Talk:Wedge Strategy

	This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Document size

As the document isn't very big I've reproduced the whole thing here. It probably should be required reading as it outlines the goals and strategy of the anti-science movement.--Bob_M (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Now I think about this again, would it be better to put this up as a side by side so that we can add commentary?--Bob_M (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I think it could be interesting to have a side by side providing examples of the strategies in actual use, kind of illuminating the true nature of the 'scientific' claims. I'm not volunteering, tho, at least at the moment. MyaR 15:59, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

And I thought the protocols of Zion were scary... at least those were fake. MiddleMan 15:33, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, apparently it was originally supposed to be confidential but it leaked out. The story about how it leaked is here: http://www.seattleweekly.com/2006-02-01/news/discovery-s-creation.php --Bob_M (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Wedge Document

Man, I'd love to see the plan Thomas Huxley had...it must of been planned out as far as his grandsons. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:27, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

"Tell the truth, and see who listens"? --Gulik@work(67.102.192.7 14:58, 13 August 2007 (CDT))

Jesus Fucking Christ!

I proposition that we all move to South Korea (world's highest percentage of atheists—51% of the population!). -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Spelling error or not?

This spells "heels" as "heals"--was that in the original document? I know intelligent design supporters usually aren't the most educated people, but shouldn't it be changed? -Darthmilo77 19:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Check the source, correct if wrong? (We do link to the source, don't we?) human 19:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

That typo is in the pdf original. However, I foudn another one that wasn't. Thanks! human 20:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Needs a different introduction

This article needs a true introduction. What is the Wedge Document? Where did it come from? Who wrote it? When? etc. Fine to reproduce it in it's entirety, but without provenance, how seriously should it be taken? Thanks Jimaginator 12:56, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Yes, it could be expanded. But we do say that the Discovery Institute has acknowledged its authenticity and it's not a hoax. But, yes, a but more wordage might be in order.--Bob^{bing up} 13:15, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Looks pretty clear to me... "The Discovery Institute has not only acknowledged authorship of the document but also defended its content"? And that's footnoted... ħuman 14:43, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Well, IMHO, it should start by explaining briefly what the Wedge Document is. As it is, the assumption is that the reader knows already. Jimaginator 23:47, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Um, it quotes the entire fucking thing! No assumptions necessary: "text follows"? I'll try to rewrite it, with moar klarity? ħuman 23:58, 21 November 2008 (EST)

"Science" as a ephemism for "naturalism"

Hi Nx, long time no see. =) Lumenos (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I propose to amend the open paragraph as follows:

<quote> The Wedge Document is a publication of the Discovery Institute which outlines their goal to bring the "controversy" over "evolution" versus "intelligent design" into the public arena, in a way politically contrived to get less informed members of the public to side with the idea of "teach both sides"; the one side being science, the other religion. Like your standardized sport teams, they don't for a moment entertain the possibility that it might be rather difficult to figure some of this stuff out or that heathens also believe in intelligent design. </quote> Lumenos (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was wicked snarky this way but apparently Nx disagrees. I thought we were describing the Discovery Institute's manifest "goals" which would be different from the latent goals that the informed members of the public, are wise to. Perhaps we are not permitted to be so objective in this venue. Lumenos (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lumenos, fuck off. -- Nx / talk 18:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the original wording was better.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I've always respected your ability to communicate without developing foam around the mouth. I guess I am out voted, in this here subculture. Lumenos (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bob. The proposed change is barely even functional English, sadly. And what's with the secure link to WP? ħuman 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know what to tell you when you don't say what is wrong. It seems to make nearly perfect sense in many of my perceptions. =) I made a new edit with no little padlock, for you. Lumenos (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I said it was illiterate. The grammar fails. ħuman 05:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have various objections. 1. Science and metaphysical naturalism. While naturalism is probably the main thing to which the DI is objecting to I think many readers would understand the broader term science better. 2. Religion and Intelligent Design. This is taking on board the very trick that the DI is trying to pull. The very first line of their introduction starts talking about God. It's obliviously promoting religion and trying to call it ID. 3. Your links to other sites including your own. We usually link to our own articles on these subjects and we usually avoid linking to WP anyway. 4. Clarity. I find the final part rather hard to follow.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘1-2) Well perhaps DI only uses the word "God" because many readers would (mis)"understand" the broader term better. "Alien" sounds so ungodly, you know. And who would bother funding or listening to such an effort? 3) I understand many a hive mind would prefer we all use a lexicon they can control. I'm not sure if you are telling me this because you feel it some sort of righteous duty that I should want to adhere to. =) Is this like a rule here? 4) Okay I rewrote. (Still snarky though <snicker, snicker>) Lumenos (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Put Wedge Strategy in here, make gold

I'd like to move most of Wedge strategy into this article and then make it a cover article. It's just the sort of thing that should be a cover article - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like you do that as well, Sir. I'd like we all expand upon it, or make one of our own for preaching down to sinners in our local congregations. Lumenos (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, it's barely bronze. And the layout makes it confusing as to when the quoting of the document ends. Perhaps we should move the actual document to a sub page for clarity? ħuman 20:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for a side by side.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Only if perhaps there still remains the outline structure with side-by-side in certain sections, would I support such a preposterous idear. 71.105.4.106 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait this is not our battle plan here? I already made up informative pamphlets. I change my mind then. Keep it as I have made it. 71.105.4.106 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I really can't tell what is and what isn't the actual document just looking at it. It's pretty messy. Also, I think the two need to stay separate. ^bomination 21:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Side by side sounds good to me. The document a bit too long and complicated to be dealt with in any other way, and the original document is split in to sections that lend themselves to a side by side analysis and rebuttal. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 21:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Auuugh NOOOO! Disorder it is. What is MediaWiki without its outlining TOC? Better for reference purposes. Better to find the answer to the question one has in mind. 71.105.4.106 (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)