Talk:Teleological argument/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Translation of Voltaire

Time to bring this to the talkpage, and try to find a better solution:

  1. diff of edit. user:Tstrobaugh gives as edit summary: I don't understand why this translation, with source, was removed and replace with a translation without a source? (I was the one who did that amongst various edits.)
  2. I reverted. Edit summary: translations need no source; and the main aim is to write better articles
  3. second revert by Tstrobaugh. No real edit summary but posted to my talkpage a link to Wikipedia:NOENG#Non-English_sources which says that Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians.

For reference:

  • The French of Voltaire: L'univers m'embarrasse, et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge existe, et n'ait point d'horloger
  • The 1908 translation favoured by Tstrobaugh: I'm puzzled by the world; I cannot dream The timepiece real, its maker but a dream
  • My translation: The universe troubles me, and I can not imagine that this watch exists, and it has no watchmaker at all
  • Response: The policies just tell us about general "preferences" so I believe there is nothing shocking about my edit. The main aim is still to write a good encyclopedia. See WP:IAR. No policy anywhere tells us we have to use any specific source at all, no matter how reliable, and concerning translations, this is explicitly not a strict requirement. I attempted to replace a bad translation with a better one. Tstrobaugh has not made any criticism of the actual quality of the editing which in this case was translating. So is this just a technicality, or is there something wrong with my translation? And if we must be concerned over the fine points of policy, why are we using a quotation from a 1908 dictionary of quotes?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I did make a criticism of the editing, which you yourself quoted: "I don't understand why this translation, with source, was removed and replace with a translation without a source?" My issues is that I have a citation per Wikipedia:NOENG#Non-English_sources which says that Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. If you want a different quote, I'm fine with that, just put a citation in. A entry with a citation is better than one without, don't you think? If you want a point by point argument that is fine too. Here goes; You seem to be perturbed about the age of the dictionary of quotes (1908), is it your contention that the English or French language has changed sufficiently that your disparagement holds any weight? Or am I missing the point of why you brought that up? Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk)
  • Here is my concern: If there is any reason to be using this quote, it has to be to inform readers about the subject of this Wikipedia article. "I cannot dream the timepiece real" is not very clear English, and not required by the French.
  • So please explain again what is wrong with my translation? Or are you saying you have no opinion about the clarity or quality of the translation but you want to change it anyway? In that case just to repeat, there is no policy demanding that we use this source for the translation. You should have more than just the policy as your argument. Translation is just a type of editing. It is just using language, and as such it needs no sourcing. That is what the policy says.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
If there is any reason to use this quote? Really? The reason is it's sourced. If you could explain to me why you believe your statement: "You should have more than just the policy as your argument" is true, I'd appreciate it. It seems that the only reason is that, according to you, you like your own phrasing better.Tstrobaugh (talk)
But there is no policy which says we have to use this source (or any source). (That is why you need more than that policy you cite.) So what other argument do you have? Is there something wrong with the French? Editing, including translating, is indeed all about finding the phrasing which we think is better. There is nothing wrong with changing phrasing because it is better. It is what we are supposed to do. You seem not to care whether the phrasing is better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
No, the onus is on you. You have to come up with a better argument. You say "But there is no policy " and also " The policies just tell us about general "preferences"". Is this (Wikipedia:NOENG#Non-English_sources which says that Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians) considered a "policy" by you? So my position is to use the "preferred translation" and is supported by wikipedia policy. I really don't see that you have a leg to stand on, certainly no convincing argument. Time to move on.Tstrobaugh (talk)
I don't much like either translation. I'm no Francophone, but the English seems odd in both. (Where does the "at all" come from?) Since the Voltaire piece was in verse, I can see why the 1908 one tries to rhyme. I can offer four other cited translations:

The universe perplexes me, and for me it is unthinkable That this watch exists, yet without a watchmaker.

Christianity Unveiled Paul Henri Thiry Holbach Hodgson Press, 2008 p. 285


I canot believe that this watch can exist and have no watchmaker.

A Pocket Philosophical Dictionary Oxford University Press, 11 Aug 2011 p. 271


this watch could be and watchmaker have none.

Voltaire and his times. Authorized transl (Google eBook) Laurence Louis Félix Bungener 1854 p. 462


The Universe troubles me, and much less can I think That this clock exists and should have no clockmaker.

From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and Evolution Etienne Gilson Ignatius Press, 2009 p. 126

Myrvin (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Myrvin! Yes you are right that the lines are in verse, but the French is not as odd as that 1908 version. Tstrobaugh are any of these acceptable? I believe the first two, from 2008 and 2011 are best? (Concerning your position above, I stick by what I said. The ultimate aim is to improve articles, which you are putting aside contrary to WP:IAR, and the policy you quote does not tell us that we need to follow WP:RS for translations, if it means using a poor 1908 translation that is controversial to editors. I was about to propose that we take it to a broader forum.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, let's take it to WP:RFC. The only concern I would have is WP:NPOV, so I would like to use dictionaries of quotes, encyclopedias of quotes, etc. Not texts whose primary purpose is a for or against teleological argument. So, in theory, I would accept the 2011 one, although it bears no relationship to the actual French, which, I think, is one of your arguments. So let's get some more people's opinions. Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk)
Why??? This reaffirms my concern about your pursuit of technical concerns: If there is a solution, let's just put it in and use it? In any case please define what the RFC would be about? OTOH I am surprised by your sudden profession of a concern with the accuracy of the French translations, not only mine (which you refused to discuss the accuracy of) but now we have several to choose from, and even sourced. What is the inaccuracy you are seeing? Please explain your real concern or else why go to an RFC? Maybe we can find a solution to whatever is worrying you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
That made me laugh, I have to say. This is your quote: "I attempted to replace a bad translation with a better one." What would winning this argument look like to you? If I agree with one of your concerns about accuracy you are "surprised". Very funny. "find a solution to whatever is worrying you". I have no ax to grind. I found the actual citation in French and put the citation in, I found a citation for the translation and put it in. You deleted it. You are the one with concerns. Look at my edits to Cicero, I do the same thing, cite actual Latin text and put in a citation for the quote. Very simple. All according to wiki policy. Building a better encyclopedia and all that. What would be upsetting to you to leave it as it is? What is worrying you? It's obviously not "clarity or quality of the translation" as you state above. Now I'm suspicious of your motives and would like more input on this. Leave it or move to RFC.Tstrobaugh (talk)
"What would winning this argument look like to you?" This sentence on its own says everything I wanted to say. You are trying to win. I declare you the winner. Now, can you give a straight answer? Myrvin agrees with me that your 1908 quotation is odd. Myrvin has given us several more modern ones to choose from. I think they look better. Clear consensus then. So we can move forward if you will allow it: pick one of those newer and better options or explain a new concern please? You do know that in principle WP "prefers" newer translations right? The 2008 and 2009 ones additionally appear to be from scholarly sources, which is another preference.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
"You do know that in principle WP "prefers" newer translations right?". No I don't really, could you provide the source for that policy, as I provided a source for my argument? I addressed this already, there hasn't been significant changes in the French or English language in last 100 years, do you dispute this? If not then what is your objection to a 1908 translation based on? But I guess I'll see that in the policy source you provide. But then sources on wikipolicy don't matter anyway then do they? Or so you've been saying all along. Is your position now that you will accept a translation with a citation? Just not the one that is already there? That didn't seem to be your position throughout this discussion. Please confirm. Clear consensus? Nothing is clear to me, including why you started all of this.Tstrobaugh (talk)
Why not just WP:AGF? The edit where I changed that text was part of a series of general edits I think. It was just trying to improve the text. I have no special mission. Myrvin has agreed that it looked odd, so it was not just a random idea I had. The concept that WP prefers newer and more scholarly translations is simply based upon the fact that you want us to use sourcing norms, i.e. WP:RS, in order to judge translations, and not the quality of the writing/editing/translating, which is the more normal approach. Do you accept that WP prefers newer and more scholarly sources generally?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "L'univers m'embarrasse et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge existe et n'ait point d'horloger." (The universe embarrasses me, and I cannot think That this watch exists and has no watch-maker.) Man and God: a physiological meditation, tr. from the French By Jean Marie A. Perot 1881 ISBN-13: 9781279158883. This is a source for the most literal translation I can find. But literal is flat, as you said earlier. Not everyone can hear the music in the words, that;s why (to eliminate arguments) sources should be cited. We could seek guidance from an expert.Tstrobaugh (talk)
That is not a literal translation. It is treating a word with the same etymology as having the same meaning. (The French term is "faux amis".) Please remember what this article is about. If we are going to quote this poem it should at least be in a way which is clear in meaning, not necessarily "poetic". (Voltaire's French is not really very ornate anyway. It is something he is famous for. French often "feels" ornate to English speakers because normal French words have often been loaned as fancy English ones.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
More policy: Wikipedia:Style#Foreign-language_quotations "Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation".Tstrobaugh (talk)
Of course if we use a published translation we should cite that publication. I think no one would dispute that? BTW I have started a thread at WP:RSN, looking for more opinions. See [1].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I propose as a solution, since this is a very famous quote, similar to the problems of translating Bible passages, that we not put the translations in the body of the text, but put several in the footnote section. That way if somebody doesn't think their particular view is represented then they can just add a source for a different translation WP:BRD. Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk)
But I understand that there is a preference on English Wikipedia to have all texts in English if possible, and this clearly is very possible. I can not understand why you are making such complications about this subject. Myrvin's post should have finished this discussion, and the WP:RSN discussion should now finish it again. The French is not complex at all in this quote, and should not need so much discussion. The simple fact of the matter is that wikt:songer does not mean dream in this context and m'embarrasse does not mean embarrass. All the modern scholarly translations are clear on this and you can ask any bilingual person.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As evidenced by our continued discussion it is obvious an agreement has not been reached, I welcome outside input. I proposed a solution similar to what solves the arguments over biblical translations. "you can ask any bilingual person" I suggested an expert to intervene above and you were silent on that. When I asked what winning would look like to you, I was serious, what do you need here? "All the modern scholarly translations are clear" If this is true let's just cite some of them and move on. You never directly respond to any of my points. This is just going in circles.Tstrobaugh (talk)
Maybe you have completely misunderstood me although I believe I was clear: I propose the 2008 one, which was also a preference on WP:RSN by a third party. I am not trying to win anything. I was just doing general copyediting when I replaced this text. It is normal to prefer a better text to a worse one. Concerning your idea of a formal RfC I asked how you would define it and I still find it hard to understand your position, because you have run out of rationales. Of course everyone sometimes feels a tweak when they see an edit of theirs changed, but this is a bit extreme.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Ditto on the "tweaked", your position has changed multiple times, mine is the same, valid citation from valid source. I said 1908 or 1881, you now say a 1761 source from Baron_d'Holbach is acceptable. There is an 1835 translation of this here. Myrvin's citation here explains that it is translation "without any attempt to reflect poetic style" which I think is your main argument, so I don't know why you are picking this one. Also, I can't find that section in the 1761 or 1835 translation. I think the book Myrvin cited is a self-published book by David M Holohan (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=1906164045) and I give it no credence. Do you have another preference? (see how citations matter?)Tstrobaugh (talk)
It does look like Hodgson Press are self-publishers. Sorry. The book is also referred to in Baron d'Holbach. Myrvin (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Please Tstrobaugh, stop pretending my reasoning is unclear. You know I am also looking at the French, as presumably was Itsmejudith on WP:RSN. If you do not like the 2008 one, what about the 2009 one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what you just said there, but I'm not pretending anything. I have no idea what "looking at the French" means with the 1761 source I reference above. I'm looking at the 2008, Étienne Gilson wrote D’Aristote à Darwin et retour, Vrin in 1971. It was tranlated by John Lyon. John Lyon is John Lyon is an Associate Professor of American and Comparative Literature, Lakeland College, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. So no I don't think "John Lyon" is an appropriate source for this citation. Why am I doing all the scholarship here? You want the change, do some research and come up with a better source. Your move.Tstrobaugh (talk)
Your move? I am not really interested in playing moves or winning. What is your rationale for saying that John Lyon would not be an appropriate source? That seems quite an odd remark at first sight.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you tell me why "John Lyon" is a better source than the 2 I have proposed (Jean Marie Albert Perot 1881 and S. Sonnenschein & Company, limited, 1908 Dictionary of Quotations (French))? You want the change you provide the rationale that the change you want is better. And "better" is not what YOU like or sounds good to "YOU", "better" is one of the Pillars of WP:

"Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Tstrobaugh (talk)

Three reasons for preferring the 2009 translation to the 1908 or 1881 translations: The translation accuracy, the English readability, and the strength of the source. (At first sight John Lyon appears to be a scholarly translator in this context, and this translation has appeared recently, in a scholarly publication. That is about the best we can ask for from any source.) So I asked you what am I missing: what is wrong with John Lyon? (By the way, the policies you cite explicitly do not apply to translations.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It's like you're in an alternate universe, whatever you believe, then it's true, simply by your belief in it. How is "Ingatius Press" a scholarly publication? "Scholarly" means Peer Reviewed. Second, do you have a policy citation that says "the policies you cite explicitly do not apply to translations"? Why do you never provide sources for any of your claims? I know the answer, but I doubt you will ever see it. You think you know better, you think your opinions are the correct ones. You are the wrong kind of person to be editing on wikipedia. It's one of the Pillars: Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.".Tstrobaugh (talk)
Perhaps one problem here is that you are presenting yourself as someone who knows the policies, when you perhaps do not. In that case I am assuming the wrong thing, and I should be helping you. But anyway please note that above you already cited the relevant policy page at NOENG#Non-English_sources, and that is why I did not cite it back at you again. It makes it clear that we do not need a published source for a translation (as I have told you before). You can also see WP:Translation. Your understanding of the "pillar" is incorrect therefore concerning translations, and partly this is because translation is not to do with experience, interpretation or opinions, just language proficiency. Concerning defining the reliability of a published translator, the reference point is WP:RS. "Reliability" refers to both a publisher and a writer (or in this case a translator). Concerning the term "scholarly" it is not limited to peer review, because there are other types of fact checking, for example that done by book publishers. See Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship. You can take questions to our section on WP:RSN please, but the Ignatius Press seems to be a pretty serious publishing house for Catholic subjects, and the book is about Gilson and is a rather scholarly subject. Lastly concerning the translator himself you describe him as an academic yourself. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
For our further edification (and prosperity):In God's Defense: Writings on Atheism [Kindle Edition] Voltaire (Author), Kirk Watson (Translator) NB This is a self published Kindle only edition but thought more versions might help pinpoint our issues.

The universe contains me: there's no way, This watch exists without a watchmaker. I can find very few full translations on the web, I think one of us will have to go to the library. William Fleming's translation would be acceptable to me. So there are three translations I would accept, four if you would accept this one I posted but I'm not that pleased with it (Scholarship) and I doubt you will be either. I sincerely wish that you could get more people involved so that a consensus can be reached. I will certainly bow to a quorum. The lack of input should be a sign that maybe what is there is ok. I'm sure you've seen what happens when the cabal doesn't like an edit.Tstrobaugh (talk)

Is there any particular reason you quoted that whole enormous passage? Can I request that you prune it back to the key quote please? It appears that the common thread between all your proposals is only one thing: it has to be proposed by you? I do not mean this as a sarcastic remark but more to point out to you that it is in your interests to show some kind of rationale concerning those things I mentioned above: french translation quality, english readability, the publisher, the author.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I give you permission to edit any text I cut and paste as long as you don't edit personal comments. I'm glad we are getting down to nitty gritty finally. I have proposed 4 translations that are acceptable. Are there any others besides the John Lyons one that you propose? I asked you to do the research and come up with more choices if these 4 are insufficient to your sensibilities. I don't think you are a reasonable person, as evidenced by this (among other things): "because translation is not to do with experience, interpretation or opinions, just language proficiency". For instance how is experience not related to "language proficiency"? How is "interpretation" not related "translation"? And finally, my main point is that everything you have said is just your "opinion". And you can't even see that. That is why I would like to have more people involved. Get even one other person to comment here about which source they prefer and I will accept their opinion.Tstrobaugh (talk)
Tstrobaugh, no you are misunderstanding me. I was quoting from policy concerning experience, interpretation or opinions, and the context there is that it is referring to whatever stuff makes up the personal but unpublished opinions of an individual editor. I am trying to help you interpret that policy partly based on the fact I have been a longtime observer of and occasional participant in the tortuous discussions about the wordings and intentions of those policy pages. (But of course you can look around for other people's interpretations, to check mine.) A translation is not considered to be an opinion as such on WP, unless there is controversy about one, which there is in this case (Myrvin, myself, and ItsmeJudith have all registered that in the case of your first proposal; I have registered it with your other 2 as well). So when there is controversy, we can look at the translation quality itself, and potential published sources. Concerning looking for sources, we look at things like how recent it is, how serious is the publisher, and who is the author and translator and editor or whoever. All your proposals appear to me to score very badly in all those ways. (But of course we can take this back to WP:RSN. You do not have to accept everything I say.) So before we go to WP:RSN again, can you please try creating either a positive rationale for one your proposals, or a negative rationale of my counter proposal? Like I said above, at the moment you give an impression of just wanting to make sure that the "winning" proposal comes from you. We should try to avoid that type of impression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the "winning" problem bothers me also, which is why I proposed that anyone, Myrvin, ItsmeJudith or anyone else will say a source they support and I'm fine with that edit. So you can see I have no "win" here. Anyone at all, say any source at all, and it's over. Just have them say it here. Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk)
And why is that so important to you actually? (And by the way, you said the same thing to me at the beginning of the discussion.) I am interested in trying to help you gain experience, so please note: saying that you will accept any answer at all, as long as it is not from person x, is not likely to sound like a reasonable and logical request for most Wikipedians. I revert to my previous suggestion of looking at the criteria I mentioned. Please do not be against any translation because you're annoyed at me personally. They can not help it. Just look at those criteria. And if you can not judge the translation there are I believe ways to find a 3rd party french speaker on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, again, I don't understand what you are saying at all. It sounds like you do not like my proposal to let any 3rd party settle this dispute, but then at the end you suggest the same thing, to find a 3rd party. Is that correct? This is a collaborative effort (WP) let's get some collaboration as you suggest. I'm not intransigent. There are 5 suggested sources (my four and your one, right?). I'm willing to take anyone's resolution to this, have someone pick one of the 5 sources and I'm fine with it. What could be simpler? and btw, ditto this [2] "If you want to show that you value the input of others and you want to abide by consensus, rather than contravene it, then the only option is to stop discussing it, stop trying to insert changes into the article, and start an RfC to generate broader input."Tstrobaugh (talk)
I am certainly not against looking for a third party, but I have tried to help you structure your ideas and your understanding of policy. I have no interest in making you look ridiculous. It would not in my opinion be normal to call an RfC on a matter like this, but rather to go to a specialist forum such as WP:RSN, which I already started. Remember? And on RSN we already had one third party who proposed a different translation than any of the ones you prefer. So really you should have asked your questions and stated your rationales on that forum, or else accepted the third party opinion like you keep promising you would.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind looking ridiculous. I'm not a Narcissist. Whatever needs to be done to make this a better encyclopedia, my ego won't be hurt. I already said, just get ItsmeJudith to come here, review postings subsequent to her initial approval and restate here position on here. That's all. You want me to ask her? Just get someone that agrees with you're editing style, a friend you have here on wikipedia, I don't mind. Anyone at all to say which of the citations should be included.Tstrobaugh (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I have posted again at WP:RSN, but it is not always easy to get people interested in a question like this. Still a bit odd that any advice from me is automatically not accepted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why you think it's odd that two people do not agree, I mean you are one of the two people. This discussion has gone on too long and I've given up seeing eye to eye with you. We are here Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_by_soliciting_outside_opinions. It's the normal stage of conflict at this point. I see you've been here many times before, so again, why odd?Tstrobaugh (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not think it is normally considered rational to say in effect that you will disagree with anything one person says, and agree with anything another person says?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, apparently you have nothing but time to invest in this argument. Let's start over again then. Why is the age of a translation of a quote from Voltaire in 1772 an issue ("why are we using a quotation from a 1908 dictionary of quotes?")? Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not spending much time on it at all, but I do have to wonder based on remarks like this if you were thinking of trying to wear me down? Again, I am not even interested in whatever game you see yourself in, only the quality of the sentence. The 1908 translation is primarily questioned by me as being a wrong translation. It was you who wanted it judged in terms of WP:RS, and in terms of WP:RS the age of a source, and nature of a publication is relevant, and so as a I side issue only I remark that there is nothing strong at all about this source. (I think we have been over this several times already.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like there was a spelling error in the quote from this source [3]. Is this acceptable: "I'm puzzled by the world; I cannot deem The timepiece real, its maker but a dream".Tstrobaugh (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
When I questioned the translation, right in the beginning, you should have looked at it and not started playing games. When Myrvin confirmed my opinion, you should have looked again. If the text is as you say this is definitely better, but the "but a dream" has no equivalent in the French. I still believe the 2009 translation is a better one. The 2011 is also better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
So you still haven't looked, even given the error? Why? Anyway you never respond to my questions directly. I don't see where this can go. But I guess I'll just keep asking until you answer. Why is the age of a translation of a quote from Voltaire in 1772 an issue ("why are we using a quotation from a 1908 dictionary of quotes?")?Tstrobaugh (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I can not check the text online because it is one of many google books made hidden to non Americans. And to repeat yet again: age of publication is relevant to judging the strength of a source, under Wikipedia norms, which is not how I want to judge the translation, but how you want to. It does not matter how you judge it, it is poor: poor translating, and poor source. And given your wanting to do this as an RS question please note that when a source is challenged, the norm is that it is the defender of the source who has the onus upon them to justify it, not the other way around.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
You keep thinking I have a dog in this race. I do not. Please try and enlighten me to your position, ie. that you think it's a bad translation, but that you thinking that is not a personal opinion of yours, that WP:5 doesn't apply for some reason. I'm glad you have been so patient with me. I'm very interested as to how you are going to show that it is not of your opinion that this is a bad translation but also not make this an RS issue, as you say, since that is the grounds that I want to have this disagreement (according to you).Tstrobaugh (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I also want to point out, with regards to your statement " age of publication is relevant to judging the strength of a source," that, given copyright laws in the US, that an edition that is in the public domain is useful Wikipedia:Public_domain_sources. Also with regards to "strength" this source was recommended as recently as 1996 for research purposes [4]. Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
And another thing, (guess I'm on a roll) this has the controversial template right at the top. You completely ignored it "Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information." You removed a sourced edit to replace it with an unsourced edit.Tstrobaugh (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
As I have explained to you already, a translation is not considered to be "information" according to WP policy. You are clutching at straws and apparently over-concerned with trying to make sure no one removes your contribution. You asked me to find a published alternative, and I have suggested several which are better sources and better translations. You demanded third opinions and ignored them. You keep citing policy but you clearly do not understand WP policy. You will enjoy Wikipedia more if you can get over the fact that people will continually be changing and criticizing your edits. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
" translation is not considered to be "information" according to WP policy" could you please point me to the relative section that describes this policy so that I may educate myself on this matter. Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not "my edit". The whole reason I don't trust your editing is that you have never given a satisfactory answer as to why you made the initial edit. You replaced a sourced quotation with unsourced, and, in your opinion, better translation by you, in complete disregard to WP and specifically the instructions on the controversial article template. You somehow think that this edit is not "information" or other some-such blather. You also seem to think that the thoughts in your head are not your opinion. It can only be one of two things, either your thoughts are your opinion, or you have citations and references for them. Please address these charges specifically or I will continue to think you are a disruptive editor. Since I'm simple-minded and you are omnipotent, please use concepts and language that a 5th grader will understand, so we can end this discussion. Or has this been going on for your enjoyment? Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
We have been through this already. WP policy has developed based on what works. Translating is treated as a type of editing. We do not for example have to give sources for our word choices and knowledge of English, and we also do not for our knowledge of French. I have pointed you to the policy pages more than once. We have however also shown you problems in terms of French and in terms of sources. I told you that "songer" in this quotation does not mean dream, and "m'embarrasse" does not mean "embarrasses me", and you have not contested this I think. But Myrvin has also shown you this by finding better sources, and I say better here in terms of Wikipedia norms at WP:RS. Those sources confirm these two points, and we also went to WP:RSN to confirm. My main motivation for spending time on this is to try to help you understand policy so that you do not do this more often, but generally speaking people will not normally bother. Especially the fact that you are clearly taking an irrational ad hominem position against anything I say is the sort of thing that can eventually get you blocked from editing. You should please state a rationale in terms of the meaning of the French and/or in terms of source reliability. It is not good enough to say you will reject everything one editor says.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I know we have been through this. Believe me I know it. But I have not seen a satisfactory answer. You keep talking but you won't just put the WP policy you are referencing in quotes for me and point me to the page. Why do you continue this charade and not answer my questions directly and honestly. If you have already quoted the relevant section here it would only take a second to cut and paste it in your answer. Do you see why I don't trust you? Just be simple and direct and honest. Now, from my last reply: Answer this- "why you made the initial edit. You replaced a sourced quotation with unsourced, and, in your opinion, better translation by you, in complete disregard to WP and specifically the instructions on the controversial article template." and place quotation of the WP policy that supports your contention "a translation is not considered to be "information" according to WP policy.". Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I can see you are having fun with my use of the word "information", but you know that this word came from your quotation of "Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information." So it refers to information which needs citation from a published source. Translations do not require such citation. In addition to policies already cited above (WP:NOENG, WP:TRANSLATION), have a look at wp:transcription, which is part of WP:NOR: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your "information" remark, I understand what you are saying now, that you believe your initial edit, that of removing a sourced quotation, with an unsourced, self transcribed edit, is, according to you, not "information" that would be against the controversial template, but instead, since it is "not original research" according to Wikipedia:NOR#Translations_and_transcriptions. Is that correct? Good, now we finally have a starting point for our disagreement. You'll notice of course that in Wikipedia:NOR#Translations_and_transcriptions that there is a caveat that excludes translations of sources, which this of course is. It says: "For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. So my WP policy supersedes your WP policy, so this: "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians." is the final word on that. And, for the record, I disagree completely with your assertion that your edit, even though it "is not considered original research" is not "information". That is a non sequitur.Tstrobaugh (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have time to type quickly. This is repetitive but requires very few brain cells. We have been over this several times but let's start again. You know now that translation is editing, so it is not considered original or non-obvious and does not need to be sourced on Wikipedia. But you say that you can ignore this because WP:V says that translations published in "reliable sources" are preferred. But then I pointed out to you that (a) preference is only a general and relative term, and (b) your source is a weak source, and not necessarily an obviously "reliable source" at all anyway. Note that reliable source is another term which has a Wikipedia definition. You said: bring any other published source. Then Myrvin brought several, but then you broke your promise and refused all of them. So then, we did what someone would do if they wanted to test the reliability of a source and we went to WP:RSN. Then you also ignored the advice there. ...and that was quite some time ago. Since then you have made several other "bring me something new" promises, but you are starting to look a bit silly. What is your aim actually now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
You can make whatever claims you want, that doesn't make them true, the record is right here for anyone to see. If you want to cut to the chase (finally) here is a summary:

No, I disagree that we have made any attempts to reach consensus. You've not even made any effort to give a real rationale for your position, especially since Myrvin gave so many alternatives. All you have done is said openly you will disagree with anything I say personally, and made circular demands. The only reason there has been continuing discussion has been that I have wanted to try to help you understand policy, and how to work on Wikipedia. I can see that is not working. I intend to put the 2009 edit in to replace the 1908 one, and I will move the French to a footnote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I posted on Itsmejudith's talkpage asking for a comment here but she has replied on the WP:RSN board again. The position is clear I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Belgian references

Some links for books refer to Belgian Google - see ref 14: Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity url= http://books.google.be/books?id=SgRuJEfzUG8C

For the English WP, these should surely be to the English Google. Myrvin (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Augustine of Hippo

The uncited text for this seems to say that he did not try to prove the existence of God, but just asserted that God has a plan. Does this belong here? Myrvin (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ruse (!) notes in 'Darwin and Design' that Augustine makes some mention of such an argument. I found it in 'City of God': "the world itself, by its well-ordered changes and movements, and by the fair appearance of all visible things, bears a testimony of its own, both that it has been created, and also that it could not have been created save by God, whose greatness and beauty are unutterable and invisible." I think we should use this. Myrvin (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Complexity does not imply design

This seems to me to be a dodgy title for a dodgy section. The text does not argue that Complexity does not imply design, but that you can't infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examination; or that you can't argue from analogy; or that biologists think it's wrong - which are all something different. I think the title should be changed to 'Other criticism' and moved to the end. Myrvin (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Kant

There is nothing in the article about Kant, and I think there should be, Some refs to 'Critique of Pure Reason' at least. Myrvin (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made a start. More to come. Myrvin (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Tennant and probability.

I think there needs to be a section on the kind of argument used by FR Tennant in the 1930s. "naturalism can explain each adaptation but not their totality." There are those who followed him in an accumulative probability idea. I suggest a section called "Accumulative probability". Myrvin (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this should actually be a section on probabilistic arguments. Richard Swinburne argues the probable existence of God. Myrvin (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just double checking: have you got sourcing which links this to the subject of the article, or is it just your understanding that there is a link?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes. Read the section. Myrvin (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Will do, and BTW sorry for the lack of response on your various comments. I don't have a lot of time recently, but I do not your efforts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead issues

Lead too long

I agree that the lead is too long. It seems to deal with matters that are far too detailed for a lead. I propose that all the wording from "Since the 1960s ..." is moved to the article body.Myrvin (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with this proposed shortening, since most if not all of the content is dealt with in more detail in the body text there probably isn't much to move there. . . dave souza, talk 15:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

An editor has put back the stuff I moved from the lead. I have reverted this and asked that the editor comes to this Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry I hadn't spotted this discussion here, I'd have discussed it first had I seen this. But we are where we are. The lead as now reverted is only 118 words, extremely short (I'd argue too short) for an article of almost 10,000 words. The lead as I drafted it (very revisably) was still only 345 words, so a bare 3.5% of the article's length, not surely excessive by any standards.

Perhaps it would be helpful to think about two things here: the style and structure guidelines for articles, which suggest a lead should strive to summarize an article in about 4 paragraphs, covering its main contents and arguments; and the purpose of a lead, which is to give people an overview of the topic, should they not wish or not have time to read the 10,000 words. To that end, the 345-word version cannot be considered excessive, and might be thought rather too short; while the 118-word version could be considered distinctly too little on that basis.

The current structure has the additional issue of having what are effectively two introductions, the lead and the section now named 'Teleology'; it is difficult to see a clear justification for this structure, which was the reason for my initial edit.

I would therefore suggest we take my version as a starting point and work on an improved lead of perhaps 400 to 600 words. In the meantime, it might be as well to restore my edit, though I am not at all attached to that text and would welcome improvements to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I do not have a strong preference about the two versions, but I do agree with Chiswick Chap that the longer lead is certainly not unusually long. So there is no reason that we "have to" shorten it. I can understand also, how it might be argued that it reads like there are two introductions. (Of course the second introduction is about the earliest history of the concept, but the article is about the history of a concept, and so having this incorporated into the main lead seems ok.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I should correct my statement that I shortened the lead - it seems it was User:Gaba p who did it. I may have actually added a bit after that. However, I do feel there should be an intro about the history before launching into Classical people. Also, this should not be repeated in the lead. So, the proposed lead would be too long for my taste. Myrvin (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the easiest way not to repeat it would be to have only one introductory section, i.e. the lead itself; and since the history of the concept of teleology pretty much IS the article, as Andrew Lancaster has observed, there is probably little justification for a separate section to introduce that as if it were another aspect. As for anyone's taste on the length, it's very hard to see why it should be limited to a hundred words or so. Take a historical article like Napoleon: the lead is 450 words, and I'd defy anyone to argue it's excessively long. Unless there are significantly stronger arguments than taste, I'd suggest we can rely on the WP:MOS guidelines for leads (WP:LEAD): three or four paragraphs; meaty enough to provide "a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic." That does not mean a 100 word limit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead citations

{{collapse top|Section is now entirely one editor accusing others of bad faith. See [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:FOC]] and [[WP:PA]].]}} Also, the wording "more generally of some kind of intelligent agent of creation, based upon proposed empirical evidence of human-like design or purpose in nature" seems odd. The words "empirical evidence" do not appear on p. 261 of the cited source. On a minor point, the words "some kind of" seem unnecessary. We need a better source for this assertion. [[User:Myrvin|Myrvin]] ([[User talk:Myrvin|talk]]) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have deactivated your collapse, and I note for the record that it contains a dishonest ad hominem summary of the discussion it seeks to hide, plus a comment which makes no sense unless there is something needing to be read in the collapsed part. The discussions you want to hide contained expressions of concern about sourcing, as well as replies to those concerns and expressions of concern about the sequence of events leading to the edits and expressions of concerns; and expressions of concerning about lead writing formats. All these things should stay on record, and might come up again. Indeed Gaba P made "warning", as usual, to the fact that the discussion might be relevant to wikidrama also. Why should you be allowed to hide my self defense, and attempts to avoid having my edits and positions badly distorted, and replace it with a distortion aimed to cover up what really happened? The fact that the discussion contains descriptions of the editing sequences that raise doubts about the good faith and editing judgement of at least one editor does not mean that even those edits are covered by the policies you mention.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, you're the one editor making repeated personal attacks and refusing to assume good faith. This is very unwise of you, please desist and focus on article improvements, not on other editors. . . dave souza, talk 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Dave, I have also reverted your collapse. How can it be acceptable to not only collapse a supposedly off topic discussion, but also insert a response which obviously seeks to distort how the discussion went below? To repeat, it is obvious that what you want to hide is my summary of the series of editing events you were involved in, as well as the response to your obviously fabricated pseudo concerns. Obviously if the concerns were ever real, then this discussion is very relevant for editors to see. I do not have to assume good faith, and neither do others. And just to confirm what I have said several times: I interpret these types of posts were you and Gaba P give advice about how I am not being wise as something that you and the other defenders of the current ID article do very often as a way to threaten and bully less experienced editors. I think when put in perspective as something you do often, it is disgraceful. If you want the legitimacy of your bullying judged by the broader community then bring it to a neutral forum, instead of posting such veiled threats all the time. Of course you know what the community thinks of this way of threatening and bullying. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book and not going to go far with more experienced editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How about this from the OED: "argument from design n. Theol. an argument for the existence of an intelligent creator (usually identified as God) based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world" Myrvin (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

While I don't have a secondary source immediately to hand commenting on this point, Paley's Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity implies that the argument can be used to show the attributes of Mr. Deity as well as being an argument for His existence. . dave souza, talk 15:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, the claimed term "argument from intelligent design" is not supported by the cited source, page 261, which explicitly refers to the current "intellectual and political aspirations of so-called intelligent-design theorists. Their confidence in a particular form of the design argument is so strong that they believe it should be taught in high school science classes as a check on the pretensions of evolutionary theory."
This is clearly the DI's ID, and it's a good source for the point that ID is a particular form of the design argument, not the generic argument. It's also a source for the generic term "design argument" which should really be bolded in our lead alongside teleological argument and argument from design.
It's plausible that some sources use "argument from intelligent design" to refer to the generic argument, but a good citation is needed giving evidence that exactly that phrase has significant usage. . . . . dave souza, talk 15:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, as already mentioned in my edit comments here, and on the talk page at Intelligent Design (in the discussion which inspired you to come here and start tagging), you wrote the current lead more than anyone, and so you should know that no one is claiming that the source you mention is the source for those specific words. (I have not checked but probably you inserted that source.) Furthermore this talk page's archives show you recently stating in clear terms that you agree this wording is sourceable. The source is easy to copy and paste if it is needed. I can forgive you for forgetting that, but (a) I find it silly that you did this as a way to make a point about a discussion on another article (which you then announced there). And (b) I find it even sillier that I already explained the history of this wording and sourcing and you are playing dumb and pretending you do not know the answer to your pointy point. Great to see that you also brought your human bot edit warrior over to this article with you. Anyway, there is nothing stopping anyone putting the source in, so putting in a tag instead is plain dumb, but the question I already raised, as you know, is whether we need to put a footnote on every word choice. I assume you are saying "yes" but on what possible grounds? The whole structure of this discussion makes it sound like we are only allowed to use exact words from sources, but that would be WP:COPYVIO. On WP, demands like this are normally considered a classic sign of "tendentiousness". It would be easy to ruin any article if every unsourced word could be tagged.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, please cut out this WP:BATTLEFIELD stuff and WP:AGF. These were your edits introducing a term that lacks any source. It was disappointing to find that this defining term in the lead was unsourced. Once again, please provide a good citation giving evidence that the exact phrase "argument from intelligent design" has significant usage as a term for the teleological argument. . dave souza, talk 08:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Dave AGF is not relevant here. Facts are facts, and I am just describing them. You really did come here from a discussion on another article, put a tag on a sentence you are responsible for and which you knew the sourcing for (and which is already sourced on talk page discussions and in the body of the article), and then go back to the other article and make your pointy announcement. And concerning your battlefield accusations, please do not once again try to create false impressions as you have done on my talkpage. As you know from those discussions on the ID article, I am not referring to Myrvin as your bot, but Gaba P. Again what I mean by that has been explained and is just a fact. Gaba P's edits are all kneejerk edits defending your positions, and on talk pages Gaba P's posts never show any interest or knowledge in the subjects of the articles. This happens over and over again, so even if you do not want it to happen, it would be just silly to pretend that it is a major factor in everything that happens where you are. It brings down the quality of Wikipedia and you should feel bad about it, and want it to stop. It is very relevant to everything because your manner of discussion shows that you now quite used to the fact that there are people who are going to go to war for you whenever you say you want something or don't want something, even reverting copyedits for you. Back to the subject, I am sure you can copy and paste the source from this talkpage where you have discussed it in recent times, or from the body of the article where it should be, if you think it needed. Putting a tag on the sentence however is purely tendentious because by this point there is no way at all that you can still claim not to know the source. The choice is up to you as usual. But please do not make up little stories in order to blame others for your own poor editing on the articles you dominate.
OTOH you still refuse to address my point: we can not and should not put footnotes on every word. Normally we would just make sure the sourcing for points of detail like this is in the body of the article. That is what we currently already have. Thickets of footnotes in leads do not improve the verifiability of articles. They do the opposite, and are generally a sign of synthesis and/or poor copy editing. This is a standard WP norm I am explaining to you, although I know that in articles you work on such norms are not followed, so possibly you have lost touch with how things are done outside your area of interest. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Word of advice Andrew Lancaster: one more WP:PA like this one or the one in your above comment and I'll be seeking administrator intervention. You'd be wise to WP:FOC and drop the name-calling from now on. Consider yourself warned.
As for the issue at hand regarding the lead, Dave explained it above quite succinctly. The term "intelligent" was shoe-horned by you (at least) twice into the lead [5][6] and it simply needs sourcing, otherwise it will have to be removed (that's how WP works in case you are still not aware). So if you have a source then present it and we can move on. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Gaba, I'm concerned that if this precise term only appears in one source we could be synthesising an appearance of significance from an isolated instance: that's why I'm asking for evidence that the exact phrase "argument from intelligent design" has significant usage, so that we don't give undue weight to a minority view. We can of course discuss references in this talk page, . . dave souza, talk 16:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Found a new reasoning Dave? Dave if that was your reasoning, you should have stated it up front and you should not have pretended not to have been involved in the original discussions on this talk page which led to that wording. If you find the terminology simply not notable it is better to remove it than to tag bomb or over-source the lead. I still find the chain of events very remarkable though. Because clearly you came here from a debate in another article, placed the tags and then went back to that debate with remarks that distort the situation here, apparently all in order to score a point out of it. Only later have your developed a new "concern", and that concern (notability) is now a pretty minor one and also one which actually could not have been resolved by simply finding a source (which we already had)! So the tag was always quite wrong. Honestly, I see no other way to describe what happened. Poor judgement.
Gaba, I note the usual threats that you make whenever anyone describes reality, and I note that you still show no interest or understanding in the actual subject matter of the discussion. Do you do anything else on Wikipedia than try to muscle people around in the name of causes? I do not recall you ever posting anything which showed any understanding or interest in the subjects of the articles involved. I only see you make ad hominem talk page edits like this one, in a pattern which strongly appears to be factional (always taking particular sides) rather than based on whatever is happening in a specific context. Honestly I do not believe I am saying anything controversial if I say that such an editing pattern is one that would make most people in this community uncomfortable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Dave souza agreed, the source should of course be as clear as possible to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN.
Andrew Lancaster: 1- you can describe "reality" without the WP:PAs, that's an advice you should take to heart if you wish your WP editing to continue, 2- if you think that simply asking for a source is to "muscle people around" then you are in the wrong place my friend, 3- "ad hominem talk page edits", please go read Ad hominem because you clearly do not understand what it means (your name calling for instance is a clear ad-hominem), 4- I'm sorry that my asking for sources makes you uncomfortable. You know how you could put this to an end? Simple: instead of writing 6.2 Kbs of text today [7][8][9][10] you should have presented the source you based your edit in. I'll give you one more chance to come up with at least one WP:RS source for your edit, otherwise I'll remove it from the lead. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Gaba P, no Dave's concern has changed to notability: he says finding a single source is not good enough for his new real concern. You should read more carefully. To make it very clear, I understand your position like this: you are an habitual bully on Wikipedia and you are used to threatening people by implying that you are going to get them in trouble whenever they do something you don't like, such as post too many words on a talk page that disagree with the editors you think you agree with. How many times have I seen you try this now? Would it be a couple of times a month that you do this? But what you are not used to is sticking with a discussion and trying to understand it. Honestly, I can not remember once when you wrote a post or made an edit which proved that you read the subject matter you are policing. (Counting kilobytes is not reading.) This pattern is so absolutely stark that there are no pleasing ways to describe it. Of course when there are editors doing this then all discussion is difficult, but at least some of us are talking about writing an encyclopedia. Communication is what the talk pages are meant to be for right? Is it reasonable to demand that posts be kept short for every subject on WP?
You will not have noticed it, but I have already said my main concern here is not proving there is a source, which is only a pointy demand, given that it was only recently discussed by the very person demanding it (try typing "from intelligent design" in the archive search box, or perhaps read this article which you suddenly have such strong opinions about). I have no real attachment to whether the words stay or not anyway. I just say that deleting the words is better than filling the lead with pointy tags and thickets of over-sourcing, as are found already in the article where this pointyness started in the first place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"I have no real attachment to whether the words stay or not anyway", if you had said this from the start you could have saved us all a lot of time. I'm removing the word then.

Here's some friendly advice for you Andrew (this is not a threat in any way, shape or form): you should really: a- stop using talk pages as a forum, b- stop issuing personal attacks on other editors and c- start figuring ways to reduce your incessant walls of text. Your inability to see how disruptive your talk page editing is (mainly in the Intelligent design article) will eventually, and I dare say almost certainly, lead to you be either blocked or topic banned. Unlike what you might think I have no desire to see you under neither restriction, I do however would very much like to see you address the three concerns I mentioned above. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaba of course I understand your "advice" as being a veiled threat, as always. But you do not even see how ridiculous this situation is, which is not good for Wikipedia.
  • You came here to demand an edit you still do not really know the pros and cons of. You apparently only know Dave seemed to demand a source.
  • Every post of yours has contained a "friendly warning", as is your way. You almost seem unable to write anything on a talkpage without them.
  • Not only do you not know the background, but you also don't read my replies, nor Dave's, properly, so even now you are still working based on a very incomplete understandings of this situation as a simple missing source.
  • And you are now even blaming me for not helping you understand, when you clearly never wanted to.
If you do the search I suggested you'll see that Dave previously recently felt the words sourceable. And just because I have inserted them at some point, based on such talk page discussions, does not mean I have been fighting for them as you seem to assume. These two facts make your demands appear to be based on a wrong understanding. What I was really saying I was concerned about is constant and I accept no responsibility for you not reading:
  • that we should not rush to make pointy edits such as tag-bombing or demanding sourcing for every word in a lead
  • that we should certainly not be jumping from one article to another and inserting tags etc when we do not even have the time or interest to check the background
I stick by those points, but I take it you are not interested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
See WP:BURDEN. . . . dave souza, talk 07:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
See WP:TEND. We recently discussed the source. You said you accepted there was sourcing. I have reminded you of it, and told Gaba what search terms to use (as if that was necessary). It is also in the body. You have not disagreed with any of those things and I think it is pretty bloody clear that you are now are playing a game. But why? You have also very recently turned to say that re-naming only one source does not reply to your concern anyway. Furthermore I am not during this discussion defending the wording or source, I've said that over and over and I my concern about cynical tagging, poor lead formatting habits you have, and editing patterns (tag team editing; tagging here purely to score points in a discussion elsewhere etc). You pretend you do not understand this perhaps because you don't what it pointed to but why not just stop doing it? Also see WP:IDNHT. Dave don't you find that life is too short for this kind of thing? Where are you trying to go with this? Are my positions really so scary to you that you feel this need to constantly distort everything I say even in a simply case like this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, I'd like to help out with this discussion, since I have been somewhat active with the Intelligent Design article for years. I'm having a hard time deciphering the gist of this conversation, because the three of you above are constantly sniping at each other. Could you please summarize what the issue is here? Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I can see why it would be confusing. The dispute is essentially about whether there is any dispute at all, at least in the way being described. Certainly there is no open sourcing demand, and no one defending the text where the sourcing was demanded, so this is not a case where WP:BURDEN should be cited. My main concerns are as follows: we should avoid over tagging in leads, we should demand over footnoting of every word in leads (detailed footnotes should be for the body) and thirdly and most importantly people should not fly from one article to another and make pointy edits inspired by talkpage discussions not relevant to the actual article. As a 4th more general point I have made, we actually not supposed to use wording exactly like in sources, as per WP:COPYVIO, and so demanding that we must do this is a misunderstanding of WP policy. Of course none of these 4 basic WP policy concerns have been addressed, and indeed I see no sign that they will be. Instead we see constant attempts to hide the real discussion and distort what it was really about. All 4 of these concerns describe issues which are rampant on the ID article, and are therefore sensitive issues to Dave souza and Gaba P, because that is the article of most concern to them, and most in their thoughts when editing on this article (as can be seen by anyone who looks at the sequences of editing and talk page events).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I get it. One would think that an article on a concept like this one would be uncontroversial. One would be wrong, apparently. I know it's a lot of work, but the best way, in my experience, to fix a disputed article is to completely rewrite it in userspace then propose replacing it here. You up for that? Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In the meantime, since no one else has participated in this discussion in several days, perhaps they have conceded that you are right. Please tell me one item you would like to see changed and I will see if it's feasible to make that edit. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
With respect, Cla68, there is a lot of blood on the carpet here. If you look back at the archive you will see (if you can stand to read it all) that there has been a great deal of vituperative comment about it. I started this particular discussion because there was a citation that didn't support the lead. This opened up an old argument about whether or not the TA could be referred to as an "argument from intelligent design". AL put these words in last year sometime and the argument took up megabytes of data. The main argument against them was that no citation could be found to say that this was so, and nobody had ever referred to the TA with these words. It was never really resolved, and such differences do not just go away. In the arguments above, AL says that we shouldn't put a citation needed tag against these words, and that we don't need a citation for the words, even if there is one, because they are in the lead. However, at some stage above, AL said that he wasn't that concerned about the inclusion of these words anyway - so they were taken out. The rest of the comment above, as with a lot of the comment earlier, is about the way AL writes about other editors. We are now at a stage where the other editors may take some action against AL for his insults. I don't think there is a change to be made. AL has agreed that the words in contention are not needed. Myrvin (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Myrvin, are you seriously saying that the long discussions on this talkpage were all about whether these particular words were adding much? Would you like to reconsider whether you stand by that description?
  • 28th August 2013, the citation was given. There was a circular discussion which ensued where Myrvin was apparently wanting a footnote inserted in the lead, but this was stated in an unusual way, leading to Myrvin (as is frequent) spending a lot of time expressing assumptions of bad faith about other editors on the excuse that if someone says they do not understand what you are saying then they are being patronizing. The actual validity of the source and whether the words were good or bad to leave in was not a subject that I see discussed to any significant extent, and actually, if you read this thread now, it still has not been discussed.
  • Dave souza entered the discussion around then and wrote (amongst various things) "My recollection is that Andrew has shown an instance of "argument from intelligent design" used for the design argument". Dave was referring to discussions on the ID talkpage, and from that point on, all editors in discussion were looking at those discussions and aware of multiple sources which used these words. Myrvin might not have followed it completely at first but see his post here where Myrvin adds some more. The discussion became a quite strange one (IMHO) about whether these words, known to be sourceable, should for some reason be described as a recent terminology or a terminology only applied to recent design arguments. I do object to that OR. Please note that this is quite a different debate than how Myrvin reports it!
  • What is missing from the discussion is any sustained question of whether the words can be sourced, or whether they could simply best be removed. (What was being proposed most often was not even removing them, but whether highly questionable descriptions and/or footnotes should be added to them.) Hence I would say that Myrvin has given a thoroughly distorted report of those discussions.
If anyone is actually interested in a relatively complete statement of my position during the actual discussion, see here, and ensuing.
I hope Myrvin will not now once again start filling this talk page with nonsense about personal attacks because I have shown him to be wrong again. If you make false accusations, you do not get to cite AGF and NPA in order to block people from defending themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I rest my case. AL has made the problem all very plain. Myrvin (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, I suggest re-writing the lede on a page in your userspace the way you think it should read, then post a link to it here. I think that's the easiest way to show us what you think should be changed. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Teleological argument/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The prose is good, at times though it seems too technical. I made a few changes to remove terms like "panglossian," feel free to change it back if you think I changed the meaning. There one issue is redudancy between the lead and the history section, explained below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Good work here, but there are some quotes without inline citations, see below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    My suggestion here is that you include a section at the beginning giving a general overview of the argument, like at Augustinian theodicy or cosmological argument, before going into the historical detail. That's not necessary, though; Ontological argument goes straight into Anselm's formulation, since that's the classic statement of the argument. It's up to you, even without changes this criteria is met. I also think it would be good to explain the term telos and why this is called the teleological argument.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Very good, covers both sides.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article has been stable at least since April.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    No issues.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Article looks good except for two issues, I'm placing it on hold until those are addressed. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the quick response! Pass. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Immediate issues

These are problems with the GA criteria, I'll pass the article as soon as they are addressed.

Prose: The beginning of the history section repeats much of the lead verbatim; rewrite or condense either the lead or the history section.

Quotes: Sources needed for "Tennant concedes that naturalistic accounts such as evolutionary theory may explain each of the individual adaptations he cites, but he insists that in this case the whole exceeds the sum of its parts: naturalism can explain each adaptation but not their totality." and "insists that inductive inference cannot justify belief in extended objects."

Thank you very much for reviewing this article. I think I have resolved all these immediate issues. You can see above we had a discussion about the length of the lead, which resulted in a longer rather than shorter lead, but we never got around to bringing the History introduction into line. I have done that now. I think I have also clarified the quotation references. I shall look at your other issues as well. Myrvin (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Other comments

These are ideas to consider if you want to improve the article further.

The argument from intelligent design appears to have begun with Socrates - This is pretty redundant as the article stands now; if you fix the lead/history section problem it might be all right.

"cosmos" which was introduced in this time - what time do you mean?

because of the anthropic principle Please explain what the anthropic principle is.

This is consistent with the fact that both Xenophon and Aristotle remarked specifically that going into the market place and asking questions of craftsmen was a new approach Socrates took to philosophy, in contrast to predecessors, and it is consistent with this then that both Plato and Xenophon use the word demiurge (craftsman) to describe the intelligent being responsible for the natural order. - This seems like a little too much detail; I guess it is meant to support the claim that Socrates was the first to compare God to a craftsman, but I think it is unnecessary.

would be tremendously informed given the telos This sentence is confusing to me, not sure what it means.

natural pleroma is Either explain what pleroma is or use a different term.

You include the names of several scholars without saying who they are; I'm not sure what the usual practice is in philosophy articles, but I would be included to say something like Philosopher Barry Holtz instead of just Barry Holtz. The ones I noticed were Barry Holtz, P.G. Pati, John Wright, Louis Loeb, and Eric Rust.

The line from Hume about an infant deity, the object of derision to his superiors, is followed by quote expressing the opposite idea.

Could the 2nd paragraph of the Other criticisms section be merged with the Hume section? I think both sections are talking about teleology as a false analogy.

Done most of the above. The names is a longer job. The merging needs thinking about. Myrvin (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

GA edits

Moved from User talk:Machine Elf 1735

Hello ME. You have reverted my deletion about the telos. I couldn't make sense of the sentence and neither could the GA reviewer. Is there something clearer we could say? Myrvin (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi yes, I was just going to leave you a note on talk. I think they simply meant an English word would be less confusing. I'd be happy to work with you on these but I might not have much time this weekend. Thanks for your patience.—Machine Elf 1735 15:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, but I couldn't find the idea in the cited ref at all. phrase "tremendously informed" doesn't seem to make sense. You have also reverted some other changes there. Myrvin (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The section had been edited to remove all the Greek terms... I'd have to see what the ref had been meant for... Why doesn't it make sense to you? Not yet sure how you'd have phrased it...—Machine Elf 1735 20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I can make no sense of the sentence: "Furthermore, knowledge of that function or end-purpose is essential because any other explanations one could offer for the organ would be tremendously informed given the telos." What is a "tremendously informed" explanation, and what does "given the telos" mean? Also, I can find nothing like it in Nussbaum. This isn't helped by the fact that the reference note cites several, unconnected sections of Nussbaum, rather than the one in which this concept is said to occur.
Also, the only Greek term I think I removed was pleroma. Does this appear in Aristotle? Its article says it is a term from Gnosticism. No general reader, nor the GA reviewer, would understand it. Does the word appear in the Furley ref.? I couldn't find it, although there is a similar problem with multiple pages cited. I don't see how it has eternity to do something when Furley says, on page 13, that Aristotle thought the Universe was finite. I also removed the sentence: "This is not to imply a naïve optimism, but a logically valid argument from a natural scientist who took a great deal of interest in efficient causal analyses". This is supposed be somewhere in the Nussbaum sections too, but I couldn't see it. My quotation was actually from the source. Myrvin (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Please see Page 60:
"Out of this general defence of the formal principle, he develops an argument that teleological accounts are the most satisfactory way of explaining both the non-conscious growth and development of all living things and the intentional or quasi-intentional activities of animals."
See also page 66:
"In your accounts of explanation you insist that the formal-teleological account gives us the most insight into the nature of living thing."
Generally, it's not at all contentious...
Ancient Greece and Rome. p. 4440. ISBN 9780195170726. If we want to know why something is the way it is, saying what it is for, this is, naming its purpose, is often the most informative reply.
Just as an FYI, for an example of how the word "informed" can be used regarding explanations in this way, see page 61:
"...to imagine [Democritus] giving a defence of materialist reductionism that is both more sophisticated and more informed by Aristotle's own distinctions than the actual Democritus' work ever could have been."
See also for another example:
Anagnostopoulos, G. (2013). A Companion to Aristotle. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. Wiley. p. 335. ISBN 9781118610633. For Aristotle, who approaches the study of the soul informed by a biologist's interest in the character of living systems, it is natural and unremarkable that a jellyfish no less than Socrates should have a soul.
I was referring to aitia, I didn't say you removed it. I've already suggested that telos could be replaced with an English word.
Thanks again for your patience, I'm looking forward to discussing the other edit I reverted with you as well. Fortunately there's no rush because these are not, in fact, the two issues that were holding up the Good Article review.—Machine Elf 1735 07:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I dislike this eternal indentation, but I'll live with it. It's not just the word telos for me. I can understand that someone's argument can be informed by some idea. D's defence is informed (ie takes account of, or is made in the light of, A's distinctions), but the sentence I removed does not say by whom or what the explanation is informed. The word tremendously is surely misplaced.
I like the p. 60 quote. Presumably that is meant to refer to the "logically valid argument ". Why can't we use that quote? The words I removed don't say that anywhere near as clearly as the quote does. Are the words "thus assuredly unmoved" meant to be a pun? They are not in the ref. I also note that later on p. 60 it says: "Aristotle neither applies teleology to non-living natural bodies nor gives any evidence of believing in a universal teleology of nature." That seems a point worth making too.
I don't see where the Anagnostopoulos quote comes in? I think we could use it though. Myrvin (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and can the word pleroma go? I don't see aitia anywhere in your revision. Neither do I find aetia, which may be what you meant. Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It says the explanation is greatly informed by the teleological cause. No, I don't think substituting a quote would be an improvement.

The words "thus assuredly unmoved" do not occur in my first revert and I'd prefer to address the second revert when I'm at liberty to provide a thoughtful response. That being said one last time, I can't imagine what "pun" you have in mind... Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the material?

I'm going to ignore your continued remarks about irrelevant words on which I've already commented. Anyway, thanks for coming to understand that it's not a "meaningless sentence" and that you can "see the idea in the ref".—Machine Elf 1735 15:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, just a matter of time before the personal accusation.
"Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the material?" I may not be as familiar with Aristotle as some, but I have studied enough to know when I see a poor explanation of his work.
I am also quite good at reading and writing English. The sentence is still nonsense. I'm not sure it would be clearer if it did say "the explanation is greatly informed by the teleological cause". However, it doesn't say that, it says, "explanations ... would be tremendously informed given the telos".
If the words on which you have commented are irrelevant, they should go.
I never wrote I can "see the idea in the ref." - where does that come from?
A lot of the piece on Aristotle is in poor English, and most of it has ideas so loosely based on vaguely cited references that they are hardly supported at all, and are therefore OR. I am familiar enough with WP to spot that too.
This discussion is becoming insulting and unprofitable. I'll let others comment before interacting again. Myrvin (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not intetested in sparing with you about personal attacks and endless arguments about who said what. Read your own edit summary.—Machine Elf 1735 18:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely unfamiliar with the material, so maybe my perspective as a general reader will help. If find it diffiuclt to parse that "tremendously informed" sentence, so I've rewritten it as Furthermore, explanations of an organ are greatly informed by knowledge of its essential function. Is that ok? I also think the word pleroma should be replaced. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

More on the classics

Continuing to register what I am doing, I intend to go back to the book by David Sedley to review the flow of the whole classical section, including the Aristotle part. This will also lead to tweaks in the lead, I can already see. For those interested, the book is for the most part on Google Books. It seems possible, being an optimist, that this work may lead to me putting in elaborations which re-insert coverage of issues that might have been pruned out by me in recent edits.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The edits I made so far on Plato and Aristotle seem self-explanatory. Another issue which I will for now assume to be uncontroversial, unless someone says otherwise, is that the little sub-section we have at the end of the classical section, currently said to represent the argument from design of Cicero, should be expanded and it should be changed so that it is about the position of the Stoics. The passage we cite is Cicero's report of the Stoics' argument from design. Sedley makes it clear though, that the Stoics do indeed deserve a section. (The works of the Stoics are for the most part lost, and so use is typically made in secondary sources like Sedley of sources such as Cicero.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Late classical and early medieval

I have made comments already in other sections about the medieval section (where I am developing ideas), and about the classical section (which I have already worked on in the article). I think we also need to review that misty period in between. Currently we are saying that Plotinus was one of the vectors bringing the argument from design to the medieval philosophers. It is true that Plotinus's philosophy was an important synthesis of Plato and Aristotle and monotheism which heavily influenced the medievals, starting with people like Al-Farabi, but...

  • This article already states, with good sourcing, that Al-Farabi did not accept the argument.
  • Our WP article on Plotinus specifically says he did not accept it either.

I suppose this is enough to cause some doubt, given that our own remarks on Plotinus seem vaguely sourced. This is reasonably important to the article because we are giving him a major linking role, even mentioning him in the intro this way. Has anyone got good sourcing for this? Sedley's final chapter on "classical creationism" is about Galen though, and we do not mention him at all. While the influence of Plotinus upon medievals writers is sometimes hard to track, apparently having partly started in the Eastern Roman empire as it slowly collapsed, Galen was of course important to the medievals, because of his medical writings.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A Plotinus article: here. It says that the attitude of Plotinus to "intelligent design theology" is negative, but that his attitude to teleological understandings of Nature is complicated, believing in a "vertical teleology" whereby things are in need of, and directed towards, what is higher or better. I suppose we need to keep in mind that some people might argue that Aristotle, and maybe even Plato, felt the same way, which is why we treat them as extremely influential on the tradition being described in our article, but not necessarily "mainstream". I am wondering about Aristotelians like Aquinas and Averroes though, who apparently accepted Aristotle's theory of causation, but who clearly did however support intelligent design argument. It does not seem to me to be impossible to me, but it will be interesting to searhc for discussion about this in published sources. Plotinus, it seems, made it clear he is not a supporter of such arguments, at least in their simple form, and it seems we will need to adjust for this. Nevertheless he obviously did accept that the cosmos is rationally ordered, so he accepts much of the argument in fact. The complexity is "only" that it is rationally ordered by a cause of all rational order which does not intervene directly in nature like a craftsman.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

some common threads we miss

The article has built up quite a bit, but the structure is maybe now a little bit like an unstructured collection. A couple of examples which imply a question about how we should handle the line between religion and philosophy:

  • There is a bit of an impression now being given about each religion having its own teleological argument. Actually, no religion has one as part of its core beliefs as far as I know, so these teleological arguments are all philosophical addenda to their theology. More specifically, Averroes, Maimonides and Aquinas are a sequence of Aristotelian westerners. Averroes influenced the other two very much. They are effectively one movement, and not three different independent ones, despite them not being in the same religion.
  • And then, when we come to rejections of the argument we do not mention what we mentioned in the historical section, which is that Al-Farabi and Avicenna were amongst the first to do so, whose arguments have survived. Note that these two authors are philosophers of high standing in the general history of all philosophy, and not only "Muslim". So you'd think we would mention that.

I have already made some tweaks aimed at helping avoid misunderstandings about the first bullet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

PROPOSAL.
  1. I am considering trying to make a more unified single "medieval" section, treating the Aristotelians as part of one tradition despite their different religions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. I notice that Sedley's book has a good amount of material on classical criticisms of the argument from design, and explains how they co-evolved with the argument itself. While the discussion goes into a lot of detail, for our purposes it seems possible to compress a short summary of it into a few sentences, and I will consider how to insert such an opening paragraph into our criticism section, citing Sedley. I also still want to try to dig up more on what Plotinus and Al-Farabi said.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Done, at least in a first version.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teleological_argument/Archive_4&oldid=1051984527"