Talk:Level of support for evolution/Archive 1

message: While I am in support of evolution, I do find that this article is difficult to put into the light of a neutral point of view. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would dispute this. The topic is that support exists. Whether that support is justified or not is another issue. I have copious references from both sides and it is a bit hard to deny that support exists in the scientific, religious and other communities. How is that being biased to summarize the support that exists?--Filll 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, there is no article for support on Creationism nor an article on support for Intelligent Design. Second of all, something like this would be better put into an article that discusses the debate, and not a separate article all together. What you may want to consider is maybe an article like List of groups that support the theory of Evolution instead of what we have here now. In all honesty, this cannot keep with the goal of NPOV, and so this is why the article has been tagged. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do mention the argument on the creationist side in numerous places, plus have links to 4 of the major creationist organizations which also have lists of supporters that they compile, with links to the lists. I could remove them all and place them all in a separate section called "Dispute of support for evolution". I will see what others think..--Filll 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see the logic of Titanium Dragon, that it might be construed or misconstrued as a soapbox response to creationists.  However, I will reserve judgement.  If, for example, the topic covered in this article is covered by disinterested parties elsewhere, then having a similar wikipedia article is probably beyond debate.  If many interested parties have written about this topic, then having a similar wikipedia article is probably beyond debate.  I will comment more after I think and research more.  Meanwhile, no opinion, just less than informed comments from a relatively new contributor.  I only came to this talk page because of an invitation left by User:ScienceApologist on Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy StudyAndBeWise 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You are buying into a false dichotomy argument WAY too much in this article. It also doesn't support a worldwide view. Creationism is a uniquely American (or at best English-language) concept as is the creation-evolution controversy. This kind of attempt to characterize its "support" is highly misleading. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would respectfully disagree. There is a growing creationist movement in Turkey. There have been recent creationist controversies in the UK, in Italy, in Serbia, in Russia and in Poland. There is a substantial creationist movement in Australia. Many Muslim countries like Pakistan are confronting the issue, and teaching evolution is banned in many Muslim countries. India also has a creationist problem (which has a slightly different character, but exists nevertheless and shares many features with the one in the US). What false dichotomy am I buying into too much? Do you claim that creationism is not a threat anywhere? Is it only a threat in the US? Is it not really a threat in the US either? Is there no controversy? I would again respectfully disagree with any of those positions. Even if it was only in the US (which it is not, and it can be demonstrated with references that it is not), it would be important, considering the numerous lawsuits that have occurred and the proposed state laws on this issue and state laws that passed on this issue (dozens and dozens of these). The title might be a bad title, but removing all references and links to this article from Wikipedia and then campaigning to get it deleted puzzles me. What are you trying to do? What is your purpose? What is your position? Should science just surrender? Should the National Center for Science Education just fire all its members and close its doors? I do not understand what you are trying to do, clearly in the face of overwhelming consensus to do otherwise.--Filll 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then someone should remove it. I am not sure that I am allowed to.--Filll 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV warning

message: It seems to me that we have some options for the placement of this article's contents:
===Don't move or merge article===
;Keep at Support for evolution
#
===Move article===
;Move to Level of support for evolution
#Agree--Filll 20:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you don't mind if I change this into a straw poll to discuss and weigh the options and determine consensus. Decisions on Wikipedia are generally done through discussion and consensus-building, not simple popularity polls. I also added options for merging, as opposed to moving, since at least a few people (2-3) supported that option, and I could at least see a case being made for a merger into creation-evolution controversy or something similar, if not evidence of evolution. This poll is a good idea to help discern what our options are, however, and who supports what. Anyone can feel free to add new options by simply putting another option up in the poll (so an "Other" section isn't necessary). If you disagree, feel free to revert my restructuring of the poll. -Silence 21:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: ;Move to Level of support for evolution
#Agree--Filll 20:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move article

message: :I hope you don't mind if I change this into a straw poll to discuss and weigh the options and determine consensus. Decisions on Wikipedia are generally done through discussion and consensus-building, not simple popularity polls. I also added options for merging, as opposed to moving, since at least a few people (2-3) supported that option, and I could at least see a case being made for a merger into creation-evolution controversy or something similar, if not evidence of evolution. This poll is a good idea to help discern what our options are, however, and who supports what. Anyone can feel free to add new options by simply putting another option up in the poll (so an "Other" section isn't necessary). If you disagree, feel free to revert my restructuring of the poll. -Silence 21:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I think one way to address the desire to have an article like this is to rename it "Gauging the support for the sides in the creation-evolution controversy". That's really what this article is about. --ScienceApologist 07:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is a passable name but it is too long. Also, clearly people are upset about the word "support" it seems. What do you dislike about the word "levels"? No one could mistake "levels of support" for "scientific evidence" which was your previous claim if I a not mistaken. And it is not about the process of "gauging" but the end result of "gauging", so your proposed title is in fact not only too long, but inaccurate. Also, you are complaining about dividing the controversy into sides, and how improper and imprudent that is, and then included the notion of sides in the title itself. Hmm...--Filll 14:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, ScienceApologist, I thought you wanted to emphasize that creationism and evolution aren't always opposing "sides", but that there's some overlap? If that's your intent, then the current title does a much better job of avoiding that misconception than your title (which emphasizes that creationism and evolution are opposing "sides") would. -Silence 14:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the current title pretends that is describing the "support" for evolution, but it doesn't: it only is describing the "support" for evolution in the context of the creation-evolution controversy. How about "Enumerating sides in the creation-evolution controversy"? --ScienceApologist 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it describes the support in the context of the creation-evolution controversy is because the creation-evolution controversy is the only thing that makes this topic noteworthy, or disputed by anyone. We don't have comparable articles for "Level of support for gravity" for no reason other than that there is no significant creation-gravity controversy. It is not misleading to not mention "creationism" in the title of this article just because the article's importance is a result of the creation-evolution controversy, because we make that clear at the very start of the article. It doesn't describe the support "only in the context of the creation-evolution controversy", but the creation-evolution controversy is the relevant backdrop for debates over that level of support. -Silence 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are contradicting yourself when you say "It doesn't describe the support "only in the context of the creation-evolution controversy", but the creation-evolution controversy is the relevant backdrop for debates over that level of support." What is context if not a "relevant backdrop"? --ScienceApologist 19:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using "backdrop" in the sense of "background; circumstances and events surrounding or leading up to an event or occurrence". The creation-evolution controversy is not the only context in which we can discuss the support for evolution, but it's important to discuss right off the bat because it gives us a perspective on what makes this article worth writing to begin with. It's a context for this article, but it needn't be the only one. -Silence 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No contradiction that I can see. The article describes all the support, in whatever context. But it so happens that the only context in which the idea of supporting it arises is the "creation-evolution controversy". I agree that the very notion of having to document the level of support for evoluton is ludicrous, and I am a bit concerned that the very existence of such an article panders to the dangerous fictions that (a) there is a meaningful debate between two equally respectable "scientific" viewpoints, and (b) the way these things are best decided is by a show of hands, but there is a valid topic in the article, and I think the present name is about right. Snalwibma 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue that the creation-evolution controversy panders to creationists' desires much more than this one does, since its very title states that there is a controversy and thus lends credence to "Teach the Controversy" objections. We don't base article titles or subjects on whatever we think will help the creationists the least; we base it on what we think will be most informative to readers. -Silence 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But since this article isn't about the "level of support for evolution" (which is as high as the level of support for gravity or optics or any other current scientific model you care to name) the title doesn't inform but, in fact, misleads readers. --ScienceApologist 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to rename the article

message: Who disputes it as a name for this article? --ScienceApologist 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Verifiably incorrect. The article describes the "level of popular support" for an advocacy against creationism. --ScienceApologist 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *"Two" is not in the title. --ScienceApologist 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Too long for what? Length is not mentioned in WP:MoS. --ScienceApologist 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Fair enough. That title is better, but since the article is in context of the C/E controversy, I made a new proposal below. --ScienceApologist 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enumerating the sides in the creation-evolution controversy

message: Who disputes it as a name for this article? --ScienceApologist 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular support for sides in the creation-evolution controversy

message: As an alternative to the above. --ScienceApologist 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Opabinia's most recent suggestion is the best one thus far, after Level of support for evolution itself. The only significant disadvantages to it that I see are that its use of "popular" implies that this doesn't discuss the scientific consensus for evolution, which it does, and that its opposite would be "Rejection", rather than the more neutral "Opposition". ScienceApologist's suggestions are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist; not all articles related or relevant to the creation-evolution controversy need to mention both creationism and evolution in their titles. -Silence 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Except that the acceptance in question is "popular" acceptance. The article doesn't deal with scientific reception since such an article would be much different. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. A huge section of the article has to do with the scientific community. In fact, I had to make it smaller because people thought it was biased against creationists and unbalanced. Are the views of scientists and scientific societies just "popular? Are the rulings of courts just "popular"? --Filll 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article shies away from the way the scientific community supports evolution (through evidence of evolution). --ScienceApologist 19:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title discusses the level of support, or level of acceptance, of evolution by the science community. And among other communities. Of course, the level of acceptance of the science community is a direct function of the evidence for evolution. If there were no evidence, the science community would not support it. And neither would the courts. And probably not the educational institutions. And probably public support would be drastically altered as well.--Filll 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the use of the word 'popular' because, to the extent that this article does touch on the acceptance in the scientific community, it discusses ways that community has tried to convince the public (petitions and suchlike). Everything in this article that isn't directly about the public, is about various attempts to communicate with the public. 'Popular acceptance' is obviously the focus here. Not that that's a bad thing, but the title should describe the content. Opabinia regalis 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Opabinia has a finger on the pulse. The "popular" aspect should be noted in the title. I think a consensus is beginning to emerge. --ScienceApologist 06:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I see no consensus. And even if you agreed with Opabinia, two does not carry much weight.--Filll 13:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is very clear when a person reads anything more than the title that this is about the controversy. Please, why are you trying to find problems where none exist? Surely you do not think there is something funny when you are the only person out of about 30 that has looked at this so far that has this problem?--Filll 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not change the title so that people can find out from the name of the title? After all, there is a precedent for titling articles after their subjects. --ScienceApologist 19:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one who seems to have the biggest problem (and perhaps the only problem) with understanding what this name means. Are you a native english speaker perchance?--Filll 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm a native English speaker. Are you a creationist perchance? --ScienceApologist 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness! Have you not seen the article? I have to work hard to bolster the creationist case to keep it NPOV, because my first drafts were judged to be decidedly POV. Have you not seen my other edits? Anyone calling me a creationist has not been paying attention. Whatever would give you that impression?--Filll 13:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now maybe you understand why it is so inappropriate for you to ask about my English speaking status. --ScienceApologist 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Misunderstandings about evolution only exists because of the creation-evolution controversy, and deals almost entirely with creationist claims, yet you don't demand that it mention "creation" in the title. You're applying a double standard to articles. -Silence 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not true. There are plenty of people who have misconceptions about evolution who are not involved in the creation-evolution controversy. Students in introductory biology classes, for example. An example includes that "survival of the fittest" is often attributed to Charles Darwin when it was actually a Spencerian idea. --ScienceApologist 19:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "survival of the fittest" misunderstanding isn't even mentioned in Misunderstandings about evolution, except very briefly at the bottom, without any explanation that it's a misunderstanding, in a section copy-pasted from Evolution that doesn't even deal with misunderstandings, but rather with the history of social controversies surrounding evolution. :P Only creationist claims are dealt with in the article! And several of those creationist claims aren't even misunderstandings of evolution, they're misunderstandings of information theory and thermodynamics that have been applied to evolution as creationist arguments. Just like people would misunderstand evolution without creationists, people would support evolution without creationists, so both topics exist either way; but what tipped the scales in favor of making articles for them was their importance in the creation-evolution controversy. That's why there's an entire section for the history of the creation-evolution controversy at the bottom of "Misunderstandings"! It's pretty blatant. -Silence 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since when is a Wikipedia article considered a finished product? The potential for misunderstandings that go beyond the creationists' misunderstandings is there in that article. However, I see no potential for this article to rise above its limited purview. --ScienceApologist 06:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular support for creation and evolution

message: :We encounter this theme of "levels of support" or "levels of acceptance" in every article on evolution and  creationism and the controversy, of which there are probably 100 or more now. This puts it all in one place that is easy to find and easier to maintain and can easily be linked to from all articles as needed.
I think this is something of an exaggeration (every article?) but be that as it may what you are trying to argue is that because the level of support is mentioned elsewhere it deserves its own article. What you fail to realize, however, is that level of support is characterized differently depending on who is talking. As an editor who is (very) familiar with these pages I'd say that the "level of support" is dictated by the evidence when we are dealing with the science side and the theology when we are dealing with the religion side. Trying to couch the "level of support" in terms of who signed what document or who responded to what poll is not really indicative of what the substance of the "issue" is.
:This is a major point of discussion in the controversy; who supports it, and by how much? And I constantly encounter misunderstandings about the levels of support in different groups.
Except this is not in-and-of-itself a justification for a Wikipedia article. See WP:NOT. We aren't here to explicate major points of discussion, we are here to write articles that belong in an encyclopedia.
:Notable organizations like the various main creationist organizations and National Center for Science Education, National Academy of Sciences and American Association for the Advancement of Sciences and dozens of others all are involved in this activity, and devote considerable energy to it and appear to put a lot of stock in it. This is important because even if we do not agree with it or this strategy, they do it. And so it is notable. It is an important part of the public discourse
Again, that's not in-and-of-itself a justification for this article. Reporting on the strategy can be done at any one of the articles you reference. Having a clearinghouse article on the subject is borderline POV-pushing (for the POVs of those organizations).
:This material has been part of the laws considered in the UK, in Australia, and at least 40 of the US states in the last few years. This alone would make it worthy.
If you want to write an article on "laws regarding the creation-evolution controversy, I think that such an article would be wonderful. This article, however, is not on such a subject.
:There have been at least 10 major court cases in the US where this type of evidence has been part of the trial. This also alone would make it worthy.
Again, see the above comment. Major court cases about the creation-evolution controversy would be a fine article, but this isn't what this article is about.
:This information is part of the considerations of school boards, and parent teacher associations and schools and teachers and school book publishers when trying to decide curricula. Maybe it should not be, but we live in an imperfect world.
Again, not a sufficient justification for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a handbook for aforementioned groups.
:This information is part of the extensive media coverage of this controversy, so again it is an important part of public discourse on the subject. It is worthy of inclusion
Arguable point. Media coverage tends not to revolve around this subject. It mostly deals with particular stories or incidents. I have never seen a media story that is specifically on this subject.
:There are huge amounts of money being spent on this issue.
Not a sufficient justification for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are gobs of money being spent on lots of things that are routinely deleted from this encyclopedia.
    
:The AfD failed. This was brought before the community. We can do it again if you want but I think the result will be the same. You just personally declared all the other editors wrong. That might be true, but that is not how things are done on WP.
You are missing the point. The AfD discussion seemed to indicate that there were major problems with this article, problems that have not been addressed at this time. Whether or not the article should be deleted is a procedural matter, but whether it should be improved is something else. Don't take a successful "keep" as a carte blanche toward ownership of the article.
 
:This article describes the support demographics.
I can find no reference to legitimate demographers made anywhere in the article, so this statement is absolutely wrong.
:It shows interesting patterns which many people are unaware of.
This is dangerously close to an WP:ILIKEIT defense for the article. It is not a good idea to support an article's content just because you are interested in it. There are content guidelines that should be looked at.
:You might think they are obvious, but they clearly are not. It is of interest to all people involved in the controversy, and to those outside trying to understand what its nature is. (which of course is the purpose of this article in an encyclopedia).
Even if I agreed with your premise that it was important that people know this subject, it is not at all clear that this article (as an amalgmation of a lot of different perspectives, views, polls, letters, and statements by various groups) is the best way to do it. Whether such a synthesis ever belongs in Wikipdia is debatable (there are good arguments either way), but you haven't addressed the point that many of these descriptions can be handled in the articles about the individual groups, for example.
:You seem to be under a misapprehension that this article is written only to argue for or against evolution or creationism, and that this is the wrong strategy. That is not what this article is; it is trying to survey the landscape that exists. This article is not a strategy. It is meant as an encyclopedia reference, much like List of Christian denominations by number of members or Major religious groups, just to catalogue the situation as it exists. Hopefully as impartially as possible.
If this article were just a list, I would be much more happy to let things slide. However, it is more than a list. I consider it to be an original amalgamation of material selected for reasons that do not synchronize with Wikipedia policies and procedures.
:This is important also because of its potential reprecussions. Until the late 1950s, evolution appeared in almost no US school science textbooks. Until the mid 80s, it was illegal for teachers in some states to refuse to teach creationism as part of the school science curriculum. It is still possible that children are being taught creationism as science in many school science classrooms in the US; it just cannot be required by law. Many politicians want to change the laws to require that creationism be taught in school classrooms; both Gore and Bush initially supported this position in the 2000 Presidential election. Creationists claim the Santorum Ammendment does exactly that. And given the restrictions on Stem Cell Research and pronouncements by Creationists and Evangelicals who seem to have a lot of political pull in Washington, I suspect that if they get creationism into school science classrooms, that is only the beginning. They want to get things like cosmology and radioactive dating out of school science curricula. Tree ring dating will have to go. Discussions of fossils and dinosaurs. I also would not expect them to stop at the public schools, but want to go after the Universities, as has already been done in Turkey and Pakistan. And research funding. So this is an important issue.
This looks to me like a political treatise and political treatises are clearly not good justifications for why things should be a certain way in an encyclopedia. In any case, the political import of a topic may make it interesting from a political standpoint, but only if you can find verifiable third-party political reports which indicate this. This issue is very obscure within political circles, to the point of it being buried deep in party platforms for reasons dating back to William Jennings Bryan's failed presidential bids. 
:And I think the best  a resource like Wikipedia can do is to provide information. Let's understand what the terrain looks like. Lets compile the information and have it available and look at it. Lets not hide from this.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We need to have encyclopedic reasons for how to arrange content and what subjects to include as stand-alone articles. I encourage you to think carefully on this criticism. Much of the article's content may be salvageable, but we need to rethink whether we are serving the purpose of an encyclopedia by having this particular amalgmation, and, moreover, whether it makes sense for it to be called "Level of support for evolution". 
--ScienceApologist 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you had not noticed, you do not WP:OWN this topic, and your interpretation of the WP rules and guidelines are not the only one. And in case you had not noticed, a substantial number of people disagree with you. Just a little reminder.--Filll 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So all the people on the AfD page that liked it, were they just deranged??--Filll 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word, yes. --ScienceApologist 07:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I will also add that the article started out as much more of a list. And slowly but surely, the lists have been removed. I have removed several in response to complaints (a big part of the reason an AfD was filed in fact). And subsequently, several other lists were removed by other editors. I might not personally agree (although in truth, I am neutral about it, since both formats have advantages and disadvantages), but since I do not WP:OWN this article, and I believe in consensus, I welcome this community input and feedback. I know from a lot of past experience that if I write something, and come back to it  much later, I will find fault with what I wrote before. Sometimes I am shocked at how poorly written it is, and how little I agree with what I wrote before. So one can short circuit this process of rewriting considerably by employing others to proof-read it and correct mistakes. And a lot of other views can be very beneficial. Also, I apologize if it seems like I am baiting ScienceApologist. I was, and still am, just incredulous at this seeming rejection of consensus, when that is one of the hallmarks of WP. I just do not know how to respond to this disregard for one of the tenets of WP. And over what seems like a sort of minor issue, since Wikipedia is not paper as many people seem to point out to me over and over.--Filll 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Filll

message: First of all, User:Filll, your very uncivil attempt to draw attention to an exchange that you took out of context should be rethought. Especially the double big tags. It makes it very difficult to assume good faith when you do things like that, in specific violation of Wikipedia:Wikiquette.
However, let me respond, in turn, to each of the accusations.
:Accusing every editor who disagrees with you of being "deranged" is exactly the sort of uncivil, intolerant, and closed-minded polemicism that we should strive to avoid in all Wikipedia interactions (albeit Filll seemed to be trying to bait you into making such an attack, which was also inappropriate).
I don't beat around bushes and I do believe in generalization for effect. If you can't figure out what I mean when I say that people who "disagreed" with a statement that wasn't made in the AfD were "deranged" then you are not only making mountains out of molehills, you are planting your foot firmly in your mouth. My one-word answer to Fillls' outrageous comment was indicative of my belief that nobody expressed such a sentiment in the AfD. That's all. 
:However, Filll, I believe we should try to respond to ScienceApologist's specific points, not just dismiss them with weak arguments like "you don't OWN this article" (he would probably say the same to you) or "that's just your interpretation of the WP rules and guidelines" (which isn't any inherently worse than yours; rather than making such a trivial statement, explain what's wrong with his interpretation). We've finally gotten ScienceApologist to stop making unilateral, undiscussed changes to the article and start actually explaining his reasoning and engaging in a dialogue; that's an important step forward in resolving this issue, and we should encourage a civil and open-minded discussion about the matter by treating him and his arguments respectfully, no matter we strongly we disagree with them.
I appreciate this overture.
:Yes, a "substantial number of people disagree with" ScienceApologist, but while that makes it inappropriate for him to try to institute any major, immediate changes (like a page-move) on his own at this point, it doesn't make him wrong. What makes him wrong is that this article does not contadict any Wikipedia policy, is informative and useful for readers, and does not constitute an inherently POVed or misleading topic. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Actually, this article does contradict some Wikipedia policies including the fact that its title is misleading and its subject ill-defined.
:You are misdefining support as it is being used here. This article is about the level of popular support/acceptance for (as contrasted with opposition/rejection to) evolution, not about what arguments and evidence "support" the scientists' or creationsts' views. The latter is too broad a topic for one article; the former is perfect for an article.
Since "support" and "level of support" are vague, the proper thing to do is rename the article so people know what the subject is. As we have it right now, the article's subject and the article's title do not coincide and so the "support" as it is being used here is ill-defined and inappropriate.
:It is a violation of WP:NOR for Wikipedia to attempt to dictate what the "issue" is in the creation-evolution debate, when many different issues are in fact involved. The fact that you consider arguments and polls regarding evolution's level of popular support to be "beside the point", or even red herrings, does not mean that the issue doesn't exist. Whatever topics are most frequently debated in a major social controversy like this, Wikipedia must write about, no mater how silly or beside-the-point they may seem to Wikipedia's editors.
I have no problem discussing the points in this article. I do have a problem that the article does not reference any sources that discuss the points in the manner in which the article discusses them. It looks like an original amalgamation: original research.
:It is our job to report on national debates, not to "judge" them and dismiss whichever ones we think are "not really indicative of what the substance of the 'issue' is".
I agree. So tell me, where are these national debates taking place about what the level of support for evolution is independent of the creation-evolution controversy? If there are none, then why isn't creation-evolution controversy explicitly in the title?
:Um... yes, it is. As long as the point of discussion is major enough. Nowhere on WP:NOT does it state that major issues in ongoing national controversies cannot have articles written about them, as long as the information is verifiable, neutral, and in-depth enough to merit such an article.
Point being that the issue isn't a "major" one. The creation-evolution controversy may be considered a "major" issue, but every tangentially related article does not automatically gain merit from that. You have to evaluate each article on its own terms. This article makes it out to be that there is some major controversy over who does and doesn't support evolution. I haven't seen any evidence that this exists outside a tangential argument that takes place in the C/E debate. You have to make it clear that the article is major in its own right.
:But what you fail to realize is that this is also a fine article. Someone could just as easily use your arguments against this page (that both supporters and opponents of evolution don't rely primarily on popular support, but rather on evidence and theological or scientific arguments) to invalidate a page on major court cases (i.e., "both supporters and opponents of evolution don't rely primarily on legal decisions, but rather on evidence and theological or scientific arguments, therefore this is not a major issue and shouldn't have an article").
You have obviously missed my reasons for objecting to this article as an article in its own right. What you used was an objection I had to the article's title.
:This illustrates how baseless your criticism of this argument is: it basically dismisses all Wikipedia articles related to the creation-evolution controversy that are not either strict theology or strict evolutionary biology, dismissing entirely the social and political aspects of the controversy.
No, I want Wikipedia to include articles that are notable and unoriginal reports and that are not unique amalgamations of arbitrary material like this article is.
:I have never seen a media story on the creation-evolution subject that didn't mention the level of support for evolution in one way or another. Complaining that no one story can be said to be exclusively and solely "on this subject" is quibbling.
It's not quibbling at all: It's my main point. That this one subject is not considered independent of other subjects is a good reason to rid ourselves of this article and include its information in reference to the other subjects which do have articles.
:Many of the articles on Wikipedia have been referenced in news stories, but relatively few have had news stories exclusively about them, especially when we're talking about daughter articles of larger issues.
I challenge you to name some.
:Actually, an unbiased reading of the AfD discussion indicates that most, if not all, of the problems that spurred the AfD nomination had been resolved by the time of its closure, and many more have been resolved since then (such as the ambiguity and potential POV of the title "Support for evolution", as opposed to "Level of support for evolution"). I'll agree that there are still problems to be fixed, but I fail to see any of them as grounds for deletion.
Disabuse yourself of the notion that you have an unbiased reading. YOUR reading of the AfD discussion, etc. is that all issues have been resolved. However, I think the title of this article is horrible and I don't think that the substantive problems have been dealt with.
:By that logic, creation-evolution controversy itself should be deleted.
No, because creation-evolution controversy is reported as a subject outside of Wikipedia.
:There is no reason not to present information in the individual groups' article that is too specific for those pages, and information on this article that is too general (e.g., comparisons between different groups, or generalizations over several groups, and just any information that is specifically relevant to the "level of support"), when having both is more useful and informative than only having one or the other.
Since when is specific information about specific groups "too specific" to include in articles about "specific groups"? That is just about the weirdest argument I've seen yet. Trying to satisfy all parties by being inclusionist is your opinion, but as a deletionist, I don't like to see repetition for repetition's sake.
:That doesn't make any sense at all. A list couldn't adequately present the same information, and thus would be less useful to readers.
Say's who? The God of Wikipedia? I've seen many lists that adequately present information. I think much of this article could be covered in a list: most of the prose is completely throwaway or could easily be included elsewhere.
:If you're OK with a list being made on a certain topic, it seems absurd to object to an article being made on the same topic on the grounds that the topic is inappropriate (as opposed to on the grounds that the information is better-suited to a list).
No it isn't. There is precedent for this. Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy was written to accomodate an editor who wanted to write some big summary article about every issue related to the creation-evolution controversy. The list works better than any text we could write.
:You're right. Wikipedia is a discriminate collection of information. Which is exactly what Filll was describing, and exactly what this article adheres to. -Silence 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was, and still am, just incredulous at this seeming rejection of consensus, when that is one of the hallmarks of WP. I just do not know how to respond to this disregard for one of the tenets of WP. And over what seems like a sort of minor issue, since Wikipedia is not paper as many people seem to point out to me over and over.--Filll 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not blame Silence for my own bad judgement of placing the double  tags. Ok so they were deranged because they disagree with you. Fine. I get the message. Loud and clear.--Filll 19:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not "all these points", but at least an article that is ostensibly about the subject. As it is, the haphazard nature of this stuff makes it very close to original research. I would be much more comfortable if you can find me a single article outside of Wikipedia that discusses the "popular support" for evolution in this fashion. I agree that this sentiment does not sound "scholarly", but remember the point of Wikipedia is not to be a scholarly publication: it's to be an encyclopedia that reports things that have already been done. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: To make this even more clear, I was involved in a similar dispute involving nonstandard cosmologies which was an article written with a lot of problems in terms of defining subjects. Then one of the other editors pointed out that an article had been written outlining the subject by a third party. Suddenly, the article had focus and a subject that could be verified by a secondary source. In fact, most articles in Wikipedia are best written from secondary sources for this reason. We can avoid the original research issues if we just report what has been done before. --ScienceApologist 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to Silence and Filll

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 20, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria: 
    
:1. Well written?: No problems  I will agree with silence (below) that the organisation needs work. Sections 3+6 should go under Section 1 and it should be clarified that churches have more surrendered to evolution than embraced it. 
:2. Factually accurate?: Huge amount of sources
:3. Broad in coverage?: It could help to add support from Physical Scientists, Philosophers, and others professions that may have a different angle. It would also help to have a more global view. 
:4. Neutral point of view?: It has a disputed neutrality banner on the top of the page! The article only attempts to discredit the general public without even attempting to give credibility to general public's beliefs (i.e. They did not go to a college that actively propogated it). It fails to address cause and effect (i.e. Is it the lack of the teaching of alternate theories in schools that causes scientists to believe in evolution or vice versa). This demonstrates a failure to examine reasoning the motives behind scientists decisions. The article also fails to distinguish between microevolution (which most Creationists support) and that of macroevolution (which many will deny). It also fails to address that the Gallop poll does not include old-earth creationists which do not believe in God guided evolution.
:POV Disclaimer: I am a Creationist
:5. Article stability?It is stable for such a controversial issue.  
:6. Images?: It needs at least one  (i.e. A picture of protesters, Supreme Court building or document for that section, a picture of a church or church leader, map of the U.S. for the U.S. support section, picture of the world for the international support section, a medicine and industry picture, a picture of the cover of the Origin of the Species, etc.).    
 
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
--Jorfer 06:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: And pretty funny. Wow. Just makes me shake my head.--Filll 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good review. I would add that it could use a little reorganization for clarity's sake; it is confusing to have things mentioned in reverse chronology at the start of the article, then in normal chronology at the end. We should distinguish between "Level of support" as in "Level of acceptance" and as in "Level of advocacy", as some of the sections seem to only deal with the latter (e.g., the second section). "Project Steve" also clearly belongs under "Scientific support". -Silence 06:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the second criterion means "Would the article be significantly benefited by including images?" If an article doesn't need any images, then 6b gets a + mark. Jorfer probably figured that this is an example of an article that should have images before it's a GA, perhaps to graphically illustrate certain statistics? -Silence 15:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This review is enlightening 

message: I have in fact pondered this off and on for the last few weeks. I even started a rough draft. I am not sure it could fly, but it might be a good idea. I have compiled a list of the 10 or 15 most important US court cases on the subject (I think I slipped them in this article as well, but with no comments). Not all of them have separate articles here on WP. They probably all should get separate articles. A short summary article that described the basics of each case in a paragraph with links might be quite useful. There is a page that does this on National Center for Science Education here but it does not have as many cases listed as I have in my list (I also used the National Academy of Sciences list and merged it with the NCSE list) 
Since there have been pro-creationism laws considered in at least 40 states, the details could be tracked down and listed with sources, for every state in the US. Of course these laws have changed over time, in some cases several times, so this could be quite an undertaking.  
There have been legal cases in the UK, in Australia, in Turkey and numerous other countries on this issue as well. This could also be compiled. Of course, all this would have to be done very carefully because the volume of material might easily be too much for one article. 
So I agree that this would be a great article. I am not sure how easy it would be to do, and I am not sure how accepting the community would be of such an article.--Filll 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support such an article. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine except it does not cover intelligent design, which might then require a separate article. And I am not sure if that is a good idea.--Filll 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intelligent design is neo-creationism. So it does cover it. --ScienceApologist 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for a legal/court article 

message: :I have agreed with several suggested name changes, and made several suggestions of my own. I guess you were not paying attention. I have expressed approval or partial approval for about 10 other titles. However I have some thoughts on titles:
:*A title that is too long is not good.
:*A title that is poor English is not good
:*A title that uses excessively obscure or erudite language is not good. We do not need circumlocution in our titles. 
:*A title that suggests the process of producing the measures of support rather than the end result of those processes is not good
:*A title that focuses too much on creationism or the creation-evolution controversy is not good since intelligent design is also relevant and important in this context, but many claim intelligent design is not creationism. What do intelligent design and creationism share? A dispute with evolution. And in fact, I would include in this context people who disagree with evolution on nonreligious grounds, some of whom are involved with the discovery institute purely because they dislike evolution, not that they subscribe to the Genesis account or the divine origin agenda.--Filll 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without getting too bogged down in the sticky issue of a distinction between creationism and intelligent design, it has basically been revealed that intelligent design is nothing more than creationism reapportioned in a way to fulfill the Wedge strategy. This is bizarrely uncontroversial because even when people disagree with this idea, the evidence is plainly there that this is what it is, and there is no evidence refuting this. I encourage you to sift through the mammoth talkpages at Talk:Intelligent design for more on this. However, the long-and-the-short-of-it is that there is not "two controversies" there is one. --ScienceApologist 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on titles

message: This article is titled Level of Support for Evolution, yet a large part of the introduction is spent explaining a US education controversy.  Is this to justify the idea that support for evolution exists?  It is also not clear to me why this article belongs in project Creationism.  Many groups debate evolutions validity. Bookswinters 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you might have noticed, the title of this article is being currently discussed. The article itself contains information about the level of support of evolution outside the US, but the most active controversy is in the US, at the moment. The most money is being spent on the issue, the most noise in the media, most of the internet sites on the issue, etc all have to do with the US. Now I know that there are people in Islamic countries that dispute evolution as well. But at least in the English media and on the English internet, we do not hear as much about it. And from my reading, in places like Pakistan and Turkey, there is not much controversy. Creationism has already won in those countries.--Filll 15:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I put up a tag (which was just taken down) for the content instead of the title and did write a disclaimer in the GA review. The tag is that it is disputed so it should naturally be put up until the dispute is resolved.
Well I have not done anything to the tag. But I feel that it is balanced, if you read teh article. Some areas evolution is stronger and in some areas creationism is stronger. And in the end, I point out that all these measures of support are meaningless.--Filll 23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for "POV rant" statement.  You mean speaking about a subject with verified sources, supported by 99.9% of scientists on this planet, and is a fact.  OK, I'll accept that it is a factual rant.  Let me put it bluntly.  This human being does not believe in a natural inclination to believe in a creator.  Humans default to supernatural explanations for anything that they do not understand.  Whether it is fire-breathing dragons invented because some people saw fossils in the ground, UFO's and little green or grey men are seen because they don't understand swamp gas, or stating the earth is flat because people rarely travelled more than 10 km, it is all supernatural.  I prefer two answers:   we figured it out or we haven't.  Evolution has been figured out except in the US (amongst a certain class of individuals and in extremist Muslim countries.  Orangemarlin 16:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather read the Creator's message directly in nature, than in the words of some unknown authors, with unknown motivations, with translation  and interpretation and contradiction and error problems. I would rather hear directly from the Creator thanks. But if you would rather listen to humans not God, be my guest. Just do not try to force it on others.--Filll 23:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Jorfer has tagged this article on the grounds that his/her POV is opposed to evolution: this looks like tag vandalism. Both viewpoints are covered in the article as is required by WP:NPOV. If specific suggestions are produced for improving the statements on either viewpoint, these can be discussed and implemented, but tagging an article on the grounds that you don't agree with a viewpoint presented in it is inappropriate. .. dave souza, talk 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There is nothing that he has written that is anything more than his POV that either Evolution is wrong or Creationism is right (which I guess are the same thing).  I do not want to continue to revert his tags, because someone will accuse me of WP:3RR.  Am I the only one here that thinks his tags are bogus and are an attempt to discredit this article?  Where are the rest of the Creationists on here?  Orangemarlin 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Jorfer has admitted above that he has no references to back his point up. It is perfectly fine for us to give him time to seek out such references, but until he finds them, it is grossly inappropriate for him to put an NPOV tag based on his opinion alone. Until we have reliable references backing up a dispute, this is a clear-cut case. This is not a place for re-fighting the creation-evolution debate; it is a place for neutrally reporting on the level of popular support for evolution. This conversation is therefore irrelevant here until reliable sources are provided to justify making a change to the article. Until then, this conversation should be taken to the User Talk pages or off-Wikipedia, as they are not article-related. -Silence 01:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well can you remove those ugly tags?  I do not want to get the third revert, because someone will slap a violation of 3RR on me.  I'm tired of this discussion, because he has rehashed information that has been thoroughly discredited over and over and over and over.  Orangemarlin 00:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examining Jorfer's statement

message: *I know I need sources to claim that the support for evolution is a result of the school system, but I do not think that I need sources to claim the Examining the level of public support and Recent scientific trends  are POV because the information presented only attempts to discredit Creationists. For example, to be NPOV the article could consider Wikipedia itself as an example of collective intelligence to try to give credence to the masses. This time I am putting it on the sections instead.--Jorfer 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad that Jorfer has now come up with specific examples of what he dislikes. These can be addressed much more easily when we know exactly what he thinks is unbalanced. If Jorfer can come up with reasonable peer-reviewed studies and other high quality references demonstrating that biases in the US public education system have created this disparity in support levels among scientists and the general public, then we can include them. I am  not sure that Wikipedia is particularly relevant as an example of anything; there are plenty of claims on both sides that it is reliable, or that it is a worthless piece of garbage full of errors.--Filll 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have once again removed Jorfer's POV tags from the article.  First, there is no back-up.  Second, at worst one of the sections require a couple of citations, but that just requires a  tag instead.  Jorfer is on a one-man rant here.Orangemarlin 15:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Entertaining, isnt it? It makes me smile. Wow. But at least he is stating exactly what he has a problem with, instead of vague hand-waving statements.--Filll 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In fairness, Jorfer is correct that we should avoid words like "claim", and he cited policy to back that up. Forget warring back and forth about NPOV tags; the fact that it's one person making the argument doesn't, in itself, invalidate everything he says. Work on improving the article; there are indeed aspects that could be more neutral, so we can use Jorfer's feedback to help improve those sections (by acting on his correct criticisms, and ignoring his incorrect ones, like his misconception-laden anti-evolution rant above) rather than turning it into a pointless battle. What matters is that we keep article criticism to this page, and debate over whether evolution is valid elsewhere. Jorfer is at least not giving specific, actionable criticisms, whether we disagree with them (or him) or not; we might as well take them seriously, and either fix the problems or explain why things are OK as-is. -Silence 16:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I have said repeatedly, I am not particularly happy with the "Trends" section. This will give me the excuse I need to improve it and make it tighter and more neutral.--Filll 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: a b c Smart People See Ghosts, Brad Steiger, Fate Magazine, April 2006 Issue, p. 52-56; the unusual thing found by Farha and Steward was that belief in the supernatural increased with education level, contrary to many other surveys. However, that aspect of their study is not being used here. 
--Jorfer 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghost simply don't exist.  Smart people also believe in Aliens and UFO's.  Smart people voted for George Bush.  Smart people allowed Hitler and the Holocaust.  Smart people believe in the Jesus Myth.  Orangemarlin 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just a copy of the reference that was already at the bottom of the page Orangemarlin--Jorfer 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. And I guess I will dig up 5 references that refute that suggestion. That is not a repeatable result. It was just curious. I am not using that aspect of their study here; all that I need is to show that people believe a lot of stupid things. And this study shows that, clearly.--Filll 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Sections

message: Why, given the hundreds of people who post on these articles, are you the only one without a signature that can be readily accessed?  Are you hiding something?  Can you not use Wiki-code?  Just asking.  Orangemarlin 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is a high school student from florida.--Filll 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pretty smart in High School, so that cannot possibly be an excuse.  My stepson, who is also a very bright kid, posts on Wikipedia and seems to get it write frequently, so I'm guessing Jorfer is trying to avoid something.  But I certainly don't want to accuse him of anything.  Orangemarlin 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I checked the box underneath the preference tab when I was just starting out on Wikipedia. Thanks for pointing that out. I was wondering why mine didn't light up, but I assumed it was supposed to be like that when you looked at your own signature.--Jorfer 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  We had a troll on here once who did not use an official signature, because he kept using a variety of sockpuppets to avoid bans.  I didn't want to presume you were one.  Orangemarlin 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple question for Jorfer 

message: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), this page is going to have to be moved. If editors do not start proposing ideas soon, I will attempt to force consensus by appealing to Wikipedia:Requested moves.
I think right now the title with the fewest objections is
Endorsement and rejection of evolution.
The table is open. Please find a more precise title.
Thanks,
--ScienceApologist 01:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a "lobby" is a bit too legalistic for what we are trying to describe here. Accordingly, the definition of a "lobby" is "A group of persons engaged in trying to influence legislators or other public officials in favor of a specific cause". I don't think most of these signatories or the opinion polls referenced were trying to do this. --ScienceApologist 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it is a legislative term. Organizations, Groups, and Individual support for Evolution seems appropriate but long and dry. Evolution popularity is not appropriate. Degree of Support for Evolution doesn't sound right either. GetAgrippa 02:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have indicated my preference for the present title first, and second for level of acceptance of evolution. I have made several other suggestions. I will move it myself, although I do not understand where the fire is.--Filll 02:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I don't like the word "endorsement" because it is "an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something."  One doesn't endorse Evolution, one either accepts or, because of some religious reason, rejects Evolution.  The current title is bad, I'll agree.  How about this: Advocacy of Evolution.  Why does it require the negative?  Orangemarlin 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "advocacy" is a bit ambiguous as a title since "advocacy" is often associated with promotionalism and advertising. In point of fact, you'll see that this article really is about people who "endorse" evolution explicitly according to the definition you found. You and I agree that evolution needs no endorsement, but people do it anyway. It is not for us to criticze the fact that these people gave public approval to support evolution, they did it anyway. What's more, the negative is needed because included in this article are discussions of people who don't endorce or advocate for evolution. So to be specific we need to include them as well. The title needs to describe, as precisely as possible, the content of the article. Obviously, right now, the title does not come close to doing that. --ScienceApologist 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll, "support" and "level" should not be in the title because those words are not precise enough. Check out how many definitions each of those words has at the dictionaries recommended in the policy quoted. --ScienceApologist 02:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Acceptance is no good because it doesn't describe the contents of the article well-enough. Evolution is "accepted" based on the evidence, not based on popular opinion. Your other suggestion may have some merit, but to me it sounds a bit hokey. --ScienceApologist 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because no one agrees with you. That is an awful title and we suggested many others. Please do not be pushy and let the process work.--Filll 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Filll, that's just not true that no one agrees with me. Since you're being reticent, I have no choice but to move this discussion over to requests for page move. Sigh. --ScienceApologist 05:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know that this action was the most important thing we were doing with this article.  If it means so much, please go ahead with your suggestion.  It really isn't worth getting everyone upset.  I don't care that much, as long as there are links in the various Evolution and Creation articles.  Orangemarlin 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the "most important thing" we're doing. It's something that I've been trying to arrange for days. The final straw was when I asked for a substantive objection to the proposed title and Filll responded with condescension, platitudes, and personal remarks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll, you are definitely giving the impression of dragging your feet on this. For what reasons I can only surmise. I first proposed this particular renaming five days ago. I still have yet to receive a substantive response from you detailing your objections to the wording despite my having restarted the discussion on three separate occasions. Instead, you offer titles that have the word "support" and "level" in them which defeats the entire purpose of the exercise. You seem to not understand what I'm saying when I point out that the title's phrasing and choice of words is confusing. Fine. Let's let some other people have their say. --ScienceApologist 06:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't rejected any suggestion out-of-hand. For every single suggestion made I gave reasons why it may not be best. Some suggestions were better than others. For some reasons, yours always included the words "level" and "support" as though you were goading me. It makes it really hard to assume good faith when I can't get a straight answer out of you and have to remind you on your talkpage to respond to points I make here which is met with a snide "I have to think about it" response. You and Silence haven't really given me any reasons you think that this particular title is so "awful", in fact Silence has at some point suggested the opposite. There is no fire, I just want to move on from this point. My interest in this article is making a title that conforms to naming conventions. If everyone else doesn't think that's a priority, fine, but please don't put up obstacles to dealing with the situation. --ScienceApologist 06:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move imminent

message: *acceptance
*accession
*acknowledgement
*adoption
*advocacy
*approval
*assent
*belief
*denial
*level(s)
*support
*opposition to 
*measure(s)
Add more (or delete more) as we discover/discuss them, please.
This is frustrating!!!!!  How about "Evolution is a fact."  Or Evolution Rocks (get it...never mind).  I give up.  Orangemarlin 04:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Words to eschew in our new title

message: Beyond the fact that some people have expressed an undifferentiated disdain for
Endorsement and rejection of evolution
Does anybody have a substantive objection? I would like to move forward beyond this stagnant pool of unserious and imprecise suggestions. Please stop offering alternatives. Explain what exactly is wrong with this suggestion since I've seen dozens of ideas now and this one seems like it is the best. And yes, that's counting the current title which defies the precision naming convention. I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot -- I wonder if anybody is actually reading the naming convention page I referenced.
--ScienceApologist 05:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because no one agrees with you. That is an awful title and we suggested many others. Please do not be pushy and let the process work.--Filll 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Filll, that's just not true that no one agrees with me. Since you're being reticent, I have no choice but to move this discussion over to requests for page move. Sigh. --ScienceApologist 05:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know that this action was the most important thing we were doing with this article.  If it means so much, please go ahead with your suggestion.  It really isn't worth getting everyone upset.  I don't care that much, as long as there are links in the various Evolution and Creation articles.  Orangemarlin 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the "most important thing" we're doing. It's something that I've been trying to arrange for days. The final straw was when I asked for a substantive objection to the proposed title and Filll responded with condescension, platitudes, and personal remarks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll, you are definitely giving the impression of dragging your feet on this. For what reasons I can only surmise. I first proposed this particular renaming five days ago. I still have yet to receive a substantive response from you detailing your objections to the wording despite my having restarted the discussion on three separate occasions. Instead, you offer titles that have the word "support" and "level" in them which defeats the entire purpose of the exercise. You seem to not understand what I'm saying when I point out that the title's phrasing and choice of words is confusing. Fine. Let's let some other people have their say. --ScienceApologist 06:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't rejected any suggestion out-of-hand. For every single suggestion made I gave reasons why it may not be best. Some suggestions were better than others. For some reasons, yours always included the words "level" and "support" as though you were goading me. It makes it really hard to assume good faith when I can't get a straight answer out of you and have to remind you on your talkpage to respond to points I make here which is met with a snide "I have to think about it" response. You and Silence haven't really given me any reasons you think that this particular title is so "awful", in fact Silence has at some point suggested the opposite. There is no fire, I just want to move on from this point. My interest in this article is making a title that conforms to naming conventions. If everyone else doesn't think that's a priority, fine, but please don't put up obstacles to dealing with the situation. --ScienceApologist 06:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Any substantive objections

message: Would someone please point me to the location in the WP regulations, chapter and verse, where we are told expressly to avoid the following words, or that these words are inappropriate or their use is somehow deprecated?
*acceptance
*accession
*acknowledgement
*adoption
*advocacy
*approval
*assent
*belief
*denial
*level(s)
*support
*opposition to 
*measure(s)
Thank you very much.--Filll 06:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. It is you *personally* that have unilaterally decided this. Thank you for clearing that up.--Filll 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? Is there any policy or guideline that prevents me from writing down a list of words? You're really grasping at straws here and your comments are delving closer and closer to personal attacks. Keep it up and I will report you. --ScienceApologist 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's bad enough that we have to fight off some of the trolls who come in here with their Creationist babblings, but now we have two of the good guys fighting.  Filll, your comments are harsh.  If you were Raspor, we'd have keel-hauled you already.  And ScienceApologist, to somewhat agree with Filll, I don't get what you're trying to do.  You have an agenda, and frankly, you're not getting a lot of support.  Yes, the title sucks, we all agree.  But is there a rush?  Why don't you propose a couple three titles that sounds, well, bold or something.  I have not read a single title that has been presented that really warms my heart, and I think that's the problem.  You seem to have taken responsibility for this area, yet a lot of editors aren't jumping up to help.  Maybe they don't care, or maybe they can't think of a good one given your standards.  Anyways, we need a new title, and we need consensus, and you two jumping on each other isn't going to help.  Orangemarlin 13:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I must be blind or incompetent

message: Jorfer, you are going about this incorrectly.  You're the one who thinks the section is POV, then build a consensus to throw a tag on it.  It's not my job to prove the negative, that is, the section is not not POV (or NPOV).  What other reasonable editor agrees with you?  Just because the section may not meld with your viewpoint, does not, in fact, make it POV.  I've read the WP:NPOV section, and it lists out lots of things that make a section or article POV.  None of them are here.  Orangemarlin 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the talk page section titled POV sections--Jorfer 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did.  You have no support.  Orangemarlin 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral Action? 

message: :This rant by User:213.170.207.96 is not relevant to working on this article, and has been moved to User talk:213.170.207.96. -Silence 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting aside for the non evolutionists. 

message: I am not sure the importance of being able to cite the premise of the whole article is being taking seriously enough.  I think this is potentially catastrophic if we cannot cite it.  Toward that end, I will report something that will approach a good citation for the first sentence, but I think it falls short in that it only alludes to the premise of the article.  I'll provide it to help, because I would be sad to see such a well-researched article disappear.  Maybe this citation, in the absence of finding a better one, can be used to rework the article's first sentence?  
* 
The reference is less than ideal because it refers to critics mis-characterizing controversies within biological science.  This could reasonably be viewed as disputing the level of support--but it is not as explicit as the first sentence.  Also, the quote refers to "some critics."  The first sentence of the article states that the level of support is frequently disputed. However, another Another problem is that Dennett is an interested party.  Without being able to find a disinterested party, finding a citation to a published creationist sympathsizer who also alludes to this would be improve the reliability of the citations for the first sentence.  I hope this helps (so that Filll won't hate me so much:).  With quotes from opposing interesting interested parties reaching the same conclusion, I think the citations from opposing interested parties in this case it would be sufficient (though less preferable than a quote from a disinterested party) StudyAndBeWise 18:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is very important to cite the first sentence 

message: 2004 Gallup Poll on human origins
Evolution: <BR>Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life...	Evolution: <BR>Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life...	"Creationism"
... but God had no part in this process                                                              	... but God guided this process                                                                      	God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so
"Darwinism"                                                                                          	Creationism                                                                                          	Creationism
Some say that:
The majority of Americans believe in evolution
Supporters of Evolution	"Creationists"
51%                    	45%
Others say that:
Americans overwhelmingly reject evolution
"Evolution"	Creationism                  	Creationism
13%        	Progressive creationism (38%)	Young-Earth creationism (45%)
Each side claims the entirety of the "middle ground", based probably on different intrepretations of "Theistic evolution". --Uncle Ed 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe these tables as I said before, are oversimplified, but still useful. I disagree with some of it. For example, suppose a person thinks that God is omnipotent, and set up the natural laws of the universe to result in life etc. God just set it in motion, but does not "tweak" things and fiddle with things, the way some religious texts suggest. It is an image of an omnipotent and omniscent God, the God of Thomas Jefferson more than the God of Pat Robertson. Is this person a creationist? A supporter of intelligent design? A supporter of evolution? There is an element of intelligent design in their beliefs, but not in the sense of the Discovery Institute, but closer to those of the Vatican. The person subscribes to the findings in evolution, and also believes that God was involved in the universe, but not in the sense of guiding evolution. So this person does not fit in the easy categories. And I can think of other exceptions as well. Nevertheless, this is still useful. As I said before, a taxonomy of creationism might be valuable. I am not sure how to put something like this in this article, but it might be suitable here too. --Filll 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are also many old earth creationists who reject evolution who do not fit easily into that picture. And other stranger beliefs (like those of William Jennings Bryan who believed in an Old Earth and evolution for all creatures but humans). Or those who believe that there were two separate creations, corresponding to the two creations in the bible, separated by perhaps billions of years (like Harry Rimmer). And many other strange variations. Like some who believe there was a race of men that lived before Adam. Like some Hindu sects that believe man has lived on earth in unchanged form for millions of years or longer.--Filll 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some tables

message: Voices for Evolution 
Revised Edition Edited by Molleen Matsumura 
Introduction by Isaac Asimov 
Published by The National Center for Science Education, Inc. 
P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, California 94709. 
Printed and bound in the United States. 
Library of Congress 95­74815 
ISBN 0­939873­53­2 
from --Filll 20:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I think there is a consensus for Popular Support for Creation and Evolution and moved it, but Fill thinks otherwise and moved it back.--Jorfer 23:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. The discussion is underway above, and seems to have stalled. As I have stated repeatedly, and I think some others concur, the word "popular" is inaccurate because this article also deals with the courts, the school systems, the churches, the scientific societies and the scientists. None of these qualifies as popular support. There is a section examining public or popular sentiments, but I doubt if it is even 50% of the article.--Filll 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to figure out why one editor, Jorfer, continues to slap a NPOV tag on this article without any support whatsoever.  Orangemarlin 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont get it either. I am still learning how WP works, and some of these things are just mysterious to me.--Filll 00:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To say that "there is a consensus for Popular Support for Creation and Evolution" is putting it a bit strongly! Under Cataloguing the suggestions for another name (above) I see contributions from six editors, plus one anonymous, and three of these include Popular Support for Creation and Evolution in their lists of possibles, while two include the variant Popular Support for Evolution and Creationism. Hardly strong evidence of consensus. Snalwibma 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To be fair, I did not slap that on. If you look at the history it will show you that science apologetics put it up, if I am not mistaken. All I did was put it back on when Fill moved the article back. From the lack of significant rejections to the name or a similar name, there at least seems to be a consensus and for those that disagree this is a perfect time to speak or forever hold your peace.--Jorfer 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is particularly true when we have 5-10 types of creationism, none of which agree with each other. At least evolution and its definition is fairly well defined by scientists, and fairly well accepted. So that use is not ambiguous. Support for creationism on the other hand is very ambiguous, since there are so many types.--Filll 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what the best title for this article is, but I don't really think that this title is ideal.  Guettarda 02:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not strongly, no, though that title is inferior to the current one—albeit less inferior than just about all of the other suggestions. If there are concerns with the current title, though, I don't see why the use of the word "support" would be a significant issue out of those concerns. There are more relevant issues; the supposed controversy of the word "support" has been largely fabricated by ScienceApologist. -Silence 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a "fabricated" controversy - it's just a smart move to prevent having to deal with real POV forks.  Guettarda 03:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that it is manufactured. It seems largely specious to me.--Filll 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: POV forks such as...? There is no actual or potential POV fork that could arise from "support" but not from "acceptance" or other variants thereof. The "fabricated" controversy is indeed a fabricated one, at least in the sense that ScienceApologist has been promoting it, as though "support" specifically was the problematic word in the affair due to lexical ambiguity. You are wise enough to avoid this silliness and criticize the sense of the words, rather than the use of the specific word "support"; your problem isn't with the ambiguity or clarity of this specific word, but with whether it is POV to frame an article in any sort of way that explicitly mentions "support" or "approval" or "acceptance" or the like. Conflating your objections with Apologist's is unwarranted, as they are practically opposites. -Silence 03:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict]Yeah - anything "level of [support, acceptance, etc.]" has a confirmation bias.  It seems to me that it automatically becomes a POV fork, or at least invites criticism of being a POV fork.  It also invites the opposite - articles documenting support for creationism or other things like that.  Guettarda 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with an article on Support for creationism, although I think it would have to strive very hard to find new material on this topic, unless it was something like Evidence for creationism.--Filll 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, such an article is unnecessary because it is not as noteworthy or complex a topic as the level of support for evolution. Unlike the level of support for evolution, which cannot be covered in Evolution (a science article), the level of support for creationism can be effectively covered in Creationism. -Silence 03:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The reverse would be true ("level of opposition to X"), but "level of support" is neutral because it is the default expected format for a page dealing with the level of support (and lack thereof) for anything. "Level of support" can apply equally to well-supported and poorly-supported topics, negating the realistic possibility of a POV fork. (Besides, for this to be a POV fork it would need to be a fork of an existing article, but there is no article other than this one dealing directly and exclusively with the level of support for evolution.) -Silence 03:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Title 

message: As I have written elsewhere, I obtained the Matsumura|1998 article What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution?.
The John Richard Schrock editorial should be tossed out as an unreliable source.  Specifically, the Matsumura|1998 article states:
It should be noted that Matsumura|1998 bases her grouping of the SBC into chruches that support evolution education soley on briefs they filed in McLean v Arkansas, and this is fully explained in the article. StudyAndBeWise 21:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we should quote her exactly then.--Filll 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On this article, I'll leave that to you.  Seems a bit long to include in the article.  I think an explanation or full quote in the citation would be better than making the article that much longer... StudyAndBeWise 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To be honest, after reading the Masumura|1998 article, she is trying to make a point about teaching evolution in the classroom, and the level of support for this among most of the largest chruches in the United States.  Toward that end, she creatively classifies most of the 12 largest denominations as supporters of evolution education.  It is a dressed up editorial.  I'll try to upload it so you can read it for yourself.  It only confirms my thoughts about her organization being an interested party (not that she doesn't have a point).  StudyAndBeWise 00:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded it to wikisource.  It's not the type of source I prefer, but you all can be the judge. StudyAndBeWise 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective quoting on part of John Richard Schrock 

message: :We cannot but question the validity of such a view. As Gould himself admits, his concept of preadaptation cannot explain the formation of all the different complex organs. 
I read this as a definitive objection to the concept of "Evolution through natural selection". However, it cannot be read as an objection to Progressive creationism. 
Discussions of whether a given church "supports evolution" or "opposes evolution" should clarify which aspects of evolution they support or reject. Otherwise it gives the false impression that the support or oppose every aspect of it. --Uncle Ed 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments in Belief in evolution above. StudyAndBeWise 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Position of the Unification Church

message: The issue is now avoided entirely. Since programatically, evolution is accepted as the only explanation in peer reviewed journals and other scientific discourse, we can simply report this. --216.125.49.252 00:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point. That is not the topic of this article. And you have no consensus for your changes. Should we protect the article to keep you out of it? If you continue like this, I might suggest it. You are playing into the worst caricature of an "evolutionist" or a "Darwinist" by a creationist: dogmatic, inflexible, etc. As you very well know, since I have a pretty good idea of who you are, hiding behind your cloak of presumed anonymity, WP cannot produce these sorts of POV articles that you want, just as it cannot produce POV religious tracts like the creationists want.--Filll 00:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Science is inflexible just as much as religious thought is inflexible. The only difference is that scientific understanding is based on empiricism and observations while religious belief is based on dogmatic interpretation of ideologues. I'm not hiding behind any coat. I choose to remain anonymous as is anyone's right on Wikipedia. There is nothing POV about my contributions and I would appreciate it if you would keep the conversation regarding the content rather than my identity. --216.125.49.252 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times do the editors have to point out that this is not an article on the scientific support for evolution, but on the public perception of evolution so to put it bluntly science does not matter on this particular article.--Jorfer 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My stomach turns getting into this discussion.  As an editor, I would like to write, "Evolution is a fact, Creationism is bogus."  But that's so POV, it wouldn't fly.  What the Anonymous User who makes life difficult by not getting a real name is saying might make us all happy, but it's just plain POV.  We are with you Anonymous, but let's not fall into the Creationist trap!  Orangemarlin 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an editor, you may write anything that is verifiable and based on reliable sources. Since evolution is a fact, writing this statement and citing it to reliable sources is perfectly fine in the right context. "Creationism is bogus" is an opinion and should be attributed. The rules of procedures and guidelines are very clear. I get the feeling you haven't looked at my contributions because you aren't addressing them as I wrote it. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you didn't character-assisinate and instead focused on the content. As far as I'm concerned, the creationist trap is trying to say that there is scientific dissent when there isn't any. --216.125.49.252 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But there are no reliable sources that indicate that there are any scientists who dissent within the scientific community. Get the picture? --216.125.49.252 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have problems with any of my changes please outline them here before reverting. Thank you. --216.125.49.252 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In essence, see above, passim. Snalwibma 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll, if I offended you personally in any way, I apologize. We disagree on how to report various points. I have outlined my rationale for nominating this article for deletion (which I did not do the first time) and we can discuss it there. Clean slate? --ScienceApologist 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed wording

message: Is it time to protect or semi-protect this page to prevent editing by anon IPs? I guess so, How do we achieve this? Snalwibma 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need an admin I think.--Filll 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I know how, but I'm not going to explain it to you because I don't think you are acting in good faith towards my contributions. Complaining that I am not "explaining" myself on the talkpage belies the fact that I have made plenty of explanations above. I don't see any of your objections outlined here on the talkpage, and yet you insist on reverting. Why? --216.125.49.252 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as you semi-protect the article I will log in, by the way. I don't want to log in, but I will do that to prevent this absurdity. --216.125.49.252 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  FYI: I think you'll find that resorting to this form of army recruitment is not generally looked upon favorably here. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection required?

message: I noticed a lot of biting, personal insinuations, lack of civility and page ownership going on while I was an anon that made me fume and lash out. For my own part in this debacle I apologize. However, editors should be careful that they do not attack people just because they don't have user accounts. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly support this cri du coeur, also noting that it applies to everyone, logged in or not. AvB ÷ talk 00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me be as passive-aggressive as I can possibly be.  Whatever. Orangemarlin 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors of this page should be careful in how they treat otherse

message: How about Societal acceptance of evolution or something along that line? (Public acceptance? Societal objections? Public support?) Adam Cuerden talk 03:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am leaning towards Scientific and societal accceptance of evolution, but I do not know why this is such a big deal.--Filll 03:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title suggestion 

message: I would suggest the 1991 and 1997 Gallup Polls, and the 1987 NewsWeek article. But seeing how this has gone so far, I am not so sure this will be sufficient. I will point out that it would seem to be sufficient for any reasonable person, at least as I see it. --Filll 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV sources for Science Apologist

message: Given the continued unhappiness with the current name, I propose to change the name to Level of acceptance of evolution. Comments?
:This has been proposed many times above. The main problem is that acceptance is more POVed than "support", and, unlike "support", lacks a clear and unbiased opposite. ("Rejection", unlike "opposition", is emotive and unencyclopedic language; and "acceptance" carries some of the same connotations.) Moreover, despite the many (contradictory) suggestions that have been put forth to rename this article as, Level of support for evolution continues to be the best of the bunch, in terms of conciseness, clarity, accuracy, and neutrality. However, if we do decide to rename the article to something like this, my current suggestion is that we rename the article to Level of popular and scientific support for evolutionary theory, since these changes would resolve the only really substantial criticisms of the current title (the most significant one being that evolution here refers to the theory rather than the process, and we should clarify that fact for the same reason we do on articles like Social effect of evolutionary theory). -Silence 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested name change