text:
User talk:Rossrs/Sandbox

Kylie Minogue
Sorry it took so long to get back to you! I've read through it. I personally think that it talks about the music in some depth, and I think it would be good enough to go on FAC :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * wow! I love that Washington Post review.  "Worst actress in the English speaking world" !!!   But the real question for any serious cinema goer - was she worse than Pia Zadora?  I wonder what Bob Gulla would say?  :-)  On a more serious note, I think we're making great progress with this.  I had a bad moment when I realized I had an edit conflict, so I hope I picked up everything.  I think so.  Also thanks for checking Anne Frank.  I've never been able to spell "accommodate". Rossrs 16:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re. Washington Post quote: Yeah, I thought it was just too good to ignore; although I love the gal, I think "the worst actress in the English speaking world" is a fairly accurate description of her acting abilities ;-). Bio-Dome was on Dutch TV recently, as part of a "Kylie night", and it was pretty horrific. It was followed by Street Fighter, but I didn't have the stamina to suffer through that as well... I'll make another sweep through the article when you're done editing, to avoid any further conflicts. --Plek 16:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One other thing: do you think we can do any better with the image at the top (the one from the "Slow" set)? Maybe it's just me, but I think she looks like an automaton in it. I know I called her a "drone" before, but this might be streching the metaphor a bit too far. :) --Plek 17:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, Sorry I didn't reply about Kylie... I didn't see your messages, and I didn't receive a message alert. Kylie's acting - well I think she's great in every other department, but as an actress I think she's like watching an accident slowly happen. That's why the Moulin Rouge! bit works so well - she doesn't have to act!  I quite like the automaton image, however I can see she looks like a mannequin.  I only chose that because as an "album cover" it qualifies as fair use, and it didn't have any writing on it.  I'll see what I can come up with.  I'll try to find maybe a screenshot from a video or live performance and see if I can get something that's reasonable quality.  I've been trying to find one positive quote about her, to balance the Miki Berenyi of Lush quote where she says she should be fought at every turn.  I thought something from another musician would be good but haven't been able to find anything. Maybe this will be a future featured article. I can see the arguments against it are going to be Anne Frank X 100.  Rossrs 01:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi again. I think I've had a good idea. I have been thinking that the Minogue article made too much use of album covers, they don't particularly illustrate the text effectively and make the article seem a little repetitive.  So while looking for screenshots, I found some that I think are really good.  I've substituted some of the album covers for screenshots, and I think they are more instructive, address some of the points made and give the page more variety.  Rather than drastically edit the page, I've made a test page.  Can you have a look here, at: The all new, all singing, all dancing Kylie Minogue page, and tell me what you think please?  Cheers Rossrs 04:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kylie in her sandbox Re: Kylie in her sandbox: Yup, it's getting better. I like the idea of using screenshots. The "Ophelia" link is great! Not being able to leave someone else's sandbox alone, I've jumped right in and started experimenting a bit. Things I did:
 * Increased gamma and saturation of the "Better the Devil You Know" screenshot. It's somewhat better defined now.
 * Replaced the Body Language cover with my own handywork: a capture of Body Language Live a.k.a. Money Can't Buy. I think it's quite a powerful image.
 * Cropped the Fever Live image a bit to remove clutter. It's still a bit crowded for such a small image, so you might want to try to capture a tighter shot from the show.
 * Cropped "Did it Again" capture as well.

Some other, random observations:
 * Let's edit the opening paragraph. "She has evolved her musical and visual style to attain longevity in the competitive field of pop music" sounds like it's lifted from a posh art brochure.
 * Next paragraph: "Her sister Dannii Minogue is also a pop singer. She first came to attention as a child actor...", is "she" referring to Minogue the bigun or the littleun? (I know, but the reader won't at first).
 * "The release of her Greatest Hits album in 1992 coincided with her departure from Stock, Aitken and Waterman.", followed by some text about the album. Wouldn't it be more interesting to say something about her split with SAW here instead (reasons, motivation, some quotes maybe)?
 * General comment: I think the article still has too many of the following:
 * "Album/single "X" did so and so in this and that chart"
 * "Magazine "Y" said this and that about so and so Album/single"
 * Think you could snip some of the less essential ones and leave the juicy/interesting bits? My first choice for deep-six action would be the tired Britney/Christina comparisons and some of The Austrialian's quotes. I really think we need to trim down the size of this beast, although I'm not quite sure how. Snipping nonessential review/charts stuff might be a start.

Just let me know what you think. I'll try to find some sources for the various suggestions I made (tomorrow, when I'm slightly more coherent). Cheers. --Plek 00:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Parlophone is Nick Cave's label, isn't it? Did he get Kylie to leave Deconstruction? It might be interesting to explore why she switched labels again (then again, it might not... maybe I'm looking for juice where none is to be found).

 * Hi. I think what you've done is great.  I'm glad you were able to sharpen the "Better the Devil You Know" image.  I wanted something that was adult rather than just another display of flesh, and I like that image.  The Money Can't Buy image is superb too.  (I don't like the Body Language cover.  I think she looks like a 60s Bond girl or something. Don't like it at all, so I'm happy you've removed it)  I'll try to find something else for the Fever tour. I was trying to find something that gave an indication of the sets, the dancers, the costumes etc all in one shot, but yes it does look cluttered.  hmmmm.    Failing that, the DVD I have also has her Brit Awards performance, so that might have some possibility.  I must get that Money Can't Buy DVD...

 * I'm glad you like the Ophelia thing. I was very excited when I found that.  I was thinking "Just let someone try to say that's not encyclopedic!".

 * Editing - agree with you on every point. With regards to quotes from "The Australian", that is the most respected newspaper in Australia.  The equivalent of the "London Times" or the "New York Times" so praise from them, is praise indeed.  I'd like to leave one of them but you're right, there are too many.  Likewise one quote comparing her to her peers but not all of them.

 * About leaving Deconstruction, joining Parlophone, Nick Cave etc. I don't think there's a story there.  Just coincidence I think.  I read that Minogue was used to being PWL's number one act, and didn't like just being one of the roster at Deconstruction and she thought they could have tried harder to promote her.  (they spent very little on promotion I think).  On the other hand they were expecting to make a huge amount of money off her with minimal investment and were disappointed when they didn't, so the parting was mutual dissatisfaction.  Then when she was shopping around for a new contract (same interview) she was supposedly with a Parlophone bigwig who said "Well Miss Minogue, the thing is we don't have anyone like you on our books", to which she replied "nobody does".  Which is a nice anecdote but I think she was going to sign with whoever gave her a good deal, and Parlophone gave her that, plus a lot of artistic control.  Maybe Nick Cave recommended Parlophone to Minogue, or vice versa, but I've never read anything to that effect.

 * It's taking shape! I'm happy for the Sandbox page to be used for playing around with getting it right before it's taken onto the main page.  So you're welcome to do whatever you like.  What you've done so far has been just great.  Rossrs 07:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * new Fever screenshot. And sound samples added. Rossrs 08:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, I've added a talk page to the Kylie sandbox. I thought it would be easier to have all the ideas in one place. Talking about the Kylie Sandbox.  It'll be easier to delete later if it's in on place. ;-)

Re: "she looks like a 60s Bond girl or something": Heh, heh, you're a lot closer than you might think. I've transcribed a section of the BLL DVD, which explains where things are coming from. I think some of it could go at the beginning of the Body Language album paragraph or in the "Image" section to shed light on her creative direction in this period. The calender imagery also makes a lot more sense when knowing this.

Q: "Apparently you chose Brigitte Bardot as a source of inspiration?"

Kylie: "Hmm, hmm... I worked very closely with my stylist, who is also my creative director. We were just flipping though books and saw some great images and everything more or less stemmed from there. I mean I just tended to think of BB as, well, she's a sexpot, isn't she? She's one of the greatest pinups. But she was fairly radical in her own way at that time. And we chose to reference the period, which was, I think, a perfect blend of coquette and rock and roll."

From Body Language Live DVD, Money Can't Buy (2003) pre-show press conference --Plek 11:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aloha! I've continued tweaking the article here and there. Just browse through the history and dump anything you don't like. It is coming together, yes. I think the main remaining eyesore are the last two paragraphs of the "Image" section. The "gay icon" paragraph starts with "early in her career", thus breaking the temporal flow (although this is only a minor point, I think). The last paragraph is more troublesome. "Accepted by a wider audience than just fans" is quirky. It looks like an assorted heap of unrelated triviods, with the final statement being unintentionally funny. My thoughts when reading that, after everything that has gone before, were: "Gawd... ALL that trouble just to get your name on a POSTAGE STAMP???". Surely there must be a better way to end the article, methinks... Any ideas on how to turn this whimper into a bang? Cheers. --Plek 23:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Didn't you once ask what is Kylie all about? Oh my god, do you think that's what she was after all along!?  The changes are all good.  Did she actually call Bardot "BB"?   The gay icon stuff.  It's pretty significant, and requires more than the "oh and before I forget she's also a gay icon (with her own postage stamp)" paragraph at the end, maybe backed with a quote or two.  It needs to placed at the right part of the article, but I'm not sure where.  Two thoughts off the top of my head. First, Kylie refusing to cancel a performance at the club GAY in London on the day of Michael Hutchence's death saying she couldn't do it.  Something about her personal loss was nothing compared to a community decimated by AIDS.  I think that was the day before the gay community nominated her for beatification.  Second, commenting on being a gay icon she said something like.  "Gay icons are supposed to be tragic.  The only tragedies I've sufferred are some of my clothes and some of my hairstyles".   Actually in La La La there's a fair bit explaining how she came to be regarded as such. I'll have to read through it.

 * The last paragraph is kind of a series of random thoughts. I think we can lose the whole lot.  At the time I wrote that, which was probably over a year ago, she was on TV constantly either about recycling, or domestic violence, or tourism and sometimes even singing.  She seemed to be at the helm of everything. It was very odd in Australia.  She's gone from being an object of ridicule to the national spokesperson on every subject - it was incongruous, but it's hard to convey the weirdness of it, and not necessary now that she's settled back into being a pop star again.  I don't know how to convey her iconic status in Australia without it being POV and it's probably not necessary.  For example at the Olympics the commentators said something like "here are two of the most recognisable icons in Australia, surf lifesavers and Kylie Minogue".  I had thought a long time ago that it was important to convey that somehow, but I don't think so anymore.  Anyway that whole end section needs to go, postage stamp included, and we need to come up with something else suitable as a closing. I have no idea. Rossrs 13:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About "what Kylie is all about": Well, I had expected her to have evolved into an independent, strong-minded person with a clear sense of direction. However, after reading those interviews, I get the impression that she's not quite there yet. Reading between the lines, I see someone who's more comfortable being a member of the team, sometimes following directions by others, rather than always being on top of things and fully in control of her own direction. Gawd, I sound like the Sunday newspaper's horoscope! Anyhow, I think all this means that we're on the right track with the article by clearly identifying the various people with whom she's associated. I think they are equally important in shaping the "Minogue franchise" as she is herself. I also find it remarkable that they're all men, although I have no idea whether that signifies anything.

 * So, who have been the men? Stock Aitken Waterman obviously.  Terry Blamey, her manager since 1987, her father - an accountant, he's also her financial manager (what a great job!), William Baker, her stylist since 1997 and credited with her gay icon/Spinning Around/hot pants etc.

Also - a woman - Katerina Jebb. photographer from the early 90s. relentlessly battled Minogue's tendency to present herself as a drag queen (according to Jebb)

About the BB quote: yes, I've transcribed the interview verbatim. Turns out she repeats the line in the VH1 interview. Guess that makes it true...

Gay icon text: I've moved the gay icon paragraph almost to the top of the "Image" section, where I think it belongs in terms of importance. It needs some copyedit and could be expanded a bit. I like the interview in which she says that she hasn't really tried to become part of the gay community, but was kind of "adopted" by them. Cute.

The conclusion: Finally, I think the VH1 interview bit, where she acknowledges being part of a manufactured image, could be useful to incorporate. Many people will have that very idea when reading the article. Confirming that thought by having her agreeing with them could be a fitting conclusion to the article, maybe (let's say, the next-to-last paragraph, with some blurb about her future prospects and direction to close it all off). Something like that? --Plek 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Have done a bit of adding. Gay icon - found a couple of quotes that expanded it a bit, including the "adopted" one and tried to make just one short, sharp paragraph, that dealt with the subject. Also added a bit to the On a Night Like This tour, including her quote about what she considered her strengths.  Sliced off the previous ending paragraph, and added two paragraphs to conclude.  The paragraph about being manufactured.  That's rather good.  Then another one quoting William Baker saying her sexpot bit had gone too far, Kylie more or less agreeing that it cant go on forever. And finishing with her doing jazz in Paris, and saying that above all she is a performer.  Or maybe that should be PERFORMER!!!!  Up to 39 kb.  I find it easier to build it up, and then cut it back, don't know about you.  I think we've got some cutting to do, but I find the building up much easier than the cutting. (It's still smaller than Duran Duran.  Rossrs 14:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent ending! It's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. So, one down, only a few more to go. The other additions are very good as well.

I've tried to do some cutting, but haven't been able to snip more than a few words here and there. There really isn't that much fat left, I think. I'll try again tomorrow.

I also added one more picture in the "Image" section. I noticed that we didn't have any "real life" Kylie pics in the article, so I put one in there from the BL press conference. I thought it fitted the "media interest" theme nicely. I also captured the image on the right which I really like, but I don't see any useful place to put it. So I'll just drop it here to fluff up the talk page...

Some final things that remain to be done:
 * More trimming
 * Fix William Baker's credentials: he's alternatively called her stylist and her creative director. While he really is her stylist and her creative director, the current use might be confusing
 * Fix/eliminate paragraph in the "Image" section starting with "Her raunchy image...". With the new ending, most of that has become redundant. "Sex Kylie" is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and "her critics" is followed by "her detractors" in the next paragraph. I'd say incorporate the useful bits elsewhere and delete the rest.
 * Tidy up the "Samples" section. The solid block of "Download sample of" looks ugly. Just use the song's title as the link text instead? Also, adding the single's year of issue might provide useful context. Done. --Plek 10:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe try to replace some more covers with "real" pictures, if anything useful, nice or appropriate can be found.

And then it may be time to do The Big Paste... The diff is going to be complete carnage, that's for sure. All in the name of science (or should that be: entertainment)? --Plek 23:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It's all looking good. We were very bad leaving the categories on the article, weren't we!  Wikipedia polluters!  :-(  I like the BL press confererence image too - fits well, and it's different to the other stuff.  The other one on this page I like too, but I don't know what to do with it.

I'm a bit pushed for time for the next few days, but I'll try to get done what I can. Your suggestion of replacing covers - yes I think the covers are less illustrative of the text than (what I really like) screenshots. They really appeal to me for some reason. Plus the album covers are all there on the album pages, so that's a bit boring really. My thoughts - and I'll put something together as an example - replace "Kylie album" with "I Should Be So Lucky" screenshot, to show her as the clueness newbie she then was. Replace "Light Years" with the "Spinning Around" shot. Impossible Princess is nice, and it's an "art" shot but then it would be the only album cover. hmmm needs some thought. I'd like to find a "Put Yourself in My Place" screenshot and link it to Jane Fonda as Barbarella, and have that in the section where "Spinning Around" is now. If we do that I'd then want a sound sample too as all the other songs mentioned or illustrated have sound samples and that would just keep it consistent. Also I've been thinking of a way to include the 'people around Kylie'. I think the key is the parents, the manager and on from there. Would be easy to write two sentences that flow into the bit about "manufactured" and "team". Will try to put that together, to see what you think. cheers Rossrs 11:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I should be receiving the Ultimate Kylie DVD soon, so I could take a shot at those captures as well. All the videos you mentioned are on there, so that would be no problem. As to the "Spinning Around" picture: methinks that there are more enticing captures to be made than the one we have right now; she doing her thing on the counter comes to mind (although I haven't seen the vid for some time now, I'll know for sure when I get the DVD). --Plek 12:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * oops, I've already done it. Sorry, I've been sitting here playing with my Ultimate Kylie DVD....I found a "Lucky" bit complete with the childish backdrop. The image we had before from "Spinning Around" I'm sure it's not a screenshot as it's not on the video, also the famous still shot of her on the bar, not there either.  Very hard to get a screenshot where she isn't grimacing or out of focus (or in the case of "Put Yourself In My Place", grimacing, out of focus and upside down) but I got a couple.  Plus the song sample I was threatening to add.  And now we're up to 40 kb. Can you believe it?  Rossrs 15:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, is 40 kB too long? I'd say sod it; with a career spanning almost two decades, that's only 2 kB per year. That's not so bad, is it? ;-) Screenshots look good, tragic outfits and hairdos and all. I've been going over the article once more. I think one aspect needs some minor copyedit:
 * The opening section: let's make sure that it accurately summarises the article, has a pleasant layout and entices the reader to dig into the article proper. Right now, I'm not too sure about any of those. It starts out with a single-sentence paragraph. It doesn't mention her career origins in soap acting (the two could be solved with a single addition). I'm not too confident about calling her Deconstruction period a "grunge" phase, although I haven't listened to all of the KM/IP songs. Are you sure this label is accurate? In any case, the term doesn't occur in the rest of the article, so either it should be added there, or renamed here, I think. The "most successful concert tour ever" might lead to questions about verifiability and NPOV; how does one measure the "success" of a tour? I'd say either reword that (something like "highest ticket sales/attendance ever"), or pick a different achievement to mention in the introduction.
 * Back to work for me; I'll see what I can do tonight. --Plek 10:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 40 kb is ok by me, but I'm anticipating the naysayers. You know what I mean, those who say nay just for the sake of it. We've met some of them recently.  With a bit of luck there's no asteroid named after Minogue yet.  If there is I don't want to know. ;-) I'm quite ready to point at the 42 kb Duran Duran featured article if necessary.  Grunge phase. Yes, well spotted.  That's does need rewording.  It's interesting that she's had two wildly successful careers, with a ten year struggle in the middle of them.   That's what I was trying to address, but I don't know how to say that.  "Successful tour", you're right again.  "Highest ticket sales" is in fact accurate.  I've read that in newspapers - I suppose that will need to be referenced.  I'll have to try to find something. On that subject - there are several mentions throughout of 7 million for this album, and 4 million for that one.. none of it's referenced and I don't know where that came from or who put it in.  I don't even know where to start looking for sales figures in order to reference them.  Do you know?   The whole lead section is lacking a bit.  I'm all Minogued out, I'm a bit blank. I'll give it some thought, and have a look over the next couple of days.  On the whole I have to say we've done some really good things with this. Rossrs 13:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, the thing has improved considerably (in my not so humble opinion). And fear not, no "Minogue" or "Kylie" is to be found on the minor planets list... yet. They do have a "(10838) Lebon", which may or may not be named after that Le Bon, which may or may not prove useful when a major minor planet war should erupt between the Kylie Minogue WP crowd and the Duran Duran WP crowd (with the Anne Frank WP crowd cheering them on as innocent bystanders, their minor planet reference safely in the bin). Anyway, moving right along, what are your thoughts about moving this article back to the main article space? While you're recovering from your Minogue overdose, we could keep it here in isolation and (relative) safety, or we could paste it in and let the rest of the dogs gnaw at it as well. :) Either one is fine with me, I guess. I'll also try to address some of my own suggestions over the weekend to see what happens. Cheers. --Plek 15:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd like to leave it here for a few more days, or at least until that lead section is fixed. I want to trim the references down.  I think with all the editing some of them are redundant, so I will check them.  I've been thinking we should have a quick scan through the album and single articles that link here and make sure they're all right.  I don't propose anything major, just fixing any glaring problems. I haven't looked at them though so they may be ok as they are.  Then do you think it should go onto Peer Review again, or straight to FA nomination?  The more I look at it, the more I think it's better than most of the celebrity articles.  If anyone says it needs "a bit more criticality" or "some discussion of, as they say, the music, would be nice", I won't be responsible for my actions. :-)
 * I've had a go at the lead section. I think it's better than it was was, but I'm sure it could be improved upon. I've also gone through the whole thing from start to finish, and tweaked it here and there, and I'm happy with it.  I think it covers everything it should cover, and I don't think there's any fluff left in it.  Over to you now.  What do you think? Rossrs 16:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yay! We have a new lead section! I did some minor trimming in there, but it's looking good. The only thing that might cause problems is the use of the word "serious" in "she attempted to establish herself as a serious performer and songwriter". I know exactly what you're trying to say with that, but the proverbial typical reader might think that she wasn't serious before, and dumped all seriousness overboard when joining Parlophone to regain her place as flippant sexpot (hotpants and all). On the other hand, I really can't think of anything else to put there, so let's just ignore that proverbial reader, shall we?
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems we've had the wrong dates in the section headings for quite some time now. I changed them. Also, the text mentioned Kylie joining Parlophone in Nov. 1998, whilst Kylie.com says April 1999. Changed that as well.
 * Finally, I did a complete overhaul of the "References" section. According to the Manual of Style, a retrieval date is only needed when referencing content that's subject to change. Static articles in periodicals don't need it, so I removed most of them. I also reformatted most entries so everything is consistent. I think the section looks a lot less cluttered now.
 * I think the article is done. Or, at least done-ish or done enough. It might even be well done, but we won't know for sure until we set it loose. I'd say we go straight to FAC; everything that was said in previous peer reviews and FailedFACs has been addressed, and then some. My congratulations to you on a kick ass piece of work.
 * One final thought: I'm entertaining the wild idea of contacting Terry Blamey Management Ltd. and ask them to do a fact check on the article and the discography. Yes, I think it's unlikely we'd get anything more than a canned reply (if that), but if I do get them to read through it, well, there's nothing better than the horse's mouth, right? Is this the stupidest idea in the history of stupid ideas, or do you think it has any merit? Cheers. --Plek 01:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * ha! "where she married a whimp". yes she married a whimp and "moved to Brisbane" which is "Neighbourspeak" for "got a better offer and left the show". I happen to live in Brisbane though, and have never seen Charlene when I've been out and about.... Lead paragraph.  True we don't want people thinking she flippantly decided to become a sexpot, because I believe that decision was not taken lightly!  Have changed "serious" to "independent".  Do you think that works?  It's not precisely what I wanted to say but it comes close.  Other than that - WOW !!!!!  I am so pleased with this.  Congratulations on a bloody brilliant job!  I can't say enough - first Anne Frank and now Kylie! Brilliant!!  I'm happy to see it go onto FAC now.  Would you like to make it a joint nomination?  I was thinking we could work jointly on replying to comments, and keep this page open for discussion between us.  Does that sound ok to you?

 * My only concern now is if anyone challenges the accuracy of the sales figures quoted, I have no answer. I don't know where they came from or how to verify them?  Any thoughts?

 * Also, I inverted the "Spinning Around" image. Do you think this is cheating? I found the image a few days ago, then after that I read in La La La about the Vargas influence, so I thought I'd try to find an example of a Vargas to link to.  I was amazed when I found one that was almost identical to the screenshot I'd taken.  I think it looks better this way, but will change it back if you think it's not right.

 * Contacting Terry Blamey? I think that's inspired. I'm doubtful as to how they would reply but it would be interesting to see.  I have heard KM say that she gets on the internet and is aware of things like "Kylie forums" etc, gets on and looks at them.  How cool if she read through it... :-D ... But how unlikely.  I say go for it!  Mind you, I can't see them being happy about the Washington Post comment or the Pia Zadora comparison.  (Those things are oddly missing from Kylie.com!)  But it's not going to hurt to do it, is it?  This has turned out far better than I ever expected.  Again, thank you! Rossrs 07:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (Insert a pensive "hmmm..." here) I don't think manipulating imagery (or data in general) to make a point is such a good idea when writing an encyclopedic article. Or any article, really. I know it's a fairly insignificant alteration, but as a matter of principle I reverted it. People will most likely notice the resemblance either way.
 * About the sales figures: Well, the organisation that should be responsible for announcing such figures is the IFPI. Instead, they seem to have degenerated into a rather scary posse, responsible for launching oxymorons like "copyright theft" into the public vocabulary, bent on eradicating the Public Domain, bullying governments around the world to implement "copyright reform" through "fair trade agreements", and generally trying to circumvent judicial law to form their own private copyright enforcement army. The whole group seems like a blatant example of corporatism run amok to me. (Takes deep breath to regain composure). I guess I'll never be able to write something neutral at IFPI. Anyway, those sales figures are only available from them after paying several hunderds of Pounds. I guess we'll have to go with what we have. If someone objects, we can always remove or edit things.
 * About the page move: I've been reading a bit about moving pages on Wikipedia. It looks like just copy-and-pasting the sandbox over the original article is frowned upon, because it destroys the edit history. Also, because the move target (i.e. the original article) isn't empty, we can't just use the "Move" function to merge the two. Finally, because of the Everyking edit, the two versions have overlapping edit histories. All this means that we probably need admin help to merge the two together (a move of this talk page just might be in order as well). A request to do so should be posted at Requested_moves. Because I wouldn't dare to move anyone else's sandbox (I only play in it), I'll leave the honours to you ;-).
 * After the move is done, a joint FAC nomination seems OK to me!
 * About contacting ZeBigBoss: When the article is back in place, I'll draft a mail to them and will let you know. In any case, I'll clearly state that the article is supposed to be a neutral assessment, including both positive and negative criticism. I'll hope that will soften the blow a bit:-). --Plek 15:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Image manipulation - yes it's undesirable. I started rethinking it almost as soon as I did it. Thanks for reverting it. Sales figures - you've eased my mind.  If someone challeges it, we edit/delete and don't waste time trying to justify them.  I like that!  I've read through the page move info. My interpretation is that in copying and pasting from one article to another you lose the edit history of the article being copied from, in this case - this sandbox edit history.  Is it important that it be kept if we've agreed that we're happy with the rewrite as it now stands?  I mean, it would not damage the integrity of the original article's history, and the sandbox history in my opinion is just between the two of us, and not of any concern to Wikipedia. I understand them frowning on what would essentially be merges between two individual articles with individual histories, but this would only lose our own edits here, which we could refer to if necessary because the Sandbox history would still exist.  With some other articles I've worked on, (and I did it not even thinking it might cause a problem) I copied the whole thing into a WP document, edited it at my leisure and then copied and pasted it in its entirety back into the article. (making sure nobody else had edited it in the meantime) When I did a compare edit, it showed the differences between versions as normal, and didn't lose any history.  All that was lost was my own thought processes between edits, which I didn't think important anyhow.   Am I interpreting this correctly? Or have I totally got this wrong?  I'm not sure.  Reading Requested_moves I'm not sure how to ask for the two things to be merged,and I'm not even sure it's necessary, especially when it says there that requests are discussed for 5 days.  What do you think?   I also read through Duplicate articles. Either way, I don't want to move the talkpage.  The current Talk:Kylie Minogue page has enough of my mindless ramblings without adding a whole lot more for posterity! :-)  Anyway it's very late and I'm not thinking clearly.  I have to go to sleep and will be back tomorrow.  Hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. Cheers.  Rossrs 16:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are live! I have moved the sandbox content to Kylie Minogue. In the end, I just did a copy-and-paste; I think your arguments for doing so are sound. Luckily, I didn't forget to re-enable the categories. Replaced the sandbox's content with a redirect, just to avoid confusion (remove at will). I've also typed up a brief summary of all the things we changed on the main article's talk page. See: Talk:Kylie Minogue. And that concludes this sandbox session! Kylie will return... --Plek 17:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Whew! A job well done.  I've had a look and it's already had a couple of edits. Seems very weird for someone else to be editing it.  Thank you for doing the move. I like the way you've summed up the changes on the talk page.  Very clear.  Now we just have to see how it's received by the masses!  :-) Rossrs 21:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

=Notes and bits and pieces that might be useful= I found a book called Kylie Confidential in a bargain bin today so grabbed it. Awful title (it's going to look very convincing in References), but at first glance might have a few good things. I think it might wrap up the gay icon thing nicely because it has a whole chapter on it, which I'll have to read through.

Also - no idea what to do with it, but a quote from Pete Waterman on Minogue c. 1988 "I found it amazing that she was outselling Madonna four to one, but still wanted to be her. Everyone wanted to be Kylie Minogue except Kylie Minogue, who wanted to be Madonna". Interesting mindset.

Thought maybe any stray thoughts or links could be jotted here.

"Gay icons usually have some tragedy in their lives, but I've only had tragic haircuts and outfits." this appears on several sites

Kylie the icon, the gay icon, Stock Aitken Waterman etc maybe some good ideas in here, plus some quotes.

www.apeculture.com/music/kylielive.htm Her name is Kylie, She is a showgirl On A Night Like This tour

VH1 interview mentions Brigitte Bardot, also - very good - she lists some of her musical influences, Jackson 5, Donna Summer etc.

variation on the gay icon quote hmmm this one pops up on a few sites too.

and this is what our article looks like without pictures :-(

BBC article, shame it's not very good

Seattle Weekly article very good, and contains good quote about what Minogue thinks she's best at.

Blamey email
Well, with Wikipedia as flakey as it has been the last few days, I'm not surprised that my mail didn't get through. Here it is. Could you check my writing, please? My spelling and grammar are usually okay, but I occasionally mess up my prepositions and idom. Any other comments: just pour your heart out. Thanks! --Plek 16:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * hmmm ... some of us would be more eagerly awaiting Ms Minogue's "Showgirl" tour, if we had been able to purchase tickets before they sold out. Perhaps you could add something like "my friend in Australia would be much obliged if you could see your way to sending him two tickets for Ms Minogue's Brisbane show..."

 * Seriously, you write English far better than I do. I would only change the little bit about appreciating someone looking at the article.  That part is not quite right, but to insert "it" after "appreciate" makes it technically correct but still awkward, so I think just saying "we would be very grateful" would be better.  Top notch email!  Rossrs 08:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Blamey

I am writing to you on behalf of the Wikipedia project , to seek your help in checking the factual accuracy of our articles on Kylie Minogue.

Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate open content encyclopaedia. It is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. The English-language version may be viewed on the Web at . It currently has close to half a million articles on-line, serving as a source of information to many, and also used by other Internet sites (for example: Google and Answers.com) to provide answers to their users’ queries.

Over the past few weeks, a group of editors has been hard at work to improve Ms. Minogue’s article, which gives an overview of her professional career and of the reactions to her work by the press and the public. Being an encyclopaedic work, the article is written from a neutral point of view, which means that a balanced account is given of both positive and negative criticism. Secondary articles, mainly concerning her albums and singles, have been edited and expanded as well.

Our goal is to bring the main article to “featured status”, which represents the highest standard of quality on Wikipedia. The main article can be found at , and links to the discography are located at the bottom of that page.

While we have taken care to cite the sources of all the information mentioned in the article, we would be very grateful if a knowledgeable person from within your agency could check the articles for factual accuracy. Finding publicly available, authoritative and accurate record sales figures proved to be especially difficult, so any input from you on that subject would be greatly appreciated. Of course, any other comments would be most welcome as well.

Should you be able to check our work and find any inaccuracies, please indicate so in your reply, if possible with pointers to a publicly available source. We will take care to incorporate your comments and correct the offending statements.

In any case, I wish you, Ms. Minogue, and her crew the best of luck with the upcoming Showgirl tour. Many of the people who contributed to the article, including me, are eagerly anticipating her show. We hope our work on Wikipedia will do justice to the achievement of an amazing performer. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

signed

title: User talk:Rossrs/Sandbox


text:
Talk:William A. Dembski

Reversion Except for New Citation
I left the new citation added by WLU, but reverted the rest, pending further consideration one item at a time. The wording deleted by WLU was not "extraneous." It was corrective based on the existing citations. As one example, the paragraph regarding a “sense of purpose” under Science vs. naturalism completely misses the point of the citation. The purpose under discussion is the concept that the universe is purposeful, not that people need a sense of purpose. If you see changes that are needed, WLU, please revisit these edits one at a time so they can be considered individually. Thanks. Scoopczar (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That goes both ways - I carefully retained edits to faith healing because I believe they were improvements; your edit eliminated incremental improvements to spacing of sources and statements.
 * A problem with the "purpose" quote is that it states "the science backs you up" - when it clearly doesn't. I don't think a quotation is necessary here (particularly a lengthy one and particularly with the quotation template when there are already two in the section), and have replaced it with a summary.  I actually rewrote the section a fair bit, there's too many quotes.  I'm also not clear on how this paragraph links to the rest of the section.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the following is a copy-and-paste taken from the page, this version, not my own wording. I'm not sure why it's here, and was surprised to see it was my own edit! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks, sorry about the confusion. So, you've moved this here as it needs to be more closely tied into the section. That's reasonable, it's probably worth mentioning the "vise strategy" phrase and his aim of getting subpoenas on scientists, but that's more relevant to the later Kitzmiller trial. . dave souza, talk 15:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just based on that source, I read it as an off-hand comment. Unless there's more to this idea, unless the "vise strategy" is like the wedge strategy in that it's actually a long-term thing, I don't see it as really worth mentioning or singling out in a quote.  It could probably be slotted somewhere but right now I don't see where.  It's like the "vaccine-autism" thing; sure he said it, but does he spend a lot of time advocating for it?  I've relocated that point to the biography section and frankly I wouldn't mind taking it out completely.  It certainly doesn't deserve its own section, even though it does demonstrate Dembski's lack of understanding of either the scientific process, specific findings, or scientific consensus.  Plus, it's sourced to a radio broadcast, it'd be nice to see it in text (mostly so I don't have to listen to 40 minutes of stupid).  If anyone else wants to note when it occurs in the broadcast...  I've done a bit of googling and found nothing so far about Dembski/autism/vaccines but it hasn't been exhaustive.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Found useful coverage in . . . . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, well bully for us then. If Forrest is only replying to the one comment by Dembski (the original citation seems to be the same one we would be citing) I'm still reluctant to include a lengthy commentary but the original comment and rebuttal by Forrest could probably be integrated into an existing section.  To add anything more than say, two sentences, I would still think we'd need citations demonstrating it was a strategy or long-term preoccupation, rather than a a single off-the-cuff comment.  Though, it looks like Forrest has some citations to that end!  I won't comment further or integrate until I've read the post.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other links that came up in the search: The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth out of Darwinists |Uncommon Descent is Dembski's original blog posting, still up on their site. WORLD Magazine | Religious studies | Marvin Olasky | Jul 17, 10 is a book review on World (magazine) dated July 17, 2010, which says: "A good religious studies department would put on its reading list Evidence for God, edited by William Dembski and Michael Licona (Baker, 2010). The book includes 50 succinct essays that examine key questions concerning philosophy (including reasons for suffering), science, Jesus, and the Bible. Dembski's essay on "The Vise Strategy" has terrific questions designed to push methodological materialists to drop their unscientific prejudices and give God a chance."

So looks like it's not been forgotten. This non-reliable source repeats Dembski's questions which were supposed to form "a steel trap that leave[s] the Darwinists no room to escape", and gives answers. Not suitable as a source but amusing reading. . dave souza, talk 20:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed: that last source has a link, "William Dembski proposed what he calls (tongue, presumably, in cheek) a "Vise Strategy" as a successor to the "Wedge", the aim being to "squeeze the truth out of Darwinists". You can read the whole thing at www.designinference.com (pdf, 23 pages)." It's one of the DI's websites so a reliable self-published source, and the essay's at that link but I've not read it all. . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, looks like we've got a good point-counterpoint then! I'd still roll it into another section rather than trying to have it on its own, but then again I don't think it was in it's own section to begin with.  Capital!  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing review
As part of a general review, I'm going to be going through the references and tidying them up as well as seeing how things fit together a bit better. There's too many sections which are a bit incoherent in my opinion. I've done a bit with the bio section so people can see what kind of thing I mean. Mostly, stuff needs citation templates and a pretty thorough review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design is pseudoscience
Talk.origins is seen as a good parity source, particularly for creationism topics. It's not a "usenet group", it has its own wikipedia page and it's award winning, and is recognized by Scientific American, Science, the AAAS, the Smithsonian, and used in many, many college courses. This isn't a random website.

WP:BLP does not overwrite all other policies, and WP:UNDUE requires us to contextualize things in proportion to their mainstream acceptance - and no mainstream publication accepts intelligent design as valid. We are enjoined to get BLPs right, and that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." My points are always sourced, the sources are always reliable, the material is presented responsibly, conservatively and in a disinterested tone. The scientific consensus is that ID is pseudoscience. This is not controversial, this is not a minority position, there's no debate over this. There has been no scientific papers published supporting ID, no scientific society agrees that ID is a worthwhile idea, or even a scientific theory. It's not that I disagree with Dembski (I do, he's wrong). My personal opinion is not the point. The point is we must give DUE WEIGHT to the appropriate scholarly opinion, that that opinion is what I am sourcing. Not my own. Perhaps I'm confused - what specific part of BLP are my edits violating?

Also, if anyone objects to a section, remove that section - don't blanket revert to remove actual improvements like citation templates. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edits to the page. There was a reason I replaced multiple citations with one - Young & Edis is a superior citation because it is explicit, and only one was needed.  Though the other sources could be used, Y&E is better because it refers to Dembski specifically, criticizes his work specifically, and doesn't lead to source-spamming.  The time article is from 2005, and he's not employed as a professor of theology at Southern Baptist anymore.  By far he is best known as a proponent of intelligent design, not as a professor of anything.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not remove the well sourced descriptions of the man's career again. We get that you disagree with him, but that doesn't allow you to engage in vandalistic BLP violations. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, where is the BLP violation? Second, why do you keep replacing unnecessary sources?  Third, why do you not retain the incremental improvements to citation templates?  Fourth, where is the vandalism?  Fifth, where have I removed "well-sourced descriptions of the man's career"?  He's not a professor of theology anymore, he's a professor of philosophy.  Sixth, I'm removing the unnecessary and inaccurate use of a duplicate citation to the time article; there's no reason to replace it, the overall citation to the article is to the front page, we don't need to link to every single page that exists.  Plus, it's from 2005 and is now inaccurate.  His employment and degrees are noted, but his expertise and profession is more tenuous.  This isn't about disagreeing with what he says, this is about the most reasonable summary of his career.  This certainly isn't worth edit warring over.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to fix thte citations. I apologize if I messed them up. That was no intentional. DO NOT remove the well sourced content on the man's career in an attempt to belittle and disparage him because you don't happen to agree with his views. That is a clear BLP violations and is unacceptable. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't make up false accusations and don't assume bad faith motives. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Mathematician and Philosopher
I like this descriptive lead cited to time from 2005, theres nothing wrong with it, seems like theres a lot of strong opinions surrounding this sudo science issue, me I don't care its all sudo to me.. anyway,.... William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is a mathematician, philosopher and theologian[2] in the United States known primarily as a proponent of intelligent design (ID) and in particular for promoting the argument of "specified complexity". ... this is fine and covers his main fields. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Off2riorob. In its current form, the lede drowns its notable content (Dembski's theories on ID) with an extraordinarily detailed account of Dembski's academic career and qualifications. Why? He's not notable for those. He's notable for his theories on ID. If readers want more, they can read the article. Haploidavey (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support removing mathematician (and leaving the rest). His "claim" to that title seems to be from a) and article calling him it and b) holding degrees in mathematics. I don't think that can be sufficiently or duely used to describe him as a mathematician (i.e. he doesn't appear to have worked as a mathematician). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The very best you could say is "former theologian" since he does not currently hold that position. He is primarily known as a proponent of intelligent design, as far as I know does not publish anything in the peer reviewed press on math, doesn't hold a position, etc.  I don't know if Time is the best source for any of this, there are plenty of scholarly books to choose from.  Would that be acceptable to all editors?
 * FSN, I had fixed the citations, that is why I am irritated. I'm not attempting to disparage him, I am attempting to depict his career and give due weight to the mainstream opinion of his ideas. My edits included all of this information - his former position as a professor of theology and his current position as a professor of philosophy.  Calling him a mathematician is simply incorrect as far as I can tell, since he doesn't work as a mathematician, doesn't publish in any math journals, doesn't hold a scholarly position, and in general isn't respected for his work on math.  He's primarily a proponent of intelligent design, and at best is secondarily a professor of philosophy.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't mind retaining mathematician, but it certainly shouldn't be the first and primary description. He hasn't published in over 20 years, and it isn't what he is known for.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeh, there is very little basis for calling him a mathematician. I suggest something like...
 * Having PhD's in both mathematics and philosophy justifies the statement. Furthermore Dembski continues to publish mathematical analyses (despite the slander above). See seven publications since 2009 under "Main Publications" at The Evolutionary Informatics Lab. These explicitly use mathematical analyses of information searches. I restored "mathematician".DLH (talk)

William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American philosopher and theologian known primarily as a proponent of intelligent design (ID) and in particular for promoting...

 * Thoughts? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dembski is a controversial figure. I chose the current "most noted" (ID proponent), "training" (list of degrees) and "position" (professor of philosophy, former professor of theology) for that reason.  This gives, in my mind, the most accurate description of his career and activities, without giving undue weight to claims that he's a good philosopher or mathematician.  Another option, suggested above, is to find what scholarly sources (rather than Time) say about him.  Why Intelligent Design Fails lists him as a mathematician and a philosopher (not a theologian), but then lists several stinging criticisms of his work and claims (notably that it's crappy math that's just a rewording of Creationist arguments about the tornado and the junkyard).  In particular, I would suggest focusing on scholarly books, and those published after the Dover v. Kitzmiller verdict, where ID took quite the beating and lost much of its credibility.  Pity Dembski didn't testify.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite the false claims and smears being carried out by his ideological opponents, Dembski has published on math related topics at least as recently as 2004. And someone doesn't stop being one thing as soon as they do other things. No lead on Wikipedia should be written in a way that excludes all the work of their career in order to disparage them as is being attempted here. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I removed mathematician, philosopher, etc. The very next sentence says that he has advanced degrees in these areas and it doesn't make sense to include both. I'm easy with either, or neither. but not both. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I request including the descriptors of his career work as a philosopher, theologian and mathemetician (if that's the order preferred by those seeking to minimize his credentials), especially since the other version uses information on his degrees that isn't as well sourced and that was actually removed earlier today. These descriptions were used by Time magazine and there's really no dispute that this is what the man has done in his career. It is standard to note someone's career information in the lead. And the end of the first sentence as it was written clearly spells out what he is most known for (ID stuff), so no reasonable objection can be made to providing rest of his career background as per standard practice. Just because someone advocates unpopular or even incorrect views doesn't mean they stop being a mathemetician, a theologian, or a philosopher. The areas of his career work should certainly be noted, as he's notable and has received recognition for his work in all those areas. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What peer reviewed articles has he published in the field of mathematics in the past decade? Time isn't an academic source, it's like asking Time to comment on the implications of CCSVI for MS patients.  At best, they give you a breakdown of the popular reaction - not the probability the treatment works and the theory is accurate.  Why favour Time over other sources?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * WLU: I'm not sure why that's reverent. Someone is a mathematician if reliable sources describe him as such per our policy on verifiability. Also, Time not being an academic source is also irreverent, again, per our policy on verifiability.  That said, I take no position on this issue, just on these two arguments which are invalid.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, but Dembski is a controversial figure. A straight up prof of math who publishes a notable new theory or revolutionizes a field passes N easily and gets described as a mathematician.  Does someone who builds perpetual motion machines in between their shifts at McDonalds get described as an engineer?  Dembski is somewhere between the two, but more on the PMM side.  He is first and foremost a promoter of ID.  He's a professor of philosophy.  He Christian-apologetics-press-publishes extremely shoddy math.  The latter two roles are essentially in support of his promotion of ID and ultimately his Christian Apologetics.  Someone who routinely publishes mathematical proofs in peer reviewed journals is undoubtedly a mathematician, almost irrespective any qualifications - but as far as I can tell, Dembski does not do this.  Edis & Young have a chapter calling his work "pseudomathematics" which is a lovely turn of phrase, and goes on to criticize the work not on theological or philosophical grounds like most others, but on scientific/mathematical grounds.  For me, "promoter of ID" comes first, the perhaps "philosopher".  But I persist in believing the best route is to include promoter, then current affiliation/position, then I would include qualifications.  The current lead has the first two - so I'm basically voicing my agreement there.  I would also include his qualifications.  Despite being redundant to the infobox, Dembski does have relevant education and I do think it propos to mention.  And keep in mind, this is despite me being an evil violator of BLP who solely exists to disparage the subject!  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ID is psuedoscience. Whether or not you agree is a POV. Dembski may be a brilliant mathmetician (I agree with that statement completely), but he is an oddball when it comes to debating evolution. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally have any problem with calling Dembski a mathematician. He's got the degree and, unlike almost all other creationists out there, tries to express his theories in concise mathematical form. This makes him far superior to, say, Dr. Gitt, who wrote an entire book on creationist information theory ("In The Beginning Was Information") without once ever defining exactly what he means by information. In Dembski's case, anyone with sufficient patience and mathematical skill can follow his arguments. Some of them seem a little old-fashioned (e.g. using significance tests instead of, say, Bayesian evidence theory), but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

Of course, I do think his theories are flawed (see http://www.riverrock.org/~howard/Dembski.pdf for my critique), but the fact that they are clearly presented makes it much easier to find the flaws. Howard Landman (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for your input, Howard. As you can see, "mathematician" has long been restored to the lead, but it's good to have your professional opinion here. Imo, your paper should be cited in the article. It would be a conflict of interest and therefore inappropriate for you to add it yourself, and I don't have the time, but maybe another editor will see this and incorporate an informed argument against Dembski's math. Yopienso (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead
I'm trying to copy edit the lead, and I'm moving this paragraph here, because it's unclearly written and looks a bit odd in the lead (and not clearly related to the subject as he didn't give evidence). If it is related to him directly, it needs to be written differently; and we don't explain who Shallit is, and why he's so important to Dembski that he needs to be in the lead of the bio.

"The question of whether intelligent design is science or theology was put on trial in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (USA 2005). The key issue was whether intelligent design is faith-based and 'junk science'. As such, it was argued that it was unacceptable on the curriculum of a publicly funded high-school biology course. In a 139-page decision on December 20, 2005, Judge E. Jones wrote that 'the overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.' A controversy arose when Dembski withdrew from giving testimony in the trial and rebuttal witness Shallit was removed from the schedule."

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Your changes removed notation of his being a mathemetician and theologian, which is highly problematic as it leaves out much of his career's work. It is also misleading to readers because it is clearly the intersection of the fields where his interest lies. But even you don't take my word for it, the titles of mathemetician and theologian are what was used by Time magazine so you will need to explain their exclusion. You can also consider whether this is a standard philosophy text or something that relates more to theology and mathematics (the areas you've excluded). Freakshownerd (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I added that he's a mathematician because he has a PhD in it. I'm less sure we could call him a theologian, and I'm not sure it really matters. The infobox makes clear what his qualifications are, and it's always odd looking in BLPs to have a long list of credentials in the first line: X is a journalist and author and columnist and philosopher and statistician and generous giver to charity and a horrible husband etc. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Time (magazine)]] called him a theologian. It seems to me that his theories overlap the magisteria, to put it as Stephen Jay Gould and WLU might, and that his religious interests are part and parcel of his beliefs, research and study. But as I don't want to be accused of original research, I recommend going with what the reliable sources say. Certainly the idea that there is an intelligent creator (something he explores via mathematics and statistics) certainly seems to include considerations that would accurately be described as being theological. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note my previous comments of listing his degrees and positions rather than titles. He's far more a theologian than a mathematician since he's got degrees in both but only held a professorship in the former.  His qualifications and professional status are controversial because of the areas he chooses to write in.  Time is a popular magazine, not an academic publisher.  Only the latter would be qualified to comment on his expertise.
 * Regards the removed paragraph, it could be replaced in a modified, shortened form, the fact that Dembski withdrew from such a controversial trial is worth the lead, but not in its current form.
 * The paper FSN has linked to does not appear to be a peer-reviewed publication, I wouldn't suggest it substantiates that Dembski is a mathematician. Has he published a series of articles in peer-reviewed mathematics journals?  Are his theories taken seriously?  Generally I think his "life is complex" ideas are ignored, or criticized in more parity sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * He has a PhD in philosophy, a PhD in mathematics, and is employed as a philosopher. He only has a master's in theology. And really I think we are splitting hairs here. Point is he has a science and humanities background, and he is paid to be a philosopher. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * The problem is one of weighting. He is known as being a proponent of ID. If it were not for that, there would be no article. Including the word "mathematician" in the article isn't a problem. Including it in the lead probably isn't a problem. Including it in the lead sentence, prior to mentioning the only thing for which he is actually known is a weighting problem.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This makes sense to me. If he is primarily known as a proponent of ID, then perhaps the earlier formulation this one is the best. This would be second best. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I've removed mathematician for now, as I don't see that it really makes any difference, but I do think it's important that we begin by saying what he does (philosopher), rather than what he advocates (ID). Both are in the first sentence, so neither is being promoted or hidden. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Promoter of ID" is what he is and what he does, which is exactly why it should come first. He isn't a "something that promotes ID", he is a "promoter of ID that ...".—Kww(talk) 18:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * He's employed as a philosopher, and BLPs tend to start that way: John Smith is an X who is known for Y. To do otherwise looks as though people are wanting to emphasize the Y for reasons other than being encyclopedic. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't think the income he derives from the Discovery Institute and from ID book sales outweighs his philosopher income?—Kww(talk) 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  The lead should clearly and upfront state what the independent third party sources state, that ID is creationist at root, and is not a theory in the scientific sense. We seem to have lost pseudoscience which is unfortunate, but don't have time at present to search out new sources. Have modified lead accordingly, also clarifying that natural selection isn't an explanation for origins of life, only for its complexity. . . dave souza, talk 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * It does say it's creationist but please don't add the contentious pseudoscience word.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Just something to keep in mind in general: This is a BLP and should not be used as a coat rack to re-argue the case for or against ID. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree. This has been a very troubled BLP for a long time for that reason. It would be great if it could just be approached as a biography. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about writing a biography of a pseudoscientist that prohibits the use of the word "pseudoscience". The article tends to get heavy into refutation, but that generally comes as a reaction to people inserting pro-ID material into the biography or demanding extensive citation for the fact that he is a pseudoscientist.—Kww(talk) 20:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Kww, with respect, that is not a good attitude to edit a BLP with. If you have strong feelings it would be better just to leave it. The BLPs can't be used as weapons in these debates, for or against.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fine attitude to edit a BLP with. There's a major distinction between identifying someone as a pseudoscientist, which is a fairly objective thing, and ascribing motivations. If I were attempting to describe his motivations for promoting pseudoscience I'd be on shaky ground, and I don't do that.—Kww(talk) 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to drop the term "pseudoscience" on Intelligent Design, as that's clearly what it's described as. However, dropping the term straight into a BLP is problematic, to say the least. Without some air-tight citations, it's just asking for drama and edit-warring. I'd say leave that out. His lack of scientific rigor is clearly borne out by his methods and responses to criticism; there's no need to light a fire under the article by adding such a contentious term. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But the value of that contentious term is that it clearly conveys the actual merit of their opinion. There are citations to support ID and SC being pseudoscience, and BLP requires us to source criticisms, not leave them out.  How else to we convey the idea that Dembski's publications and ideas lack merit? It's pithy and accurate, and supported by both WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE/PS.  ID is seen as nothing but updated creationism, which is paradigmatic pseudoscience.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the issue in a nutshell. A biography of Dembski that didn't indicate that he has not produced any work that stood up to critical reasoning and review would be sorely lacking, and it's difficult to do that without using words that indicate that his work can't stand up to critical reasoning and review.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 * We do say in the lead that scientists see it as contemporary creationism, religion dressed up as science. I can't see the benefit of adding what philosophers call a "boo-hurrah word," like pseudoscience, terrorist etc, a word that only signifies some group doesn't like the thing in question. It overeggs the pudding, which is a problem you see a lot in articles that science editors don't like: one criticism after another, all saying more or less the same thing. It looks very defensive, and it has the opposite of the desired effect on the reader. If we could find a quote from a high-quality source that explains why the concept is important: "it's important to point out that this is pseudoscience because ..." with in-text attribution, that could change my mind, but just sticking the word in would not seem like good editing to me. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the best way forward? Listing the best sources to support the point, and deciding from there?  That seems reasonable to me, what do others think?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Is there a high-quality source who explains the sense in which this is pseudoscience (discussing Dembski in particular) and why it's important to point that out? That would provide a context, rather than just adding the word. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 * "boo-hurrah" doesn't remotely mean what you say it means (that should be obvious from the "hurrah" part), and "pseudoscience" clearly isn't a "boo-hurrah" word in any case; it's a descriptive term defined by Popper. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to question the last part of the lead. It looks like information that you would find in the intelligent design article and not in a blp. Truthsort (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Archived
Archived the page. The archives were screwed up, two less than 100K and one more than 300, I tried to even them out to 250 apiece but am on possibly the slowest computer in the world and may have screwed it up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to natural selection
I don't like the "as opposed to natural selection" bit in. Dembski says that natural selection doesn't explain the complexity of life. But then again, so do his detractors. "Evolutionists" don't claim that natural selection is the sole process necessary to explain the complexity of life, but one in addition to other evolutionary mechanisms, such as genetic drift. (See for example this article with a brief summary). This may seem like a minor point, but I think it is an important one nevertheless. Is there another way to phrase this? Would it be OK to just remove the "as opposed to natural selection" from the lead? Gabbe (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence seems a bit out of place in the lead in general - there must be a better of describing ID pseudoscience without having to explain what it's not. Perhaps in the first sentence of the state "William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American philosopher, known as a proponent well known for promoting the concept of intelligent design (the belief that the diversity of life is the result of an unnamed intelligent entity rather than evolution) and for his own the concept of specified complexity , which he believes can be used to identify the presence of design ."  Of course, next you would have to include a statement about how this is bunk and rejected by the scientific community pseudoscience to avoid UNDUE problems, and the lead spirals out of control.
 * Also, I'm not a fan of the list of books in the lead, he's got a lot of publications but I don't see it necessary to reproduce even the major books there. The page is quite long, for the lead to be this...banal...seems odd.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Describing intelligent design (ID) as "the belief that the diversity of life is the result of an unnamed intelligent entity rather than evolution" is unfortunately also rather inexact. For one, theistic evolution (TE) also says that the diversity of life is the result of an intelligent entity, but TE is not the same as ID. Part of the difference between them is the statement that it can be (and has been) empirically testable whether an intelligent designer is responsible for the complexity of life. Furthermore, a reader might easily assume that the word "evolution" in the definition was used in its scientific sense (that is, "the change in gene frequencies in a population across generations"), in which case ID concurs that gene frequencies change and that it is part of the explanation for the diversity of life.
 * If we're going to define ID in the lead, our definition should not only be concise but accurate. I think simply dropping ", as opposed to natural selection," from the current lead (thus leaving The concept of intelligent design involves the argument that an overarching intelligence is responsible for the complexity of life, and that it can be detected empirically.) would be a big improvement. Gabbe (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Is the idea not that ID sees an intelligent cause as responsible for life in general, not simply its complexity? If so, I would write something like "The concept of intelligent design involves the argument that an overarching intelligence is responsible for life and its complexity, and that this intelligence can be detected empirically." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really ... that's the area where ID tends to get very vague. Michael Behe, for example, has accepted common descent for all life forms and states that evolution primarily happens as a result of natural selection. He thinks that there are some details that were designed as additions to naturally-occurring life.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the argument is that ID is creationism, then it must argue that life was created by an intelligence; otherwise it is not creationism surely. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You miss its origins. ID is creation science renamed, going a bit further to obscure the fact that it's crreationism relabelled. Check this section. It's right to say it attributes life, the universe and everything to a creator intelligent designer, but it then says that's in opposition to evolution or natural selection, neither of which explains the origin of life or matter. Thus they might talk about "Darwinist cosmology", a subject outside Darwin's area of work So, miss out the natsel and that's ok. . . dave souza, talk 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That lack of internal self-consistency is one of the reasons it's so hard to take seriously. When defending it in Christian forums ID advocates have no problems identifying the designer as God. When defending it in secular forums, they tend to backpedal very quickly. I can't imagine a supernatural force that would come along, design the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade while leaving the rest to chance, but that's what they propose.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconding what Kww and DS are saying - if you're really interested, get the PDF copy of the Dover v. Kitzmiller decision (pdf). for At 140 pages it's a pretty easy skim (particularly if you skip to the part entitled "is ID science?" - the short answer is "no") but an excellent book on the whole trial is Monkey Girl by Edward Humes.  Very, very good book - a bit long, but very well written and a very speedy read for that reason.  And, in my opinion, fascinating.  ID really is God of the gaps and the watchmaker analogy vis. biochemistry, and Dembski's contribution is to add some shoddy math to Hoyle's fallacy.  Seriously, I took very little math in university, just two intro stats courses, and I saw through it - it's not a math problem at all actually, just a misstated or misunderstood application of natural selection with some Greek letters and handwaving.  Natural selection means you don't need a protein to spontaneously assemble, just gradually assemble over millions of generations by being slightly better than the last version at doing something.  How Dembski fails to grasp this I'll never understand; it's so incredibly obvious, so basic, and such an old argument in Creationist circles, I'm tempted to simply see it as a continuation of the creationist dishonesty of yore.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

William Dembski claims
to be a biblical literalist and believes Adam and Eve were the very first people, whom everyone else came from, and that evolution had no part of human development. He also believes in the 6 day myth. http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/AReplytoTomNettlesReviewofDembskisTheEndofChristianity.pdf http://www.sbts.edu/resources/category/journal-of-theology/sbjt-134-winter-2009/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Has Dembski responded to the recent developments that suggest he is now (or perhaps always has been) a biblical literalist and no longer follows, or completely rejects, the scientific evidence? http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/10/dembski-coming.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Synthese on 'Evolution and its Rivals'
Synthese Volume 178, Number 2 / January 2011 is an entire issue devoted to 'Evolution and its Rivals'. It includes articles by such heavyweights as Robert T. Pennock, Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit, Sahotra Sarkar, Niall Shanks, Barbara Forrest & James Henry Fetzer. Elsberry & Shallit's article, Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s “complex specified information” would be particularly relevant to this topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Just looking at this article again, and I'm not sure why our Synthese essay is not in the list of critiques at the end of this article. We were given the room to be pretty comprehensive. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-009-9542-8 Springer Link]. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the list of references. . . dave souza, talk 11:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

william dembski is an "analytic philosopher"? Are you kidding me
I have to admit this article always delivers when it come to comedy. Who in the entire would knows Dembski as an "analytic philosopher"? Other than wikipedia, can you provide one source that refers to him as an "analytic philosopher" Where in the world did you folks come up with that? Talk about original research. He teaches creationism at a bible school, how many other bible teachers are described as "analytic philosophers"? Why are so many editors here afraid to call dembski what he really is? Look at the articles about other IDers/fundies/nutjobs, and you don't see the kind of fear based descriptions that you see in this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do you find "fear based" in your sources? The spurious description is gone, for now. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

an exceptional improvement, Bill! If you read the history of this article you can see that describing dembski has been an ongoing issue. at one point they laughably referred to him as a mathematician here, lol! And I took the time to read the analytic philosophy article here, obviously whoever used that description for him never did the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

...inventor of the concept of specified complexity?
"...inventor of the concept of specified complexity." Is "inventor" the most descriptive term we can use? When we step back and realize specified complexity is utter nonsense, using the phrase "inventor of" suggests something sciency is going on here, when the verifiable accounts suggest otherwise. Would "originator" be a more acurate description? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Specified complexity, the term originated around 1973 with Leslie Orgel. __Just plain Bill (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as far as I can tell, neither Dembski, nor anybody else, uses it in Orgel's original, more general, meaning. And certainly without SC, nobody would bother to write about Dembski. He has written many books attempting a none-too-successful elaboration on this concept into a purported evolution-stumper. 19:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Widely known for promoting" works just fine, thanks. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk Origins archive
TOA has been discussed many times at WP:RSN, and the consensus is that is is a reliable source []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Questioned
The comment that Dembski believes his daughter's autism is related to vaccines should be removed, as it is a covert way to cast aspersions, since the consensus of the scientific community is that vaccines are safe and unrelated to autism. The comment does not enhance the article, and serves only as a veiled slur on Dembski's scientific credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmp717200 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Close. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What an extraordinary suggestion. Dembski's belief is a documented fact. It's not up to us to determine what can be inferred from that, or to avoid stating something just because of what might be inferred from it. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This conversation is from two years ago. N o f o rmation  Talk  08:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

'Early opposition to evolution' section
The article appears to derive the following passage:

But the following passage is all that the cited source has to say about his "early" opposition:

It is clear that the derived material contains a number of ideas not contained in the citation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, although I'm fairly sure that sources have drawn the relationship between The Design Inference and his thesis, I cannot remember any drawing a relationship between them and his Nous article -- the latter relationship thus likewise being synthesis without a source to back it up. Likewise the relationship between the Nous article and the thoughts contained in his sentence is likewise synthesis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 * You keep up with this stuff better than I do. My issue with your revert was that it's been like this for awhile, and I don't believe that the editor had made the change.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Faith healing
Regarding this edit, while I think Dembski's opinions on faith healing might be appropriate to his bio, I don't think the tone of that presentation is appropriate. It is presented as an anecdote - I don't think the tone is really what we aim for in an encyclopaedia article. And I'm not convinced that we need to bring in the nature of what he wanted healed. If the issue was autism, it would be germane, but given that it's faith healing, I'm less than convinced. Guettarda (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that his opinion on faith healing is pertinent to the article but it needs to be re-written in a less anecdotal style.Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be satisfied if the section was edited in the way Guetterada specified; the primary reason why I made the edit was to protect his family. If an editor were to leave out the specifics and simply give his position (if it is important to the article or somehow enhances it in any positive way) in the style of the rest of the article, the paragraph would be much better off than it is now.  Wekn   reven  18:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The following makes this section look like something out of a gossip mag, or needs to be rephrased as to better fit the source: Dembski once took his family to a meeting conducted by Todd Bentley, a faith healer, in hopes of receiving a "miraculous healing" for his son, who is autistic. In an article for the Baptist Press he recalled disappointment with the nature of the meeting and with the prevention of his son and other attendees from joining those in wheelchairs who were selected to receive prayer. He then concluded, "Minimal time was given to healing, though plenty was devoted to assaulting our senses with blaring insipid music and even to Bentley promoting and selling his own products (books and CDs)." He wrote that he did not regret the trip and called it an "education," which showed "how easily religion can be abused, in this case to exploit our family." It would sound better this way: Dembski took his family to a meeting conducted by Todd Bentley, a faith healer, in hope of receiving a "miraculous healing" for his son. In an article for the Baptist Press he recalled disappointment with the nature of the meeting, concluding, "Minimal time was given to healing, though plenty was devoted to assaulting our senses with blaring insipid music and even to Bentley promoting and selling his own products (books and CDs)." He wrote that he did not regret the trip and called it an "education," which showed "how easily religion can be abused, in this case to exploit our family." Which still isn't very conclusive about what is important -- that is, his stance on faith healing.  Wekn   reven  09:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He may have "hoped" for a miraculous healing but you cannot say he went there with the "possibility" of a miraculous healing?Theroadislong (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of how he put it in the article. You're right -- I'll rephrase it. It was something of a far-fetched wish, since they were willing to try anything.
 * Especially per "Call us stubborn, but my wife and I are unimpressed with doctors who see our son’s condition as hopeless. We believe that God still heals and that His means of healing include conventional medicine, alternative medicine, prayer, fasting, love and, yes, miracles. In any case, we haven’t given up on our son’s recovery (we still remember the day when he was developmentally on track). So if God wanted to use Todd Bentley, we were open to it." The underlined part given above and the highlighted "if" should be the message of our paragraph on his stance.  Wekn  <i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i> 11:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be far simpler and honest to say "in hope of receiving a "miraculous healing" for his son" Theroadislong (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * O.K. Change has been made. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i> 12:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Former proponent" of ID?
The lead states that Dembski is a "former proponent" of intelligent design, implying that he is no longer a proponent, as if he has changed his views. Because the lead is supposed to be an overview of the article body, I looked through the article body and couldn't find any indication that this "former proponent" characterization is correct. Did I miss something? ~Anachronist (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Former proponent of ID means to me that he no longer subscribes to this creationism in disguise attempt. I looked at his personal web page. He states he left the board of directors or something and no longer is active in it, but this doesn't mean he isn't a creationist or ID cdesign proponistreation. 207.61.145.4 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William A. Dembski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110094817/http://www.religionlink.com/source-guides/evolution-vs-intelligent-design-the-battle-continues/ to http://www.religionlink.com/source-guides/evolution-vs-intelligent-design-the-battle-continues/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
 * Added tag to http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2019
Please remove the subjective adjective 'pseudoscience' in the first line. 83.247.71.196 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:PSCI – reliable sources confirm the mainstream view that ID epitomises pseudoscience, and it should be clearly described as pseudoscientific. . . dave souza, talk 16:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The leading atheist argument for explaining the fine tuning problem invokes multiverse theory, which is, by definition, unfalsifiable. The entry on pseudoscience lists unfalsifiability as one of the characteristics of pseudoscience. And yet, the entry on multiverse theory doesn't label it pseudoscience. How come multiverse isn't pseudoscience but ID is? I put it to you that both these theories operate on the boundary between philosophy and science, and one is more popular with the generally anti-theist demographic of Wikipedia editors, while the other suffers pejorative labelling. (Edit to fix copy/paste fail - sorry.) Russell E (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is for improving the article William A. Dembski. If you want to change other articles, go to their Talk pages.
 * But before that, you should consult WP:RS. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not on your deductions. We have good sources saying that what Dembski does is pseudoscience, and your attempt to whitewash it by removing a sourced fact will fail. If you think you have good sources for multiverse theory being pseudoscience, suggest them on Talk:Multiverse theory.--Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change to description as ex-ID
The entry describes Dembski's adherence to ID in the past-tense. He has recently given a number of interviews in support of the 2nd edition of The Design Inference, published by ID-proponent the Discovery Institute. His comments in these interviews make it clear he his endorsement of ID is not in the past tense, and probably never was. I propose to edit this article to reflect this, but thought I should raise it for discussion first. Possibly the most succinct edit would just be to delete the final two sentences of the opening paragraph, and maybe mention his hiatus further down somewhere. --Russell E (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:William A. Dembski


text:
Red hands

Red hands, also known as hot hands, slapsies, slap jack, red tomato (Northern Britain), Pope slap, tennis, slaps, chicken, slappy-patties, or simply the hand slap game, is a children's game which can be played by two players.

One player extends their hands forward, roughly at arm's length, with the palms down. The other player's hands, also roughly at arm's length, are placed, palms up, under the first player's hands. The object of the game is for the second player to slap the back of the first player's hands before the first player can pull them away. If the slapping player misses, the players swap roles and play again.

The slapper is on offense and must act with sufficient speed, because the slappee's goal is to pull their hands away, and out of the area where the hands overlap, to avoid the slap. The slapper can only slap the hand it is underneath.

The slappee is on defense and attempts to avoid having their hands slapped, by pulling their hands away as the slapper brings their hands over to attempt a slap. However, the slappee cannot flinch too much in attempting to avoid a slap: in one variation of the game, if the slappee pulls their hands away when the slapper has not brought their hands around a designated number of times in a row (normally three), then the slappee must submit to a "free slap" by the slapper. Also, the slapper must use both hands to slap the slappee. If they do one hand, a “free slap” will be awarded.

Variations
(Tennis)

Another variation is where the slappee has their hands held palms together, held out at mid-torso height; the slapper then does the same with the tips of the fingers of both players hands around a centimetre apart, or with the tips of the middle fingers touching, and then (with just one of their hands) the slapper tries to slap the backs of the slappee's hands. You can slap the slappee's hands with just one of your hands as a strategical move.

A second variation is played as above but with one (or both) player(s) blindfolded. If both players are blindfolded, you will need someone else to make sure they start in the right positions.

Yet another variation is played with both players forming fists, held in front of the opponent's fists. The offensive player knocks their knuckles against the top of the defender's fist, as a more painful variant of the game. This version is sometimes called bloody knuckles, though not to be confused with other games of the same name.

In Popular Culture

 * Appears as a non-player character behaviour in the video game The Sims 2.
 * Appears as a mini-game in the 2004 video game Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude.

title: Red hands


text: Template:Units of force

title: Template:Units of force