS and Paley before them, or did he provide evidence of someone in CS prior to Behe making a claim "irreducible" ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


---
12. ]
{{tq2|Well, try 2 got reverted ... {{hl|in lack of anything feedback|#ffeeee}} I tried a second time with different edit but the wikilink was disliked, so will try it without wikilink. Just keep it simple.|source=}}


you could try looking for reliable secondary sources for the ‘legal definition’ of CS:


I can seek some cites from academic sources such as Ronald Numbers or some WP:WEIGHT pop coverage. But really -- I already saw such, that's why I'm saying CS and ID are categorized separately and IC is not indicated as part of CS. At the end of it all, an assertion in "IC argument was already common in creation science by the mid 1960s" (now "featured") has WP:ONUS to provide a cite to such a work.
13. ] and tell the truth.
{{tq2|User:Bdushaw a few facts off in that review, let me restate.
Awiley did some paraphrasing of bits for A-M {{hl|from a casually said from prior TALK as well as article.|#ffeeee}} That later expanded a bit and he later added P. It’s not a careful examination of article nor all from him.
{{hl|Starship had previously done unrelated 5 sets of urls titled with kinds of “slow”,|#ffeeee}} they were not part of the current A thru P items and only A is about “slow”.
MrX summarised only the minority of editors who wanted anything as to what bits they’d like. Those opposed were expressly disinvited and their inputs are not reflected.
The question of whether there is to be Covid in the lead is not unanswered. {{hl|The answer in the consensus list is “no”.|#ffeeee}}
Those who object have no “obligation to suggest appropriate text”, that is kind of the point. If anything, the BRD guidance is for the *proposer* to listen to the objections already given. |source=}}


---


The has a yec vs ID, but not detailing IC vs CS
14.] and tell the truth.
{{tq2|Tsk. Well, I could use your phrasing and frame it there’s ''clearly'' significant opposition, and that clearly there is no consensus to include anything. I however can back that up with {{hl|fact of a numbered consensus said that twice, and by this thread the revert and amount of oppose in the top with unusual amount of ‘oppose all’.|#ffeeee}} So that should be your starting point. And that WP guidance the ONUS is on proposer, along with BRD to address the concerns. Instead there seems a persistent behaviour of presumptive declaration, denying or simply ignoring any other views even exist and overstating support. (This apparent announcing a count limited to non-opposition as a ‘consensus’ being a case in point.) Well, it’s an approach I don’t think improves content or leads to consensus, but for now I don’t see any willingness to address things so think it will remain at no consensus for anything. |source=}}


--
{{cob}}


The mentiones Arkansas verdict, where judge (William Overton) ruled that the ‘essential characteristics’ of what makes something scientific are:
I would happy to elaborate on any of these examples if you like.
1. It is guided by natural law;
2, It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. It is falsifiable.


I know that numerous editors have given you feedback about the quality of your comments in the threads in which they occur. Do you need me list those as well?
There have been a few discussions, requests, warnings, and a sanction, yet it seems that you have not adapted your approach. In fact, I think it's becoming worse.
*
*
*
*
*
*


The review of mentions that use of the term "creationism" to be synonymous with "creation science" -- the decision explicitly notes that although the defendants so used the term, “substantial evidence” from the philosopher Barbara Forrest on behalf of the plaintiffs “established that is only one form of creationism.”
I am asking one final time for you to ''please'' practice good talk page communication going forward. I believe that would entail posting less often; writing in complete, non-slang English sentences; citing sources to help resolve disputes; not posting false comments; not repeating your arguments; not making outlandish demands of other editors; not giving remedial instructions to experienced editors; not disparaging high quality sources that are used extensively throughout Misplaced Pages; not using troll comments as a springboard for criticizing your fellow editors; not using bizarre formatting in your comments; and basically just following common practice and ]. Sometimes it helps to read your comments out loud before you click submit. I hope this helps. Thank you. - ]] 18:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


:I strongly concur with all of {{u|MrX}}'s comments. I have found your Talk style to be so disruptive that I have abandoned disussions in exasperation, in cases I otherwise would not. I hope that isn't your intent. ] (]) 00:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


The NCSE Scott paper points to design being mentioned in articles such as hummingbird
:] Sorry, too much length and diversity made that post unmanageable. I get that you’re having general trouble reading my posts but otherwise it’s a bit vague plus TLDR in getting to something specific it is looking for. It seems too much a laundry list of just complaining which of my points you don’t like rather than engagement. I in turn fuss over your numerical errors and such, but that’s how it goes. I suggest if you pick one item to discuss or one point or change, things might go better. Meanwhile, in semi-response to what I can see among the various bits, I’ll respond to a few


The ARN response(?)
:1. I never got a response when I asked
points to Edwards v Aguillar definition that scientific creationism is committed to the six propositions.
“user:MrX OK, you're being unclear. Was that 'No' for #1 ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)” I did not feel you were directly responding, and this post makes me think you did not understand.
This is referring to the Keith bill
subject of the law


The refers to a Keith bill to teach creation-science,
:2. I don’t know why you were interested in a count but I can see your method needs work as it’s hugely off. Your link says 32 edits (this month?) as COVID, but auto-counting instead of looking has misled you. If you look at your link you will see a lot of Lafayette park and Deployment of troops to Portland among the several sub threads discussing Covid, and about 15 posts overall. When some are a near-simultaneous grouping of a large one followed by one or two tiny ones (some even have a comment like “tweak” or ‘forgot signature’) that’s a single post. Perhaps count signature lines or total bytes edited.
which defines it to include six propositions:
And then check your own totals and those of others - this came off as “I wish inconvenient truths would shut up” rather than “you post almost as much as SPECIFICO” or why frequently having something to say or someone asking for something would matter.
"the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate (a) sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (b) the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (c) changes only within fixed limits or originally created kinds of plants and animals; (d) separate ancestry for man and apes; (e) explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (f) a relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."


These six tenets taken jointly define scientific creationism for legal purposes. The Court in Edwards ruled that taken jointly this group of propositions may not be taught in public school science classrooms. (Nevertheless, the Court left the door open to some of these tenets being discussed individually.
:3. If you don’t feel that “1. Can we agree that response above is generally or commonly running to “Oppose all” ?” That’s your take. I however saw four “oppose all” in a row, (preceded by an “oppose”, support 1, support 3, and two more “oppose all”...). I think oppose “all” is unusual, especially when that’s being the general run in responses. As to your remark of 13 and 11 ... that’s far from the right count for the context - at the time of that post I think “Oppose all” was the most common response at 6 of 15, the others being something like a mix five for version 3, three version 2, one version 4, and one simple “oppose”.
See also the .


== It depends on context ==
:4. For the post mentioning rusf, one would need to read it in context of his post. Generally I don’t think you should read the post as just “I agree” or it would have been shorter.


For RSN discussions
:5. For the post about the long listing of cites in an argument as useless. They were noted as only an example that one can Google, not providing a relevant context or POINT. Volumes of copy-paste need not apply.


*'''It depends''' on context of what specifically is being cited for what specific article content. One couldn't cite them for medical advice for example, and information in a 1991 article may have become outdated. And I'd really like a link to what prior discussion was not resolved so it needed to come to this RFC for conflict resolution. Cheers
: Finally, I ask you to note D in BRD is for “discuss”, and try harder to let people TALK and value their inputs. If you’re not getting something, please ping me then so we clarify it in the TALK and the TALK winds up understanding all inputs. Saving it all up and posting here will not help the TALK content of weeks ago. Cheers ] (]) 04:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
::This is not the response I was hoping for after spending a large amount of time providing evidence and explanations of how your talk page comments are far more ] than helpful. I was expecting at least some self-examination and a commitment to communicate better. Your response is tantamount to ignoring the concern altogether. I'm astonished that that you believe I should have to ping you for a clarification of each of your unintelligible comments, rather than you accepting some responsibility for writing them in reasonably clear English in the first place. It's ironic that you find my appeal to be "too much length and diversity", yet almost all of the this consists of your own posts from just the past two weeks.


*'''No consensus'''. From the gigantic banner which appears at the top of this page -- '''Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.''' This is not supposed to be some kind of official council where we decide which sources are "good" and "bad".
::I believe your talk page participation is disruptive, for these reasons taken directly from ].
{{blockquote|style=background-color:#ffffee; font-size:85%;|
::4. Does not engage in consensus building:
:::a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
:::b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
::5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
:In addition, such editors might:
::6. Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, or Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles—or sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles.}}


*:Is there an actual live issue? Where are you thinking of its use and how?
::I also believe that you have been gaming the consensus building process by ] and ].


*'''It always depends on context''' - of what specific piece is being cited for what specific WP content. See ], specifically ] "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content." And remember that while ] is an important policy, RS is a guideline and not a policy, so a page does not necessarily follow it. RS even says it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though ] may apply." Cheers
::I brought this to your talk page out of respect, to give you an opportunity to objectively understand the concerns about your pattern of talk page editing. I had hoped that you would adjust your approach so that the disruption would abate. Regretfully, ] - ]] 12:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
] (]) 17:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::You should give careful consideration to ] and ]. - ]] 12:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


== Indefinite ban ==


Just a note about recollections August 2020 and followup ban for indefinite period about 'making their head blow up', an idiom I didn't understand and still don't understand what the term means or what particularly invoked it.
:::]] Again, the substantial length made this *factually* mechanically unmanageable to read or respond to, and the lack of ping at the point for confusion would *functionally* have been of more use to the article TALK thread. The folded amount of three weeks TALK unfolds in any reply on my mobi, causing a couple minutes delay to scrollscrollscroll before getting to the bottom for a reply. And yes, a ping in the TALK where there was confusion would have been better to get a point immediately clarified in the discussion for the possible benefit of all and the article or for the stopping of any pattern of confusing input. Asking weeks later in a private TALK exchange may help you understand better, or may express an accumulated thread to help me see it was not understandable, or may alter my behaviour in the future -- but it's just too late to help that particular article thread.


See
::: A smaller and more focused amount here with explicit goal, or multiple separate threads generally would work better. For this post though -- in lack of a specific request, I gave a general commentary to the first several as at least a start, because that alone took me considerable time. (scroll two minutes up, scroll two minutes down to enter, scroll two minutes back up to read, scroll back down to enter ...) And I would have hoped for at least somewhat of a further exchange with that content, even if it was you had other basis causing rejection of my points. I can come back and continue with the rest if you want a complete set, or for different discussion.


The proximate event was a lengthy post in my TALK (but not a ban request to admins) by MrX and I did a lengthy but partial response that night after work, intending to do more or look for further talk the next day. But the next day before coming home from work I was already indefinitely (seems perma-banned) for US politics post-1932 because my reply had struck an admin as horribly inadequate. Later the sanctioning admin said they'd noted prior talk to Awilli and had kept an eye on me, so it seems this was just the final straw. The TALK at the admin TALKpage itself got surprising sidebar interjections at by another admin for not doing it the right way and then added "you have no further business here" which I read as just sod off from WP entirely. That third party admin said he thought the OP was mostly saying I did too much that month and incoherent -- which maybe is definitely is fair to say and maybe so, but I don't think the initial admin meant that or would make it a perma ban if so -- they could have just said that and chastised me for poor mobi use and voiced recommended changes, and if resistent then done a ban for 6 months or something. Maybe the banning admin just saw things were going to go there and was saving time, I really don't know.
::: For how I was being heard in some confusion and my own wish for you also to better D - Discuss in the future ... I suggest simply let others talk instead of (observed in that thread) a run of dismissing comments under each opposing view, and to avoid the observed overstating a position and miscounts. Discussion is a two-way street and messy process, and quite often there simply will still be more than one view of things. This thread being an example. A presumptive approach or closed attitude and demand for one position just doesn't seem useful. An open discussion in the article TALK is I think the only way to get anywhere credible or respectable. Accepting other views exist and are valid is necessary to that.


* See
::: I do feel we have some points ironically in common here. I too am disappointed in your response after I did some effort, and might have wished for at least some self-examination, and feel you ignored what effort there was and the content of my post. I also have an impression of you -- in that very same thread -- as not responding to my question, disregarding other editors inputs, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus, campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and acting counter to policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, or Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles.
* And
* And


The 'blowing head up' was mentioned by a fourth admin and then a different user voiced support for me I was surprised by how three others interjected when I misthought I was only going to talk to that one person.
::: You might as well enjoy the different views -- life would be so boring if everyone thought the same. Cheers ] (]) 06:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
::::Markbassett, I truly don't understand why you referenced the length of my post as your reason for not "*factually* mechanically responding" (not sure exactly what that means), even though you did respond at length. You even managed to lash out at me personally in you last paragraph. Saying that I was "campaigning to drive away productive contributors", without any evidence, is nothing more than a personal attack. Regardless, I don't see much point in continuing this since we disagree on the premise of the discussion, and continuing it would risk you violating your topic ban. Best wishes to you. - ]] 11:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


As I recall, I also saw one person cheering my removal with a barnstar (?) though that was chastised by an admin as dancing on the grave. And a suggestion by the same to go thru past posts and remove my input. (Not sure how one can even do that.)
:::::] The mention of mechanical issue is expanding some for your noting my "too much length" -- that factually the mechanics of thumbing downdowndown puts a couple minutes delay between reading a bit and writing a bit. (It also made it more than a one day session could do to respond to all of it, so I initially posted just the first several bits which was as far as I got that day.)

::::: The end part is not intended as a lashing out, any more than I would expect yours was -- it is simply stating that ironically I felt often the same about you and your behaviour as you felt about mine. If it would perhaps encourage less hostile environment from you by my providing evidence, here goes an example of this thread.

::::: A bit of '''] - such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.''' I would see if you acknowledge it a verging at least when I point to the immediate negative responses at the "Oppose" opinions, and general negative comments at folks. To the first Oppose of MONGO one that MelanieN hatted and then a second one at him. The second Oppose of Rusf had you again - and the third of Basil, and the fourth of Atsme, and the fifth of Kind Tennis Fan, and the sixth at Amakaru, and the seventh at me, and the eighth of MrErnie. It stops there on 14 July, skipping PacMecEng, 121, and Malerooster, with only a few more negative comments and portrayals about editors going Oppose below that, before doing more negative comments at my Oppose down in the matrix section and a some dismissive ones to Bdushaw and Thucydides411.

::::: Again, you may well point to my posts -- and so evidencing the mentioned ironically I felt often the same about you and your behaviour as you did about mine. Cheers ] (]) 01:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s. Again, I find that ironically we have some points in common here about each other -- I would only make a few changes to your post for me in order to make something I might find reasonably to be posted to you:
:I am asking <s>one final time</s> for you to please practice good talk page communication going forward. I believe that would entail posting less often; <s>writing in complete, non-slang English sentences</s>; citing sources to help resolve disputes; not posting false comments; not repeating your arguments; not making outlandish demands of other editors; not giving remedial instructions to experienced editors; not disparaging <s>high quality</s> sources that are used extensively throughout Misplaced Pages; not <s>using troll comments as a springboard for</s> criticizing your fellow editors; <s>not using bizarre formatting in your comments</s>; ], and basically just following common practice and WP:TPG. Sometimes it helps to read your comments out loud before you click submit. I hope this helps. Thank you. Cheers ] (]) 01:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

== Article talkpages ==

Based on the above thread, MrX believes that your talkpage arguments are both incoherent and excessive. I don't necessarily agree with this assessment in totality but recommend you work to streamline your commentary and use reliable source references as much as possible to back your arguments and...restrict yourself to only one or two comments per Rfc or discussion. I also recommend for your own sanity that you venture outside the realm of politics and current events and find arenas that bring you more joy. Revisit the political arenas only when totally necessary to ''vote'' in an Rfc or make a singular standalone point perhaps not more than once even would be best. Long ago when I first started I noticed there was usually a lot more ability to work out ''deals'' or compromises, but over the last half dozen years Americans in particular have become much more polarized in their politics and consequently this is evident in the current editing environment on this site. During this transformation, I also noticed that ''deals'' are hard won, even in most cases not possible and arguing is usually a waste of time as no one is changing their minds ever. Therefore, your comments might be 10 but your ''vote'' is still just one, so repeated back and forths do little more than clog up talkpages, lead to further frustrations and contribute to carpal tunnel syndrome!--] (]) 16:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

:] Thank you. Ironically that above thread was for a mobi mechanically excessive and unfocused -- too long a single block if you reflect how many thumb passes it takes to get to the bottom each time I would write a bit of response so I'm writing a tidbit to something read two minutes prior. There didn't seem generally to be an actionable request or positive suggestions or a desire to have anything explained or debated in a sidebar - it read as a laundry list of presumptive judgemental views such as my noting there had been a run of "Oppose All" inputs was declared 'false'. Perhaps MrX was just not open to allowing that I might have other views for things in that above thread. I could wish that things in RFCs were more open to there simply are other views and have RFCs run to just let folks give their inputs to see what are all the points are in the mix, but it seems the general practice runs to posting debates at disliked views. In that particular set of five thread/subthreads, I don't think a single post would suit -- I will offer the thought that it was several different topics at least, and note MrX, SPECIFICO and Starship in particular did a lot in number and volume, and I along with MelanieN, Atsme, Scjessey, PackMecEng, etcetera wound up doing a number of posts as a natural part of three weeks flow for several topics.
:I can and do agree that some of my posts are too long and/or not understandable. I'm definitely less than perfect, and know I do each of those in emails so it's going to happen elsewhere. A ping at the time might help by getting clarification or give guidance when it could be of help.

:Venturing outside politics -- actually, I think mostly my inputs have been elsewhere, in both number and article content at least. The contentious articles do however have the most formal and informal RFCs, bring up the most interesting WP policy points, and suck up the most back-and-forth TALKs per microscopic change. Kind of like they embody the political nature and so is appropriate to the genre, but it can be annoying at times when seems that TALK just will not allow other views to be voiced/counted/heard as at all valid and see for others to just shut up and go away... a refusal to exhange or allow discussion. For what it's worth, I think the polarization on partisan basis started back in the 1970s, and has been affected by the second 'death of truth' in the 1990s and the social media blitz since the oughts. Ah well, it would be a boring old world otherwise, eh ? Cheers ] (]) 08:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
::The difference between this thread and the one above it is that you and I are writing to each other and not at each other. The fact that you do not share the above complaintant's world view is the primary reason they complain. They may have had similar complaints about someone they do share a world view with, but I fear it is unlikely they would have made the complaint, nor supported it had another made it. That this never went to Arbitration Enforcement and came here with a request that myself and others (who routinely do not share a world view with the complaintant) were asked to not add to that thread, indicates an effort to railroad you. <strike>Yet one person who has like minded political leanings who was recently almost topic banned, determined since they were not named, that now would be the time to post a near personal attack, yet the complaintant does not seem miffed by that editor's contribution....and noticing admins do zero about it.</strike> This topic ban allows you to distance yourself from them...consider it a gift.--] (]) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

:::I strenuously disagree with:
:::{{tq2|The fact that you do not share the above complaintant's world view is the primary reason they complain. They may have had similar complaints about someone they do share a world view with, but I fear it is unlikely they would have made the complaint, nor supported it had another made it.}}
:::I have not seen any other editor demonstrate the persistent disruption and intransigence Markbassett has, not even remotely close, and if I did I would voice concerns regardless of anyone’s worldview. ] (]) 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|one person who has like minded political leanings who was recently almost topic banned}} I follow where the facts lead in an era in which many promote a post-truth ethic, and I did not come close to a topic ban, despite efforts of some to pile-on with irrelevancies to make it happen. ] (]) 18:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
:::: Soibangla, you did come close, and remain close to a topic ban. I suggest you focus less on your fellow editors and leave Mark, who is already topic banned, alone. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
::::Soibangla, I apologize if my post was hurtful and I retract a portion of it.--] (]) 20:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

:::] - I would add that it's not only the cognitive block of different worldviews, but also for different attitudes to TALK and Discussion -- whether it's not allowed that other views exist and exchanges grinding thru a bit of listening is bad, or whether that's a good and unavoidable thing. I suppose if the sanction had gone thru steps of some process it would seem more reputable, but it all seems a bit abrupt and just a whim based on one day a enormous list of complaints gets dumped into my TALK -- not an article content or even article TALK -- and just a day is given to discuss that. I'd guess the lack of time and seeing if there was an benefit to article talk or ping prior to the sanction plus the "one last time" mentioned by MrX might mean they had some side discussion and he was directed to try one last time... though I'd think coming from someone else or shorter would have been more likely to achieve anything.
::: I don't think I can consider it a gift, don't see any way this winds up better for WP repute or the article practices, and don't think MrX wanted that or it helps me -- we would seem to agree this was the place to discuss this, and about what concerns for discussion are - and ironically each feel much the same way about the other in those areas. But hey, I could be wrong on any of these. Cheers ] (]) 01:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

== More discussion on how to handle abolished noble titles ==

Some of the responses to ] thread highlight the issues that our naming, WEIGHT, RS, and NPOV policies apparently do not sufficiently cover. It's not just Austria -- in basically any country where the monarchy was officially abolished and royal/noble titles outlawed, there is some constituent that continues to idolize aristocracy, and the most accessible sources (news articles, magazines) fervently cater to them. Is the POV promoted by rainbow media and aristocratic orgs more DUE than that of the government and academia, which generally do not mention ''this specific person'' by name but only cover the disputed title--which by extension ensures that individual doesn't personally, legally claim the title himself? While it would be great if everyone interpreted the above policies as you said you do in the earlier thread (with official constitutional decrees, governmental recognition, and/or personal non-use of a title having precedence when considering article titles as well as article body treatment), there is enough ambiguity that these arguments constantly re-emerge. ] (]) 22:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


] (]) 19:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:] General cases and specifics would definitely seem a way to make distinctions. For example, the generally useful guide for all might give strong value on ] of the common usage, except to respect a BLP person's explicit specific choices otherwise such as abdication or claims in dispute, plus the article should do NPOV and present both views in proportion to their prominence. And individual articles may go their own way in any case so embrace whatever is decided will be just a general guide.
: There might also be some agreement to approach things using specifics. Folks might agree to a principle of respecting specific mentions more than of general ones. Or folks might agree to take an approach of smaller bites. Perhaps things could be broken into specific kinds of cases (e.g. exiled vs born to title but never titled, vs born after the law, etcetera) and find that some are not contentious. Or perhaps things could be looked at as let's just get a guide specific to Austria and the living ] and so just discussioning a small number or specific articles. Just throwing out ideas here, you may have others. Cheers ] (]) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:44, 27 November 2024

More discussion on how to handle abolished noble titles

Some of the responses to this thread highlight the issues that our naming, WEIGHT, RS, and NPOV policies apparently do not sufficiently cover. It's not just Austria -- in basically any country where the monarchy was officially abolished and royal/noble titles outlawed, there is some constituent that continues to idolize aristocracy, and the most accessible sources (news articles, magazines) fervently cater to them. Is the POV promoted by rainbow media and aristocratic orgs more DUE than that of the government and academia, which generally do not mention this specific person by name but only cover the disputed title--which by extension ensures that individual doesn't personally, legally claim the title himself? While it would be great if everyone interpreted the above policies as you said you do in the earlier thread (with official constitutional decrees, governmental recognition, and/or personal non-use of a title having precedence when considering article titles as well as article body treatment), there is enough ambiguity that these arguments constantly re-emerge. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay General cases versus Specific items would definitely seem a useful way to make distinctions. For example, the ‘generally’ useful guide for all might give strong value on WP:WEIGHT of the common usage, except to respect a BLP person's explicit ‘specific choices’ otherwise such as abdication or claims in dispute, plus the article should do NPOV and present both views in proportion to their prominence. And individual articles may go their own way in any case so embrace whatever is decided will be just a general guide.
There might also be some agreement to approach things using specifics. Folks might agree to a principle of respecting ‘specific mentions’ more than of general ones. Or folks might agree to take an approach of smaller bites. Perhaps things could be broken into ‘specific kinds of cases’ (e.g. exiled vs born to title but never titled, vs born after the law, etcetera) and find that some are not contentious. Or perhaps things could be looked at as let's just get a guide ‘specific to Austria and the living Austrian nobility‘ and so just needs to discuss a small number of specific articles and actual situations. Just throwing out ideas here, you may have others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


MOS:CURRENCY

I sympathise with your view that something like The Neptuno (symbol, ♆, ISO 4217 code EWN) is the currency of Erewhon as an opening phrase is indeed rather deathly prose, especially as it duplicates the infobox. If there were to be a an advisory on it, MOS:CURRENCY would be the place for it but right now it has nothing to say. So if you want to pursue the question, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers would be the place to raise it. I guess one immediate riposte would be that the phrase in parentheses provides a landing zone for the (fictitious) Neptuno and EWN (currency) redirects. So you would need to anticipate that one in your proposal. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good point on the more general issue of duplication. I see the infobox as being the most essential information about the topic in a nutshell. . Duplication in the lead seems to be the norm rather than the exception: years of "custom and practice" got us here. I doubt it will change: some people just like the narrative form of the lead, others the capsule form of the infobox; the fondest adherents of each despise the other. Like some people swear by categories and others (like me) swear about them. You expressed the point well at wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section so I shall be interested to see the outcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
User:John Maynard Friedman - The IB post drew mention of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which includes a line saying "where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox". It mentions the ISO code for linguistics and the parameters of Chembox, and I note astronomical data Infoboxes for such as Sirius and Ceres (dwarf planet) are further examples of where reference data or notation should be in the IB. Maybe not all I could hope for, but it is something. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC).
Well if you want to move it on, the mechanism is an RFC. This, if it secures consensus, means that MOS:CURRENCY gets revised and the parenthesised text can be removed from articles. I can't see any chance of achieving it on an article-by-article basis. RFCs are a lot of work, it is critical to set it up properly. I've never done one, though I've seen quite a few failures (frequently at the first fence), so you would be well advised to ask to be mentored through it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Software engineering

Starting talk to give notes to myself .... re Hamilton claim she invented software engineering, or the term ... Think she was the team lead for Apollo modules software (team grew up to 'have almost 100 software engineers' so not trivial but ...)

Credited to Oettinger 1966 letter as President of the ACM President's Letter to the ACM Membership - 

 "We must recognize ourselves-not necessarily all of us, and not necessarily any one of us all the time-as members of a engineering profession, be it hardware engineering or software engineering, a profession without artificial and irrelevant boundaries like that between "scientific" and "business" applications."

Anthony Oettinger - President 1966-1968 of the , founded the Computer Science and Engineering Board of the National Academy of Sciences and chaired it for six years starting in 1967. In Dec 1966 ""The notion of software engineering is, thank goodness, beginning to be heard of more and more". and "Unless economic and engineering criteria are brought into the picture, sterile monsters result."

NATO Software Engineering

The Roots of Software Engineering, Princeton CWI quarterly 1990 (325-334) (An expanded version of a lecture presented at CWI on 1 February 1990. It is based on researchgenerously supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.) Begins wanting the context not just listing names, dates, and places of firsts. So trying to determine what people thought when they first began to talk about "software engineering". - one writer suggested originated 1965

  • Brian Randell ("Software Engineering in 1968", Prof. 4th Intern. Conf. on Software Engineering , 1) ascribes it to J.P. Eckert at th e Fall Joint Computer Conference in 1965, but th e transcript ofthe one panel discussion in which Eckert participated shows no evidence of the term "software engineering". D.T.Ross claims the term was used in courses he was teaching at MIT in the late '50s; cf. "Interview: Douglas RossTalks About Structured Analysis", Computer (July 1985), 80-88

- first came into common currency in 1967 when the Study Group on Computer Science of the NATO Science Committee called for an international conference on t he subject - As Brian Randell and Peter Naur point out in the introduction to theiredition of the proceedings, "The phrase 'software engineering' was deliberately chosen as beingprovocative, in implying the need for software manufacture to be on the types oftheoretical foundations and practical disciplines that are traditional in the established branchesof engineering."

  • Peter Naur, Brian Randell, J.N. Buxton (eds.), Software Engineering: Concepts and Techniques (NY:Petrocelli/Charter, 1976; hereafter NRB)

-Michael S Mahoney, "The History of Computing in the History of Technology", Annals of the History of Computing 10, no. 2 (April 1988):113-125 "To emphasize the need for a concerted effort along new lines, the committee coined the term “software engineering”, reflecting the view that the problem required the combination of science and management thought characteristic of engineering. "

-Andrew L. Friedman and Dominic S Cornford’s 1989 book Computer Systems Development: History, Organization and Implementation. ... - Martin Boogard’s 1994 thesis, Defusing the Software Crisis ... - 1996 Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray published their overview of the history of computing, Computer: A History of the Information Machine - two conferences on the history of software held in Germany around this time. The first, at Scholss Dagstuhl in 1996, was dedicated to the history of software engineering and included veterans of the 1968 conference

History of software engineering has "Early usages for the term software engineering include a 1965 letter from ACM president Anthony Oettinger, lectures by Douglas T. Ross at MIT in the 1950s, and Margaret H. Hamilton as a way of giving it legitimacy during the development of the Apollo Guidance Computer. "

Software engineering had "The term "software engineering" was coined by Anthony Oettinger and then was used in 1968 as a title for the world's first conference on software engineering, sponsored and facilitated by NATO. "

The origins of the term "software engineering" have been attributed to various sources. The term "software engineering" appeared in a list of services offered by companies in the June 1965 issue of COMPUTERS and AUTOMATION and was used more formally in the August 1966 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 9, number 8) “letter to the ACM membership” by the ACM President Anthony A. Oettinger, it is also associated with the title of a NATO conference in 1968 by Professor Friedrich L. Bauer, the first conference on software engineering. Margaret Hamilton described the discipline "software engineering" during the Apollo missions to give what they were doing legitimacy.

Springer History of Software Engineering by O'Regan starts "This chapter presents a short history of software engineering from its birth at the Garmisch conference in Germany, and it is emphasized that software engineering is a lot more than just programming. "

IEEE, N. Wirth "A Brief History of Software Engineering" https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/Miscellaneous/IEEE-Annals.pdf here] The difficulties brought big companies to the brink of collapse. In 1968 a conference sponsored by NATO was dedicated to the topic (1968 at Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany) . Although critical comments had occasionally been voiced earlier , it was not before that conference that the difficulties were openly discussed and confessed with unusual frankness, and the terms software engineering and software crisis were coined. 1. P. Naur and B. Randell, Eds. Software Engineering. 

Report on a Conference held in Garmisch, Oct. 1968, sponsored by NATO

2. E.W. Dijkstra. Some critical comments on advanced programming. Proc. IFIP Congress, Munich, Aug. 1962. 3. R.S. Barton. A critical review of the state of the programming art. Proc. Spring Joint Computer Conference, 1963, pp 169 – 177.

Grady Booch The History of Software Engineering The Origins of the Term Many suggest it came from the 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering, coined by Friedrich Bauer. Others have pointed to the 1966 letter by Anthony Oettinger in Com�munications of the ACM, wherein he used the term “software engineering” to make the distinction between computer science and the building of software-intensive systems.1 Even ear�ier, in the June 1965 issue of Computers and Automation, there appeared a classified ad seeking a “systems software engineer.” All the data I have points to Margaret Hamilton as the person who first coined the term. Having worked on the SAGE (Semi-automatic Ground Environment) program, she became the lead developer for Skylab and Apollo while working at the Draper Lab. According to an (unpublished) oral history, she began to use the term “software engineering” sometime in 1963 or 1964 to distinguish her work from the hardware engineering taking place in the nascent US space program

A Brief History of Software Engineering — Part 1 mentions him

IEEE post The Origins of the Term says "Many suggest it came from the 1968 NATO conference on Software Engineering, coined by Friedrich Bauer. Others have pointed to the 1966 letter by Anthony Oettingger in Communications of the ACM wherein he used the term "software engineering" to make the distinction between computer science and the building of software-intensive systems. Even earlier, in the June 1965 issue of Computers and Automation there appeared a classified ad seeking a "systems software engineer." "

1968 Report on the NATO conference And pg 13 background "The phrase ‘software engineering’ was deliberately chosen as being provocative, in implying the need for software manufacture to be based on the types of theoretical foundations and practical disciplines, that are traditional in the established branches of engineering" and pg75 mentions others already at "In the United States National Academy of Sciences Research Board one education committee being formed is precisely to study software engineering as a possible engineering education activity."

Princeton in Finding a History for Software Engineering starts "Dating from the first international conference on the topic in October 1968, software engineering just turned thirty-five."

John W. Tukey, a chemist and statistician, is credited with the first printed use of the term "software" when he wrote a scientific article in 1958. Elsewhere saw "From soft +‎ -ware, by contrast with hardware (“the computer itself”). Coined 1953 by Paul Niquette; first used in print by John Tukey 1958."

his blog post titled The origin of “software engineering” Bertrand Meyer writes that the term was not coined in 1968 during the famous NATO conference

A different blog The Beginnings of Software Engineering has "The term “software engineering” was first coined in 1972 by Dr. David Parnas when he published the paper, “On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules.” This paper — and the dawn of software engineering — was the result of several notable innovations that happened years prior."


Slideshare History of Software Engineering includes "Margaret Hamilton became the lead developer for Skylab and Apollo while working at the Draper Lab. According to an (unpublished) oral history, she began to use the term "software engineering" sometime in 1963 or 1964 to distinguish her work from the hardware engineering taking place in the nascent US space program." Though elsewhere History of Software Engineers also says 1963 "In 1963, Margaret Hamilton, coined the term software engineering while working on developing the software for the Apollo spacecraft." (though this is flawed by here was no Apollo program in 1963)

Niklaus Wirth wrote A Brief History of Software Engineering (2008) which includes "The term Software Engineering became known after a conference in 1968, when the difficulties and pitfalls of designing complex systems were frankly discussed." ... "In 1968 a conference sponsored by NATO was dedicated to the topic (1968 at Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany) . Although critical comments had occasionally been voiced earlier , it was not before that conference that the difficulties were openly discussed and confessed with unusual frankness, and the terms software engineering and software crisis were coined. " 1. P. Naur and B. Randell, Eds. Software Engineering. Report on a Conference held in Garmisch, Oct. 1968, sponsored by NATO 2. E.W. Dijkstra. Some critical comments on advanced programming. Proc. IFIP Congress, Munich, Aug. 1962. 3. R.S. Barton. A critical review of the state of the programming art. Proc. Spring Joint Computer Conference, 1963, pp 169 – 177.

- but I didn't see the topic or SE term in the IFIP abstracts of papers (Aug 27-Sep 1) The session list .. I do see Barton in 1963 found here and criticism of the term 'software' but no mention of 'software engineering'

Grady Booch wrote The History of Software Engineering "Many suggest it came from the 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering, coined by Friedrich Bauer4. Others have pointed to the 1966 letter by Anthony Oettinger in Communications of the ACM wherein he used the term “software engineering” to make the distinction between computer science and the building of software-intensive systems5. Even earlier, in the June 1965 issue of Computers and Automation, there appeared a classified ad seeking a “systems software engineer” 6 . All the data I have points to Margaret Hamilton as the person who first coined the term. Having worked on the SAGE program, she became the lead developer for Skylab and Apollo while working at the Draper Labs. According to an (unpublished) oral history, she began to use the term “software engineering” sometime in 1963 or 1964 to distinguish her work from the hardware engineering taking place on the nascent US space program7" 4 Naur, Peter and Randell, Brian. Software Engineering: Report on a conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee. Brussels, Belgium: NATO Scientific Affairs Division, January 1969. 5 Oettinger, Anthony. “President’s Letter to the ACM Membership.” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 9, No. 12, 1966. 6 Computers and Automation. New York, New York: Edmund Berkeley and Associates, June 1965. 7 NASA. Margaret Hamilton, Apollo Software Engineer, Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom. 6 August 2017.


Maybe the ngram corpus helps, at least it shows that Software Engineer peak (in print) in 1990, here

says "The term software engineering first was used in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Programmers have always known about civil, electrical and computer engineering and debated what engineering might mean for software." Markbassett (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Intelligent Design type of creationism

Discussion on Irreducible complexity over a lead line The argument that evolution cannot explain complex mechanisms because intermediate precursors would be non-functional was already common in creation science by 1990.

- I'm gobsmacked about the conflating young-earth Creation Science typically Flood geology and explicit biblical linkages with old earth creationsim of Intelligent Design -- I see one source said something, but not really LEAD prominent and not widespread ... But I do see remarks from ID that it does not take a position so can be either ? Markbassett (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


---

User:Dave souza - I must disagree. Please note a split occurred and ID is recognized by RS as a different branch of creationism, which Creation science#Intelligent design splits off also says. (e.g. “By the mid-1990s, intelligent design had become a separate movement.”) And as Behe’s statements are phrased as something he said, so he is an appropriate sourcing. RS means credible for what the article line says, and covering the statements of the concept origin must by nature come from Behe as the developer of the concept. From the ref you list, The creation science movement is distinguished from the intelligent design movement, or neo-creationism, because most advocates of creation science accept scripture as a literal and inerrant historical account, and their primary goal is to corroborate the scriptural account through the use of science. CS *is* limited to YEC as shown both by definition of trying to produce evidence of biblical inerrancy (of the creation myth and flood myth) and by the demonstrated practices of it adhering to YEC, stereotyped as flood geology or fossil criticisms. CS is also explicitly and openly espousing God as the Creator. Please consider and remove the line stating that “The IC argument was already featured in creation science by the mid 1960s.“ It does not suit WP:LEAD guidance as not a major part of this article, and goes against portrayal that the terminology “Irreducible Complexity” is from Behe. Whether the article would have Behe’s statements in the body giving credit to Paley also seems a body content item, and optional.

--

I seem to see most RS *do* draw a distinction between CS and ID as different branches of creationism, with CS firmly as part of YEC, see Creationism#Types and Creationism#Creation_science. Common features of creation science argument include: creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, criticism of radiometric dating through a technical argument about radiohalos, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the Genesis flood narrative (see flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" or "baramins" due to mutations. For another example, Categories of creationists … “Creation science” is the attempt by YEC proponents to use scientific means to bolster their view.“ versus OEC “Intelligent design (ID) is a newcomer to the scene and while it accepts an old Earth and most science, it also claims...” Just seems like a muddled conflation or confusion here, not desirable for an article credibility or reader understanding. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---

@ User:Markbassett, the fact is that ID accepts Old Earth and Young Earth. As the topic expert Eugenie Scott writes on p. 133 of Evolution vs. creationism : an introduction (2009 edition), "Most ID proponents accept an ancient age of the universe and Earth, but there are some prominent ID supporters who are YECs, such as Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds. These creation science adherents reject evolution altogether," . The ID movement is a "big tent", avoiding discussion of the age of the Earth, and indeed Paul Nelson was part of the Pajaro Dunes conference where Behe first presented his ideas about "irreducible complexity". TomS TDotO has got it right, in 1999 Johnson said "he wants to temporarily suspend the debate between the young-Earth creationists, who insist that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and old-Earth creationists, who accept that the Earth is ancient.

--

Scott does not seem to be speaking of IC in particular, nor "IC argument was already featured in creation science by the mid 1960s". His "anticipated in creation science; much as in Paley's conception" etcetera comes across as a generic that "too complex" or "design" were mentioned before, not that the specific concept Specified Complexity or the assertion of the 'irreducible' concept of this article existed before. Is this just his generic blurb that design was mentioned by CS and Paley before them, or did he provide evidence of someone in CS prior to Behe making a claim "irreducible" ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

you could try looking for reliable secondary sources for the ‘legal definition’ of CS:

I can seek some cites from academic sources such as Ronald Numbers or some WP:WEIGHT pop coverage. But really -- I already saw such, that's why I'm saying CS and ID are categorized separately and IC is not indicated as part of CS. At the end of it all, an assertion in "IC argument was already common in creation science by the mid 1960s" (now "featured") has WP:ONUS to provide a cite to such a work.

---

The BBC types of creationism has a yec vs ID, but not detailing IC vs CS

--

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentiones Arkansas verdict, where judge (William Overton) ruled that the ‘essential characteristics’ of what makes something scientific are: 1. It is guided by natural law; 2, It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3. It is testable against the empirical world; 4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and 5. It is falsifiable.


The review of Understanding creation science and intelligent design mentions that use of the term "creationism" to be synonymous with "creation science" -- the decision explicitly notes that although the defendants so used the term, “substantial evidence” from the philosopher Barbara Forrest on behalf of the plaintiffs “established that is only one form of creationism.”


The NCSE Scott paper points to design being mentioned in articles such as hummingbird in CRSQ Vol.14

The ARN response(?) here points to Edwards v Aguillar definition that scientific creationism is committed to the six propositions. This is referring to the Keith bill subject of the law

The Edwards v. Aguillard case refers to a Keith bill to teach creation-science, which defines it to include six propositions: "the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate (a) sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (b) the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (c) changes only within fixed limits or originally created kinds of plants and animals; (d) separate ancestry for man and apes; (e) explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (f) a relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."

These six tenets taken jointly define scientific creationism for legal purposes. The Court in Edwards ruled that taken jointly this group of propositions may not be taught in public school science classrooms. (Nevertheless, the Court left the door open to some of these tenets being discussed individually. See also the decision.

It depends on context

For RSN discussions

  • It depends on context of what specifically is being cited for what specific article content. One couldn't cite them for medical advice for example, and information in a 1991 article may have become outdated. And I'd really like a link to what prior discussion was not resolved so it needed to come to this RFC for conflict resolution. Cheers
  • No consensus. From the gigantic banner which appears at the top of this page -- Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. This is not supposed to be some kind of official council where we decide which sources are "good" and "bad".
  • Is there an actual live issue? Where are you thinking of its use and how?
  • It always depends on context - of what specific piece is being cited for what specific WP content. See WP:RS, specifically WP:RSCONTEXT "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content." And remember that while WP:V is an important policy, RS is a guideline and not a policy, so a page does not necessarily follow it. RS even says it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply." Cheers

Markbassett (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite ban

Just a note about recollections August 2020 and followup ban for indefinite period about 'making their head blow up', an idiom I didn't understand and still don't understand what the term means or what particularly invoked it.

See here

The proximate event was a lengthy post in my TALK (but not a ban request to admins) by MrX and I did a lengthy but partial response that night after work, intending to do more or look for further talk the next day. But the next day before coming home from work I was already indefinitely (seems perma-banned) for US politics post-1932 because my reply had struck an admin as horribly inadequate. Later the sanctioning admin said they'd noted prior talk to Awilli and had kept an eye on me, so it seems this was just the final straw. The TALK at the admin TALKpage itself got surprising sidebar interjections at here by another admin for not doing it the right way and then added here "you have no further business here" which I read as just sod off from WP entirely. That third party admin said he thought the OP was mostly saying I did too much that month and incoherent -- which maybe is definitely is fair to say and maybe so, but I don't think the initial admin meant that or would make it a perma ban if so -- they could have just said that and chastised me for poor mobi use and voiced recommended changes, and if resistent then done a ban for 6 months or something. Maybe the banning admin just saw things were going to go there and was saving time, I really don't know.

The 'blowing head up' was mentioned by a fourth admin and then a different user voiced support for me here I was surprised by how three others interjected when I misthought I was only going to talk to that one person.

As I recall, I also saw one person cheering my removal with a barnstar (?) though that was chastised by an admin as dancing on the grave. And a suggestion by the same to go thru past posts and remove my input. (Not sure how one can even do that.)

Markbassett (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)