Talk:National Center for Science Education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Organizations WikiProject This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Trivia Removed

I couldn't figure out why the information in the trivia section was at all important, so I removed it. Feel free to put it back if you can justify its inclusion.

[edit] Involvement in the Kitzmiller v. DASD Trial

It seems to me that NCSE's role as consultant to the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case of 2005 is notable and worthy of mention. --Wesley R. Elsberry 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Center for Science Education is not religiously neutral like article states

I cite the following article as evidence: How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations? 136.183.146.158 17:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So, after showing how dishonest everything else is on that website, why do you believe that this should be the one article which isn't? Find someone less doshonest to quote. Guettarda 18:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I cite the following from the above article: "The list of ‘Supporters’ of the NCSE (eg. NCSE Reports 16(4), back cover) almost reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of American atheism—names such as Gould, Eldredge, Jukes, Johanson, Sagan and Dalrymple, for example. Also, a frequent contributor to the NCSE Reports is one Molleen Matsumara, ‘National Program Director’ of NCSE, who is a signatory to Humanist Manifesto 2000." [1] 136.183.146.158 00:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi kenny, hows things ? anyway the article doesn't state that the National Center for Science Education is not religiously neutral but quotes the National Center for Science Education web page which self-describes itself as that. Truthfully only people with an atheist or agnostic worldview can really be religiously neutral as then no one religion can be promoted over the other. Then you can either promote all religions (pluralist) or prefer none (a position that many are now considering for the better given the current appalling behaviour of some religious members). Ttiotsw 05:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The NCSE's members and supporters may or may not be religiously neutral. But that does not mean that the organisation as a corporate person is not. If you look at the core message of Eugenie Scott et al it is not one of atheism, but one of science. The creationist criticism is noted and sourced per Wikipedia norms. To conflate the two is Guilt by association. Paul A. Newman 12:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Paul A. Newman, you wrote "If you look at the core message of Eugenie Scott et al it is not one of atheism, but one of science." Is this true? I don't believe it is true. I cite the following: "To demonstrate once more the essential role of evolution in atheist/humanists, Eugenie Scott, the leader of the NCSE, was recently awarded the American Humanist Association’s 1998 “Isaac Asimov Science Award”.1 The humanists understand the usefulness of evolution for their cause—sadly, they understand better than many churchians."[2] Here is what Wikipedia states about the American Humanist Association: "The American Humanist Association (AHA) is an educational organization in the United States that advances humanism. While its philosophical emphasis is on secular humanism, it recognizes the legitimacy of religious humanism." [3] 128.205.115.88 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Citing propaganda from Answers in Genesis doesn't mean much, and certainly nothing they said even comes close to responding to Newman's point. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I went on the NCSE's 2007 Colorado River trip. Everyone on the trip was an evolutionist and supporter of the NCSE, many were scientists, but Eugenie Scott and I and one other person were the only atheists. On the list of supporters, I don't know the religious views of most of them, but Francisco Ayala and Kenneth Miller are Catholic--Ayala is actually a Jesuit priest. Lippard (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nat Ctr Sci Ed logo.gif

Image:Nat Ctr Sci Ed logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update Staff Info

My name needs to be moved from the active staff list to the past staff list. Jessica Moran was the past Archive Project Director; her name could also go on past staff, along with Molleen Matsumura, former Network Project Director. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The staff list is still inaccurate. --Wesley R. Elsberry 06:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCSE edit of the article

On August 9, 2007, the article was anonymously edited from NCSE's dotted quad. Although the edit was minor and factual, updating the lists of NCSE's staff and supporters, it might conceivably be regarded as a violation of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AUTO. Hence NCSE staff members have been instructed not to edit any Wikipedia entries anonymously, and to familiarize themselves with and observe all applicable policies while editing Wikipedia. Glenn Branch 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(Just cruising by) Well, WP:AUTO says "you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself" (with talk-page notification, which I admit apparently hasn't happened), and correcting a staff list that had been pointed out to be out-of-date since June (see section above) looks like one of those cases. Sure, reading up on proper policies and guidelines is important and should be done, and COI and such should of course be considered, but telling them not to edit ANY entry without signing up seems a bit over the top. </opinion> --Sid 3050 22:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, Glenn, would you care to disclose the account names used by all NCSE wikipedia contributors, administrators, and buerucrats, so that we can put a little sunshine on their contributions and subject these contributions to scrutiny? Or how about just creating an NCSE policy that NCSE employees are not to use NCSE computers to edit wikipedia articles, and they are not to inject NCSE POV into evolution related articles? You do realize, don't you, that wikipedia check user can be (and may already have been) infiltrated, as well as wikipedia's ISP, and such information can become public in the future. Daisey cutter 14:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't recall seeing another organization come out with such a strong statement of official support for Wikipedia integrity. Note also Sid's comment about permitted edits under WP:AUTO. Obsession is unhealthy, "Daisey cutter". Why don't you run off and see whether the ICR, DI, and AiG would be willing to follow the NCSE lead on this matter? Or is there a bit of POV to your own participation at Wikipedia?
Probably the most active Wikipedia involvement of someone historically associated with NCSE (2003/11 to 2007/02) would be my contributions. Feel free to scrutinize my record. It is by no means perfect, but I'll stack it up against any other person who has been as active on Wikipedia concerning evolution/creationism issues.
"Or how about just creating an NCSE policy that NCSE employees are not to use NCSE computers to edit wikipedia articles, and they are not to inject NCSE POV into evolution related articles?" Well, one reason would be that, as Sid noted, there are unreasonable restrictions, and employers shouldn't impose unreasonable restrictions on employees. Sid thinks that NCSE went too far already. Not participating at all in Wikipedia from NCSE machines is unreasonable. As for POV, I have a feeling that "Daisey cutter" can't distinguish between POV and accurate information. NCSE employs domain experts on the antievolution movement, and Wikipedia would be worse off without their participation. Since NCSE has officially endorsed all Wikipedia policies as guidelines for that participation, perhaps "Daisey cutter" should take a leap at changing Wikipedia policies. Certainly "Daisey cutter"'s attempt to complain about Project Steve ran aground on a simple fact, that there was "No tendentious editing". And, in fact, the public record for unsigned edits made from the NCSE IP address shows relatively infrequent instances of "No tendentious editing", which hardly argues for "Daisey cutter"'s proposed program of Inquisition. --Wesley R. Elsberry 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As the primary editor here maintaining the Project Steve page, as well as the articles A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism and Clergy Letter Project, as well as similar statistics accumulated by Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International and Christian Answers (see Level of support for evolution, now being rewritten to be more accessible hopefully), I appreciate the efforts of the NCSE as being the ONLY ONE of these 8 organizations to update their statistics on Wikipedia regularly. I wish the other organizations would do the same, frankly. Surely this is NOT conflict of interest. It is definitely appreciated by me. Rather than complaining about it, we should be applauding this action, and encouraging the others to do the same, in my opinion.--Filll 17:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

It seems this article might be improved by a bit more on their actual activities to promote science education. The list of prominant supporters is nice (though to many red links, either we need more scientist biographies, or unlink as not notable enough for an article). Just a thought since I don't have time to work on that sort of thing now. --Rocksanddirt 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update staff list

Nick Matzke departed NCSE to attend graduate school in August 2007, as can be verified at the NCSE website here [4]; perhaps someone would be so kind as to move his name from the list of current staff members to the list of previous staff members?--Glenn Branch 03:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. But I think the number of redlinks in this section needs to be reduced. Hrafn42 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well then it's time to start writing some articles :) Guettarda 06:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Steve

Of all the notable work done by the NCSE, including the instrumental role it played in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, can I ask why the notable accomplishment given mention in the lead paragraph is the ID-parody Project Steve? Seems a misplaced emphasis to lead with it. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a good point there. As fun as Project Steve is, it really is not that important in the grand scheme of things.--Filll (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Glancing at this article, I see that in general this article is really poorly written and could definitely stand some rewriting and fleshing out.--Filll (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It would do well to take out the lengthy lists full of redlinked names and replace it with more substantive content. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there is some value to a list of NCSE personnel, but maybe they do not belong in this article, but a subsiduary daughter article. It is useful to keep track of who has an article and who does not, and what remains to be done, as such it is allowed under Wikipedia policy.--Filll (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)