Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 7

message: This article is one of several all featuring ORIGINAL RESEARCH by a handful of polemical writers who insist that only their view remains. One problem is that this same original research has been intentionally spread over a number of other articles under other names, but all dealing with the same subject matter. Below this notice is a partial list of similar articles, because it is not known precisely how many of these articles have been created. However, by observing the current article it will be discovered that it is overlengh and that its many references and links belong to other related articles on Wikipedia. Heavy editing according to Wikipedia style; conformity to a proper use of the English language and prevention of religious POV is immediately required and requested. MPLX/MH 19:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GENERAL COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

message: #Merge MPLX/MH 04:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, we should merge 

message: #Do not merge.  Ungtss 11:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote should probably be in the Newbie vote section, but I don't want to mess with the poll and accidentally change something. I didn't see a "Newbie vote" section when I originally posted my vote. Mred64 22:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading wedge strategy, I do think that that articel should be moved into the Discovery institute one, or (less preferably) this article. The wedge strategy is pretty well described in the Discovery Institue article, and it could probaly only be made better by elaborating on it like the wedge strategy article itself. My vote still stands that this article should be separate. This article talks more about "teach the controversy" and its views (for better or for worse, wrong or right)than the Discovery Institute article. Perhaps if more research was done from sources outside those mentioned in the Discovery Institute article, then a more legitmate arguement claiming exclusivity between the articles could be made. Unfortuantely, a lot of, shall i say, "in between" evidence seems to strengthen each side's arguemnt. Science goes "Cool! Look at how powerful evolution is to be able to do (X)" Those against evolution tend to go "Ha! The arguement of evolution is weakened because of (X)" Basically, most evidence can be used by either side. However, this would be good because creationists would get more evidence to keep this article separate while evolutionists get to look at and post other interpretations of the evidence, perhaps keeping the article more NPOV. Granted, this is a lot of work, so many would have to eb vigilant to make sure the article doesn't lean too strong to either side while it is being edited. Mred64 02:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, we should not merge 

message: *Grace Note is apparently voting no, but placed her comments below.  She says in part, "First of all, I don't think this is a particularly significant "movement" but I'm a proponent of broad coverage for Wikipedia, so I support a separate article. I think we ought not to use our POVs to determine what there should or shouldn't be articles on, only criteria such as "Is there actually a movement?", "Does it have a platform that can be discussed and criticised?", "Does it have a membership?" and so on."  --VorpalBlade 10:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged vote

message: The 2 MAJOR reversions that have now taken place to destroy the agreed opening text by Mel and partial layout of classification show that this is a hopeless editing undertaking. THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE LOCKED BY ADMINS AT THE AGREED VERSION BY MEL. Then several related and duplicated POV articles should also be examined by Admins because they carry the SAME religious message by the SAME editors under different names. Clearly a handful of people have decided to use Wikipedia as their own personal means of religious propaganda. Editing is now a hopeless and lost cause on this topic which covers so many other articles under different names on Wikipedia. The bad faith is shown by destroying the agreed opening version by Mel which stated facts and which has been reverted to poorly written nonsense. MPLX/MH 15:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NOW REVERTED BY [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]]

message: To find the date of the agreed version by Mel please see the history of the article and look for this date and these comments by Mel:
* 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 Mel Etitis (manually rerting (admin rollback seems to be up the spout), and correcting merge  (Text follows):
Teach the Controversy is an idea proposed by author Phillip E. Johnson and promoted by the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, of which he is a member, to encourage public schools students in the United States to both debate and critically evaluate all current scientific evidence concerning the theory of evolution.
Members of the the Discovery Institute who support the proposal include Michael Behe, David Berlinski, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer and Jonathan Wells. Substantial financial support for the proposal is provided by Howard Ahmanson, Jr and The Maclellan Foundation .
 
Controversy 
Opponents, including most mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach.
----
:Can I point out that the first person to edit this 'agreed' version is the same MPLX who is now complaining that an admin should lock the article at that version. In these two edits MPLX cuts out an enormous amount of the article. That doesn't sound much like it was an agreed version. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did NOT disagree with the text reproduced above which is the only part that was agreed to because it is a statement of FACT. This is is not a movement, it has no officers, no organization, no address other than the idea by Phillip E. Johnson, promotion by the Discovery Institute and funding by Howard Ahmanson, Jr. But because it is a duplicate of other articles under other names about the same subject it should be merged. I removed the OBVIOUS duplications of links and texts that had nothing to do with a proposed idea called Teach the Controversy. MPLX/MH 16:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you think about the movement. However you should not call for an admin lock if the only part of the article that has been agreed on is the introduction. DJ Clayworth 16:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's concentrate on some facts. I read in the current version of the introduction "has been explicitly endorsed and promoted by other creationist organizations, including Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, Leadership University [1]  (http://www.leaderu.com/focus/teachcontroversy.html), Renew America [2]  (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/041004) and BreakPoint [3] (http://www.pfm.org). ". Is this factually true? We should be able to find out by following the links. If it is true, then the statement should stay. Isn't that the logical thing to do? DJ Clayworth 16:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not. First of all this Talk page has duplicated sections in it and I am trying to straighten this mess out. Second it is obvious that you just want to continue with obfuscation. The article is on Wikipedia - NOT in ORIGINAL RESEARCH! MPLX/MH 16:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Did you meant that "no the statement is not true" or "no it's not the logical thing to do"? DJ Clayworth 17:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DATE OF AGREED VERSION BY MEL

message: I have twice removed massive duplicated sections of the same page due to careless editing. This clean-up takes time. Please be sure that you are not saving material twice. All previous material except for polls (and duplicated material) is now on archive 6. MPLX/MH 22:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General note

message: I do not believe that the  tag is appropriate on this article.  I see no evidence of original research in this article.  I would like to see a cogent argument offered why this tag should remain. Kelly Martin 01:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:There have been few if any cogent arguments made at all from the user placing that tag.  i strongly support its removal.  Ungtss 01:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above.  I think it should come out.  --VorpalBlade 14:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OriginalResearch 

message: ::If you look at Archives 2 and 3 above, you will see extensive discussions of the intro over a 5-6 day period, and Proposal 4 was agreed upon.  This version received approval by at least four people, two from each side of the debate.  Ian requested changes, and a change to the first sentence was put in.  Joshua suggested an alternative, but got no support.  Then all hell broke loose, and massive deletions ensued, with little constructive discussion and no consensus.  The following is a (slightly) modified version of Proposal 4:
The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States, as described by its advocates, proposes an education policy for US public schools that involves presenting to students all the relevant scientific evidence concerning the theory of evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves.  The term was coined by Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute, but the policy has been explicitly endorsed and promoted by other organizations.  Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically. 
Opponents, in the form of the mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach. They point to the fact that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community. They argue that to describe the continuing debates as to the details of evolutionary mechanisms as a "controversy" is to mischaracterize the nature and significance of the discussions. Another common objection to the Teach the Controversy policy is that the actual goal of many Teach the Controversy proponents is the return of the teaching of creationism to the public school classroom, now in the guise of intelligent design, which proponents contend is non-theological. In support, the critics point to numerous quotations from principal Teach the Controversy proponents, including its originator, that they believe just that. 
Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate continuing debates in the scientific community.  They also point out that what they advocate would comply with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that they have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.  One example of the proposed educational policy, including issues to be analyzed by students, can be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the scientific literature to which it makes reference.  Among the literature cited are articles from mainstream scientific journals as well as works by members of the Discovery Institute. 
::This is far more neutral than the current version.  I propose that we work from this (or from the original Proposal 4) and seek consensus for any other changes.  --VorpalBlade 02:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Good ol' Proposal 4 with some minor additions

message: Clearly you guys are brainwashed nuts! I am left with no other conclusion. I am through with this childish nonsense. Clearly the tub-thumpers are the loudest and the shrillest, just like talk radio which is why I recently paid a membership to my local NPR station as the only refuge of the sane. Have at it guys, I am basically through with Wikipedia because you have finally convinced me that it has a built-in fatal flaw. I no longer have faith in the Wikipedia experiment. Given enough zealots and ditto-heads the jackboots will always stomp in the name of some God and censorship. Years later you lot will probably deny that you ever held such locked-in positions. May the free minds of the world survive thanks to "Nature's God". Have fun boys and girls, because this is my exit from this madhouse. Your abusive catcalls will not be noticed as I do not intend to return. The ghosts of Adolph and Joe Stalin will be proud of you and Saddam and Osama will not give up hope for their own zombie causes. Bye, bye. MPLX/MH 03:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly the voice of reason hath spoken.  Ungtss 04:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was rather trollish. Your stock is falling. FeloniousMonk 19:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Goodbye to your dark age

message: I'm with Mel on removing the  template.  Can someone (e.g. Rednblu) explain why this template belongs on this article? Kelly Martin 12:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree, but I don't know what Wiki policy is on this, so I may change my mind if somebody enlightens me.  --VorpalBlade 13:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Complaints 

message: #I've corrected the headers to Wikipedia style, and corrected a couple of typos.
#I've removed an editorial question.
#I've again removed the 'GC' template; not only is it unnecessary, given the PoV and VfD already there, but it should go on the Talk page (Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes: "Like the article messages above, these messages are intended for editors not readers and should go on the talk page. Sadly sometimes these messages are the only way to placate warring editors and they end up on article pages. Please minimize such cases. Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for readers, not a playground for editors.").  And edit summaries saying things like "Don't dare remove this" should be eschewed as unnecessarily aggressive and combative.  Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the basis of your reasoning, perhaps you'd also support the removal of the "disputed" tag, which falls under the same category and policy?  Ungtss 22:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Then i suggest, if we're leaving one, and given the choice between which one to keep and which one to remove, we leave mr. rednblu's, since it is less conspicuous, and contains a link to content.  What do you say?  Ungtss 22:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to justify your reversion without explanation, or answering me on the talkpage?  You wouldn't be trying to suppress Mr. RednBlu's call for dialogue on this topic, would you?  Ungtss 22:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mel, you put back in the editorial question that I removed, with the summary "Reverted edits by VorpalBlade to last version by Rednblu"  Then three minutes later, you took it out again.  Can you explain why my edit needed to be reverted when you then made the same change?  --VorpalBlade 22:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I will accept your explanation that it was a mistake, but I am still a little confused.  My edit was 6 hours before yours, and you added the comment "Reverted edits by VorpalBlade to last version by Rednblu" which makes it seem that you knew what you were doing.  My only edit was to remove that one question.  --VorpalBlade 23:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My latest edits 

message: Can people take a look at the Theistic realism article and help work out a solution to how that article should proceed? We are running into similar problems there as we are here, and people's help would be appreciated. Check out Talk:Theistic realism for more. Joshuaschroeder 01:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theistic realism

message: Some folks got confused by my wording above. It's ok to state your preference or "vote" in a poll. What's not permitted is to hold a majority vote on a matter, since that doesn't really help with consensus-forming ;-) . 
See Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines for details. Note that we're bending those rules a little here, because we don't actually want to disrupt wikipedia to make a point either. 
Finally, note that people voting on VFD might not get the result they expect (because on VFD, "merge" is actually shorthand for "keep, and suggest article be merged") . What typically happens at the end is that an admin or user drops by, says "Ok, so that's a keep", and puts a message here "I suggest you merge", which doesn't help much! :-P
I hope that clears things up for folks!
Kim Bruning 20:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick note on Poll vs Majority vote 

message: On April 22, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion.  The result was keep.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Teach the Controversy for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD

message: Editors should remember not to make attacks on other editors; attacks in edit summaries are particularly deprecated (Wikipedia:No personal attacks).  I've just reverted to User:Joshuaschroeder's version; perhaps User:Ungtss, if he disagrees with what Joshuaschroeder has done, perhaps he could discuss it, or at least edit more thoughtfully. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the edit summary was not insulting, it was a statement of pov, and whose pov it was.  labeling people as "fringe scientists" without attribution is so obviously derogatory and schroederpov as to not require discussion.  Ungtss 18:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: By definition, ID/creation science advocates are fringe science advocates. Read the refered to page if you don't believe me. In fact, fringe science may be giving them more credit then they deserve. They might be considered to be more bad science or junk science.Joshuaschroeder 20:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Labeling people as fringe scientists; when they are fringe; doesn't exactly qualify as pov. - RoyBoy 800 07:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV & edit summaries 

message: We need to stick to the consensus intro (see long history above), or work out edits here.  The current "opponent" paragraph already makes many of the points that Joshua wants to stick in the "proponent" paragraph.  That is where they belong.  These kinds of points belong in the "opponents" paragraph.  
Let's discuss here before these are done, to avoid another edit war. --VorpalBlade 7 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
::Please enumerate what is wrong with my edits. They are NPOV, they are correct and they add valuable information. Joshuaschroeder 8 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
:::the edits describe people as fringe scientists, a clearly derogatory term, without attribution.  don't play coy.  you can't reinvent reality to suit your wishes.  Ungtss 8 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)
::::Please read the page on fringe science. By definition, the scientists at the discovery institute are at best fringe scientists. Please do not remove facts such as this.
::I think we should try to untangle the two paragraphs as much as possible to seperate out the two points of view, but that doesn't mean that we can't qualify statements like "continuing debates in the scientific community," which is my biggest problem with the original version.  However, the inserted sentence about fringe scientists starts delving into criticisms.  To try and qualify without criticising I've added "what they call" before that phrase.  Just explaining my logic so you can understand that I'm trying to offer a compromise in the edit war.  --8 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
:::looks good to me:).  thanks:).  Ungtss 8 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)
::::Laura's change is fine with me too.  I moved one other sentence.--VorpalBlade 8 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
:::::Not fine. It is not "criticism" to describe fringe scientists as fringe scientists. I am reinserting the two factual sentences. Joshuaschroeder 9 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
::::::glad to know you're still here telling everybody what's fact and what's not.  here's my token comment, repeating the same clear rule of npov you love to hate.  "fringe scientists" is a derogatory term, and the characterization is highly disputed.  if you want to write biased articles, get a blog.  Ungtss 04:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show me who disputes that the scientists involved in the Discovery Institute are involved in fringe science? A reference would be greatly appreciated. Joshuaschroeder 11:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joshua's edits 

message: * Intelligent Design
* Intelligent Design movement
* Teach the Controversy
* Wedge strategy
* Discovery Institute
* Why discursiveness in Wikipedia sometimes makes it appear a ridiculuous soapbox. Oh sorry, not actually an article--just the thought that kept going through my head looking over this ABSOLUTELY REDUNDANT, wanted-to-read-but-cant-be-bothered article. Nice touch whoever added capitals to Teach the Controversy. A movement it does not make; a seperate article it does not justify when half-a-dozen others have it covered.Marskell 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice URL

message: Recent edits to the opening paragraphs (by people on opposite "sides") do not seem to me to be improvements. Concerning the intro as it currently stands as of late evening, 2005-12-12 UTC, I remark that
* "Teach the Controversy" as such isn't about redefining science, even though some proponents have made it clear in other contexts that they would like to do that;
* "introduces intelligent design to public-school science criteria" seems to me to imply that they want students to be taught ID as fact, which isn't what TtC as such is about even though doubtless its proponents would love it to happen;
* the repeated use of "controversial" is potentially confusing since the controversy in question is not the (purported) one referred to by the TtC campaign;
* the brief summary information about what "intelligent design" is really belongs on the page about "intelligent design";
* there is no need to say twice that the movement is a product of the Discovery Institute.
* the intro doesn't actually say what it is that TtC proponents purport to want.
So, round and round again we go. How about the following as a replacement for the current two opening paragraphs?
Teach the Controversy is the slogan of a political-action campaign promoted by the intelligent design movement originating from the Discovery Institute[1]. The campaign seeks to influence the teaching of evolution in public schools so that evolution is portrayed there as a "theory in crisis"; its proponents claim that the correctness of evolutionary theory is controversial among scientists, and that school students should be taught this and shown evidence that casts doubt on evolution.
Opponents of the campaign, however, say that there is in fact no scientific controversy over the correctness of evolution, that what controversies there are about the details of how it works are unsuitable for school science lessons (because too advanced and concerned with subtle details), and that there is no substantial evidence that casts doubt on evolution (or favors "intelligent design"); and that "Teach the Controversy" is intended as a first step on a road that ends with the teaching of creationism in public schools.
Gareth McCaughan 22:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraphs 

message: The controversy section really needs another statement about why "Teach the Controversy" is such an absolutely bad idea.  The students should not be the ones deciding on the curriculum; the teachers should be doing that.  It is up to the highly trained professionals to decide curriculum, not students and their parents who really don't understand the issue.  Anyway, "Teach the Controversy" could be expanded to such things as, "Teach the controversy about the Holocaust", or "Teach the controversy about abortion" (Yeah, that'd go over well with the evolution deniers).  I only performed a cursory overview of the article but it doesn't seem to address the simple fact that the curriculum should not be decided by the layman.  If this needs verifiable sources, I'm sure I can come up with some.  --Cyde Weys 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a section to controversy 

message: The first sentence starts with "Teach the Controversy is the slogan of a controversial political-action campaign …".  What is the address of the headquarters of the PAC?  If 'PAC' is a way of saying ‘Discovery Institute’, then this sentence needs to say ‘Teach the Controversy is the slogan of the Discovery Institute …’.  Pasado 18:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the political-action campaign? 

message: I don't think we really need 10 or so links all to the DI. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll prune them. JoshuaZ 05:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to the Discovery Institute 

message: Is the Discovery Institute actually adding Creationism to  science classes? I mean, to the extent of placing a faith-based denial of the fossil record on a par with the with the geology and physics of radioactive carbon dating?
Or is that opponents of Intelligent Design insist on classing it with creationism, as a way of discrediting it without a hearing?
I thought rather that the intelligent design movement merely wants both Evolution and ID to be given equal standing as hypotheses, to be examined and discussed and checked against the evidence in precisely the same way. 
Are there indeed creationist elements within the ID movement or even specifically at DI who want to deny the fossil record or who repudiate natural selection? Or is it just that they want the hypothesis that some forms of life are too complex to have have happened without planning to be considered scientifically? Like archeogistis hypothesize that the statues on Easter Island are too complex to have come about due to erosion, even though the natives no longer remember how they came into being? --Uncle Ed 18:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discovery Institute and public education

message: Old version:
*that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a natural process such as natural selection."
Version I tried to insert:
*that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
I like having the following links:
*universe
*Intelligent designer
*natural science
*natural selection
But how can we incorporate these links without misquoting the DI? Our old version had "a natural process" where they actually have "an undirected process". --Uncle Ed 15:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how we can represent them without misquoting or quote without misrepresenting, since many natural proscesses (like evolution in this case) and not undirected. If we pointed out the error it would just make the DI look stupid. Then again, it is their fault they don't understand the terminologies involved. Jefffire 15:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ID article has precisely the quote Ed provided, so I'm unclear as to why it was different here -- although I can speculate that it was changed by an ID apologist who realized (on his or her own) the point that Jeff raised above.  Anyway, there's no way to get Natural Science into the mis as it wouldn't be an accurate redirect for "an undirected process".  •Jim62sch• 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote and links in the intro

message: Ed seems to be saying that TTC is an attempt to introduce ID into the school curriculum.  However, the remainder of the article says otherwise - that they aren't trying to get ID in any more (and were unhappy with the Dover decision to do so), but rather that they wanted "the controversy" taught.  This was in an attempt to avoid an Edwards-style verdict.  Ed's changes make the article contradictory and confusing.  Guettarda 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, Ed's changes were completely counter to the gist of the article and that's why I reverted it. I wonder if he even bothers reading the articles before clicking on the 'edit this page' button. FeloniousMonk 22:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed proposed latest changes 

message: Now seriously, I know many editors here may be enjoying reference bombing the Teach the Controversy thing with all sorts of negative references, and really, I don't think I can stop you. But look at the introduction, it is huge. An introduction is supposed to summarize the article, not get in as many quick jabs against the subject as possible. The court case information certainly looks like it belongs in the body with only one or two sentences outlining the court difficulties the Teach the Controversy thing has encountered, and im sure there's other ways to slim down the intro, but right now, it just looks ridiculous, not even looking at the content, but simply at the sheer size of thing. Any thoughts?Homestarmy 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pared it down, moving most of the background info further down in the article. FeloniousMonk 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pared down yes, but I'd like to try to rewrite it for grammar and concision purposes.  I'll try to get to it today, but I'm a bit tied up for the nonce. •Jim62sch• 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction too big

message: As the overview was too long, repetitious and not terribly well organised I did a rather massive copy edit.  I think it reads better now, but, that's just my opinion.  ;)  •Jim62sch• 11:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: Ditto. •Jim62sch• 12:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shift in strategy: teaching intelligent design to teaching the controversy

message: The following is already covered in the Overview, and adds little to the political action section, so I removed it.  If consensus is that it's really needed it needs to be reworded and shortened (and needs cites).
:The Discovery Institute employs a number of specific political strategies and tactics in their furtherance of their goals. These range from attempts at the state level to undermine or remove altogether the presence of evolutionary theory from the public school classroom, to having the federal government mandate the teaching of intelligent design, to 'stacking' municipal, county and state school boards with ID proponents. The Discovery Institute has been a significant player in many of these cases, providing a range of support from material assistance to federal, state and regional elected representatives in the drafting of bills to supporting and advising individual parents confronting their school boards.  •Jim62sch• 12:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Institute has shown a willingness to back off, even to not advocate for the inclusion of ID, to ensure that all science teachers are required to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis."  •Jim62sch• 12:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Paragraph

message: I'm none to clear what the point is here, it seems to contradict itself (or to contradict logic, at least):
:The Institute has shown a willingness to back off, even to not advocate for the inclusion of ID, to ensure that all science teachers are required to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis."  •Jim62sch• 12:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: This one is tricky, so I'm asking you guys first instead of following WP:BOLD.
Ref's 5 and 6 seem to belong with ref's 1 and 2. They support the fact that the ID movement is behind "Teach the controversy". 
They have nothing to do with the claim that IDM is using TTC as a 'wedge' to get ID taught in classrooms. (Not that I'm disputing that! It's almost too obvious for words, but still should be documented - not assumed.) --Uncle Ed 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were correct before you changed them:  I've changed them back and the edit you made in the process, which did not follow. FeloniousMonk 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the diff you cited didn't change the order of the references. --Uncle Ed 19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. I see that you simply added the pro-ID pov "The campaign is intended to counter a dogmatic approach to classroom instruction about evolution. Critics complain that this is intended promoting intelligent design, and to advance an education policy for US public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula." using the existing cites, something that is not supported by them. Whereas the original content "The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution while promoting intelligent design, and to advance an education policy for US public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula." is supported by the cites and does not make the obvious mistake of repeating the  Teach the Controversy campaign's proponent's spin as fact. FeloniousMonk 20:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There is one "point of view" which is supported by both DI and critics; and then there is propaganda, aka spin control, aka bs. Have you read the Wedge document? That might help out a wee tad. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oooh, and don't forget that William Demsbki's research assistant admitted that teach the controversy is ID: . JoshuaZ 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, KC and Joshua. I will read that over the weekend, if I can "wedge in" the time. ;-) See ya Monday. --Uncle Ed 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're wasting your time and ours with bogus objections and pov edits again. Stop wasting your time and ours, Ed, it has become disruptive. FeloniousMonk 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're reaping what you sow here. You've been the one edit warring across a number of ID related articles the last two days, something you have a very sad history of documented at your user conduct RFC Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2). And there's a number of editors who have been reverting you. I think a reasonable editor would get the hint. FeloniousMonk 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a confession that you are retaliating against me for daring to oppose your campaign of pro-Evolution POV pushing? "Reaping what you sow." Are you planning to revert ALL my edits to ID related articles as some sort of quasi-divine retribution? Don't disrupt Wikipedia to conduct a vendetta. You're just going to make the Rfa harder on yourself. Stop now, while you still have a chance to return to the fold. --Uncle Ed 22:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok folks, this argument getting out of hand :/. Homestarmy 22:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agree slightly with Homest. However Ed I think you misintrerpted Felonious' remark. I believe that he meant that you have been edit warring and POV-pushing and what you are experiencing is simply the response of trying to correct your misguided POV pushing. Also, in at least two edits you have implied that you don't actually know much about the topic. So you should understand if Felonious and/or others get frustrated with POV pushing when you admit that you don't know much about the topic. JoshuaZ 23:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be the correct interpretation...except maybe for "misguided POV pushing"...Ed's POV pushing is very guided...it's the methodology that appears to be misguided.  An interesting psychological study.  •Jim62sch• 01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of references

message: Okay, not to be a POV, but who's "winning?" Who has the upper hand? Just a question, a simple NPOV answer will be fine. I think that we need to at least mention who is gaining the upper hand currently. Upper hand is a fact, not a POV. Which one is right is a POV, but this is not. Thanks. --DeadGuy 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on whether you measure winning as who is currently "in the lead" or who is gaining more ground in relation to the other. Homestarmy 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both. I just want to know which side is more likely to win in the courts.--DeadGuy 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, the evolution side has been winning before, and it doesn't appear that the Discover Institute has much chance to win anything now :/. As for who's gaining more ground in relation to the other, that depends on many factors that aren't so easy to verify, such as just how wide a net of influence each side has among the population. Homestarmy 13:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is it? 

message: There seem to be an awful lot of edits to the "See also" section going on, all of them (wrongly, I think) marked as "minor", and -- as it seems to me -- mostly driven not by consideration of what's relevant and what isn't but by a desire to make TtC look more or less respectable by adding or removing links like "Scientific revolution" (yay!) or "Junk science" (boo!). Could the parties concerned, namely User:Portillo and User:Struct, please either desist or justify their activities here? I'm about to revert the page to the state it was in before their edits. Gareth McCaughan 13:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See-also churn 

message: It's a little off topic but but it looks like the next step in the ongoing creationist campaign against biology includes hiding fossil evidence.  Seriously.  I wonder if the creationists here in the US will adopt this new strategy?  It's pretty dang funny and they're a bit more direct and open about their motives than their US counterparts     Kenya: Evangelicals Wage Anti-Evolution War. Mr Christopher 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't surprise me.  After all, the motto of the scared and clueless appears to be "when the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts". •Jim62sch• 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I  am interested in the Kenya material you found, but this is not the place for it. Have you a suggestion? The title "Hide the Fossils" seems rather POV, but if this is the title the movement is using  and it can be shown from another source, we could use it. So what title do they use? Even if the title is POV, we must use the organizations or movement's name in an article about it. DGG 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hide the evidence campaign

message: In the Shift in Stragtegy: section there is a sentence - 'All four topics are widely accepted by the majority of the scientific community as legitimate science and all four are areas of science where the right wing thinks science is wrong.'  Seems to me that is equating Right Wing views with Conservative Christian views.  
Now, I'm not from the US and things are a wee bit different over here but I'm not certain that sort of argument can hold water.  Surely there can be non Conservative Christian Right Wingers?  I know I should be bold, but I didn't want to edit and this and dive headlong into a controversy.
NatashaUK 15:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Right Wing?

message: I believe Pat Robertson's comments following the Dover trial are irrelevant to this article. They are interesting, but the quote of one man judging people for who they voted for is either off-topic or pushing it. Full disclosure: I am a young-Earth Creationist. I am a conservative Christian. I am not right-wing. I do not agree with Pat Robertson and I think this comment hurt the general perception of my faith.
Af1218 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could find and cite a  source that states your position - your response to Robertson's comments - I believe it would make a great addition to this article (or if not, to another related article). SheffieldSteel 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant 

message: In an attempt to prevent an edit war, please use this talk page to discuss if the article should say  "attacking" or not. Malc82 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits in question are . Malc82 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that "attacking" is correct, since insisting that the belief of the Christian conservatives in question has to be treated as equal to a scientific consensus qualifies as an attack. Also, the section is specifically about the shift in strategy, which basically is an attack plan. Malc82 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got my support.  Teach the controversy along with the Wedge document were created to attack science in general, and Evolution specifically.  I'll revert changes where necessary.  Orangemarlin 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attacking?

message: Poed up a couple places that need cited. A bit too full of offset quotes, this article is, but it shouldn't be too hard to get it up to speed. Adam Cuerden talk 04:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tags