Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Merge this article
2 Wiki policy on duplicate articles and merging

Merge this article

I have a question: How big is this "movement"?

All that I can gather from the facts is that it is but a program started by and promoted by the Discovery Institute (with Phillip E. Johnson being a part of the program.) That being the case why isn't this entire subject matter listed on the Discovery Institute article?

Why is there a separate article? I discovered that the Discovery Institute has several articles related to it on Wikipedia and all of them should be merged into one article and this topic reduced to a single sub-section. If you do a search for material you will come back to the Discovery Institute and most of the written material seems to flow from one newspaper article. Therefore I say merge everything into one article about the Discovery Institute and be done with it. MPLX/MH 18:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I answered that in discussion above and gave cites to education writers and state organizations. There are many state and local org's that support it, individual science teachers support it, Wiki writers support it, Congress, the President, Ohio and Minnesota Dept of Education support it (see article). This is definitely an education policy/movement bigger than just the DI, with, I am sure, variations that don't correspond exactly to the DI formulation. --VorpalBlade 18:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But was is "it"? The movement seems to be more of a collection of ideas some of which are shared in common. A Movement would have a date of origination, an organization with officers at an address and a budget. This is a but a fuzzy idea.

Monk raised a valid question over "Darwinism" and this aspect seems to come from Phillip E. Johnson who "...Despite the fact that he has no formal background in the biological sciences, Johnson has become a prominent critic of evolutionary theory. Johnson popularized the term "intelligent design" in its current sense in his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial, and he remains one of the best known advocates for the intelligent design movement."

This is NOT a "movement" and it originates as a program of the Discovery Institute and follows the writings of a layperson who has no qualifications in this subject matter.

Therefore the entire article should be shrunk to a sub-section within the Discovery Institute article because the Johnson entry is little more than a stub. MPLX/MH 18:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we're stumbling around a central problem here: "TTC is not a movement, per se -- it's a proposed policy and a rallying cry." this proposed policy is supported by many people -- DI ... but also people who have nothing to do with the DI ... teachers + politicians etc. Ungtss 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So WHO is doing the rallying? WHO began the rally? WHO is coordinating it? WHERE can I find the coordinators? WHAT is their address? WHO is paying for this movement? The answer is found in the very opening of the article: the Discovery Institute and a person with absolutely NO qualifications to address this matter! MPLX/MH 18:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Wiki policy:

Many Wikipedia users prefer to avoid having tags at the top of articles, particularly if it's not relevant to the reader of the article. Consider using these tags sparingly, and use the discussion page to discuss how to merge articles where it's not obvious whether or how the article should be merged.

I think it is a movement and a policy and a rallying cry. MPLX, you don't seem to address the examples I gave. You seem to mean that it is not a single organization. --VorpalBlade 18:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The movement"

1. "I think it is a movement and a policy and a rallying cry. MPLX, you ... seem to mean that it is not a single organization. --VorpalBlade 18:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

No, I believe just the opposite: it is a single organization called the Discovery Institute. There is a Republican Party which has a central organization, with lots of sub-groups - but they are all a part of the Republican Party. Same goes for the Democrats. Same goes for just about any movement you care to name.

2. ":as evidence that it's broader than the DI, here are [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355080/posts charles colson], renew america, and access research network on the topic. Ungtss 19:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

And what do they all have in common? A movement that originated with the Discovery Institute. It is their agenda.

3. "You can read the Jay Matthews article in the Wash Post (cited in article). He supports the movement and has nothing to do with DI. --VorpalBlade 12:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

That is like saying someone supports the Republican Party platform (or any other party) while claiming that they have nothing to do with the Party!

4. "Ok, here you go (state organizations): Ohio Minnesota --VorpalBlade 19:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

Same thing. Central organization and state organizations. But it is all a part of the Discovery Institute agenda.

Moreover, in at last one case (Ohio, and, I suspect, the others) a director of the institute was involved in the process that led to the adoption of the policy. The document demonstrating this was posted by one of the pro-movement people editing the article (in order to make a different point); if you need the details, I'll try to find it again. The link will still be on the Talk page somewhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5. "Perhaps the article would benefit from a list of orgs/prominent people supporting the movement, to preempt this argument? Ungtss 19:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

No it won't. The idea being touted is that while this movement was created by the Discovery Institute it has nothing to do with it. The problem with this movement (Discovery Institute), is that it has set up Charles Darwin as a straw man which it is trying to knock down, when the straw opposition does not exist. There is no movement preaching Darwinism for this counter movement to be balancing. The Discovery Institute invented a straw issue which it is trying to palm off as being a genuine issue. It is not. If you think that it is then please show me where the "Darwin Movement" can be found. But in any event by the self-admission of the article it states who created it = the Discovery Institute! MPLX/MH 20:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because an organization started a movement does not mean the movement exists only within the context of that organization. above are listed at least 6 organizations promoting TTC that have nothing to do with DI. your merge is equivalent to merging Pro-Choice into National Organization for Women. Ungtss 20:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The old name for this co-identity was "fellow travellers", but the core remains the same and the core is the Discovery Institute. But while you are concentrating on part one of my reason to merge you are avoiding part two: this is a staw man issue. How can there be a movement to counter something that does not exist? The entire thrust of this Discovery Institute movement is to destroy Darwinism, as if Darwinism was even a live issue. Instead of comparing merging Pro-Choice into National Organization for Women, you should be talking about merging Darwinism with the Flat Earth Society, because both are unrelated, yet both issues are dead. This is a straw man issue bordering on a hoax. MPLX/MH 21:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll take your first sentence as a concession that although the "core" may be DI, that does not justify a merge, where the movement moves substantially beyond the "core." the remainder of your comments are criticism of TTC, which certainly belong on the page, but do not justify the merge in any way at all. The fact that an issue is dead does not justify a merge. Ungtss 21:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nooooooo! That is not a concession! It simply means that this entire subject matter is a redirect because it is the Discovery Institute agenda under another name. To show otherwise you have to show a movement, a organization, a address, a governing body and a means of financing it. MPLX/MH 21:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would a number of independent organizations with the same agenda, and many of which have nothing to do with DI, suffice to make this analogous to Pro-Choice and National Organization of Women? If not, why? Ungtss 21:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two people on this page have offered the argument that, if an organisation starts a political movement that influences people outside the organisation, the the movement can no longer be ascribed to the organisation. So, given that most people who vote for one or another political party aren't members of that party, we shouldn't refer to the agendas, policies, etc., as being those of the parties — because the policies are supported by outsiders. This is, of course, nonsense. The 'Teach the controversy' movemeent is the baby of the Discovery Institute, and if it's supported by others, that means that it's their successful baby; it doesn't mean that it's been adopted in any less metaphorical sense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<Two people on this page have offered the argument that, if an organisation starts a political movement that influences people outside the organisation, the the movement can no longer be ascribed to the organisation.>>

sir, you are misrepresenting the argument. no one is saying it cannot be ascribed to the organization. we are saying it should not be merged into the organization, any more than supply-side economics should be merged into Republican party or Ronald Reagan. Ungtss 21:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why this is a straw man issue (or a hoax)

All these words keep getting farther away from reality and reality says that this movement is either a hoax (a wind-up), or a time-wasting enterprise debating a controversy that does not exist. For proof I offer the following" 1. The article states that the movement began with a book written by a man with no qualifications to write it. 2. The subject of the book is a moot issue concerning an imagined controversy over Darwinism in US public schools: but there is no controversy over Darwinism in US public schools. 3. The author is a preacher who wants to create a controversy so that he can preach in schools. That is what the article admits to! So what is this? Is it a debate over a straw man issue or is it a wind-up? Either way it can be merged with rest of the agenda flowing from the Discovery Institute article. MPLX/MH 21:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again i repeat. you've got a cute opinion, but your opinion of the quality of the subject matter is not relevent with regard to the merge of this article. It's a movement/proposed policy/rallying cry. Incidentally, your strong conviction that this is a dead issue might do with a reality check. darwin's had the reigns for 150 years, but we're not going anywhere. we're just getting smarter. and those who fail to recognize the formidability of their foes are doomed, eventually, to fall to them. so if you truly believe that darwinism is the truth, i implore you, do not pretend that your foes have disappeared. instead, know your enemy, and meet him on the open field of reason rather than the backwoods of censorship and ad hominem. it's your only hope for victory. Ungtss 21:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting that you (yet again) don't address any of the points, but make vague, general statements.
It's also interesting (and depressing) that you choose such aggressive, confrontational language ("your foes", "your enemy", etc.). This sort of sub-Winston Churchill rhetoric sits very badly on a Wikipedia Talk page.
Your grasp of the history and current status of science is very weak. First, Darwin hasn't held any reins for 150 years; his views almost disappeared into obscurity until the early twentieth century, when the work of Mendel was (after being used to oppose Darwin) married with Darwin's ideas to produce the new synthesis (neo-Darwinism). Since then, biology has developed, refined, and challenged Darwin's ideas in many ways. What has never been challenged, because there has never been any good reason to challenge it, is the basic fact of evolution. What controversy there is concerns the mechanisms and the phylogenetic story. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) his points had to do with the validity of ID. I have no interest in debating that point. it is irrelevent to the quality and content of the page, which are my only goals;

2) i did not assume confrontational language. i noted that comments of his such as "The author is a preacher who wants to create a controversy so that he can preach in schools." indicate that he is not a big fan of ID or its proponents, and thus they are his foes. i have no beef with evolutionists myself. my beef is with fundamentalists of either the creationist or evolutionist variety.

3) i know the history of evolution. you're simply exploiting an irrelevent poetic imprecision in my point to avoid the primary point. you're right, darwinism faded until mendelism was twisted out of recognition of support the resurgence of darwinism in the mid-20th century. but even during the time when orthogenesis et al ruled, those views were inconsistent with biblical creationism. nevertheless, the creationists were still there. we're not going away. pretending we are going away doesn't help your ends. figuring out what we're saying and ravaging it in the light of reason is the only hope you have. Ungtss 22:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And again you throw out vague and confrontational language without really saying anything to the point. One way of avoiding misunderstandings (not exploitation; why do you assume bad faith?) caused by your "irrelevant poetic imprecision" is — cut out the irrelevant poetic imprecision. You might also cut out the histrionics ("we're not going away. pretending we're going away..." etc.). But then there's be nothing left. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing for me to respond to, except our friend's conspiracy theories about how johnson just wants to preach in schools and bang people over the head with his Wedge. I note also that my refutation of your misrepresentation of my argument in the section above is as-yet-unanswered, and that no coherent argument for the merge has yet been articulated, and i await your response. Ungtss 22:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that "johnson just wants to preach in schools and bang people over the head with his Wedge" accurately sums up reality and is exactly what his agenda is judging by his many writings and the quotes found in the article. FeloniousMonk 23:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd say we should take a moment to distinguish "opinion" from "reality" at this point, and note that npov allows a structure in which both your opinion and mine can peacefully coexist. Ungtss 23:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

god! (small), for a moment I thought that Mel Etitis was just being a git and opposing whatever, until I read on to see that (GOD ALMIGHTY!), we are on the same bloody side on this issue! I am also totally in agreement with the opinion expressed by FeloniousMonk. MPLX/MH 01:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you all agree. perhaps you'd like to explain how your agreement holds any relevence for the proposed merge of this page? Ungtss 01:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes please! Me Sir, me Sir!

While I think that Johnson is a total twit - because no one is debating Darwin, and contrary to an interpretation of my earlier remarks, I did not want anyone to gain from my writings the opinion that Darwin's views have been swallowed hook line and sinker by the scientific community - just the opposite is true. But Darwin did kick off a debate which still continues. Advanced knowledge has now switched on the light to show everyone who looks to see that that this is a much more complicated and complex issue than previously thought. But Darwin is like a 78rpm record. He is not even a revived 45, let alone an LP. Now CDs are moving on to DVDs and beyond as is our understanding of life and the universes. Of course we still can't answer the ultimate questions about the original Big Bang and why it happened or what (or who) caused it to happen, which is why I still believe in Nature's God and Nature's Laws which the USA was founded upon (NOT Christianity! and certainly not the primitive mind set of Mr. Johnson and his friends.) I just wanted to make myself clear. IF this article was REALLY about THAT controverial issue I would be all for it, but this article is really a cheap dressing-up of nothing more than tub-thumping, idiotic, primitive and Elmer Gantry style religion! There's nothing controversial about that and Burt did a great job on the screen of showing anyone with an open mind what Johnson's agenda really is. Merge this rubbish with Discovery Institute. MPLX/MH 02:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid your argument is still non sequitur. you're saying we should merge the article because the arguments of TTC are stupid, outdated, and "primitive." but your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Fascism is stupid, but nobody's suggesting we merge it into Nazi or Hitler. the stupidity of an idea does not justify merging it into the article of a group that originated it, when the idea is held by many people beyond that group. i'm aware of your opinion that my beliefs are primitive. of what relevence is that to the merge of this article? Ungtss 02:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now we have switched from your previous analogy to a new one, but the comparison is still the same. Of course I am not suggesting that it is merged because Johnson's writings are absurd, I am asking for it to be merged because this article already has a home at Discovery Institute. Again you come back to the group concept but the ONLY group that I am aware of (so far in this discussion) is the Discovery Institute. I did not suggest that your views are primitive because I do not know what your views are. I stated that Johnson was Elmer Gantry in disguise. The only problem is that most people who have any education have already seen that movie many times, laughed, sighed and gone to bed (I am now thinking of Groundhog Day.) MPLX/MH 02:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

your argument is that "the only group you're aware of who invokes TTC is DI." counterevidence: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355080/posts charles colson], renew america, access research network, Ohio, and Minnesota. these are all different organizations. yes, they work with DI to achieve their mutual goals. But they are not DI. I don't think there is reason to believe that, as you said, "DI is the only group who invokes TTC." Ungtss 02:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FRANCHISE OPERATION: So you have driven the last nail into the coffin of this Discovery Institute scheme. Yes, fellow travellers picked up on it after Discovery Institute created it with Johnson's help and they continue to work with Discovery Institute. Of course they do. This baby was given birth and brought into the village (Hillary said "it takes a village") to raise this child of which the Discovery Institute is the mother and Johnson is the father. What is left to say but "merge this sucker now!" MPLX/MH 04:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot left to say, but i've learned what on wikipedia creationism articles, it doesn't matter what you say, because reason doesn't apply. so let's merge "Intelligent design," "Irreducible complexity," and "Specified complexity" while we're at it, since the same non-reasoning you're using here applies in those cases. Carry on. Ungtss 11:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The dishonesty of this article

Darwinism is NOT the opposite of Creationism. Many people in the scientific community have an open mind about the origins of life and the universes, but they do not see a "controversy" where none exists (between Darwinism and Creationism). This is a DISHONEST bit of religious propaganda in the style of Elmer Gantry with Johnson admitting that education is not his aim. Johnson is just like all dictators who gain a foothold by democratic methods: first they get elected and then they ban elections. In this case he wants to enter the classroom in the disguise of an educator and then strip off his mask and reveal himself as Elmer Gantry. It is a dishonest controversy because Johnson is creating a controversy which he knows does not exist in order for him to be declared the victor. How ironic that Johnson who tub thumps for the 10 Commandments has forgotten one of them. MPLX/MH 14:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is not dishonest. The people mentioned in the article may or may not be dishonest. It is possible (and necessary) to write honest articles about dishonest people. The dishonesty of the subject matter does not justify merging it into another article. it justifies cited, sourced, and attributed instances in which dishonesty was reported. Ungtss 14:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because you think the controversy is settled doesn't mean everyone does. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why this article is dishonest

1. It claims to be about a controversy: the controversy as stated does not exist.

the article can fairly represent this pov without being merged. Ungtss 15:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Darwinism is not being promoted as the alternative to Creationism.

this is irrelevent to the TTC agenda, and the article.

3. The people behind this alleged controversy call it a wedge agenda in order to get their own religious dogma into the classroom in the disguise of academic discussion.

the article can fairly reflect this conspiracy theory of yours without being merged.

4. The Discovery Institute which is paying for this agenda is palming it off as a broadbased "movement" when in reality the agenda would not have existed if Johnson and the Discovery Institute had not created it and continued to push it.

the article can fairly reflect this conspiracy theory of yours without being merged.

5. Advocates of the agenda on this page have already admitted that they are merely pamphleteers and are flag wavers for a cause, not an academic discussion.

um ... who? Ungtss 15:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6. This is not an academic issue but a fundamentalist theological issue.

the article can fairly reflect this pov without being merged.

7. If "Darwinism" does not exist as a threat then neither does the controversy.

the article can fairly represent this pov without being merged.

8. The "movement" is really the agenda of the Discovery Institute.

the article can fairly reflect this pov without being merged.

no justification for merge, sir. none. justification for the article: it's a movement for a particular education policy being promoted by a number of groups. the article should describe the stated goals of the movement, and critiques of that goal. Ungtss 15:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the basis of 4 above, pretty much all politics should be disallowed from Wikipedia, since there is almost always a party or organisation paying to have its agenda advanced. DJ Clayworth 18:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wiki policy on duplicate articles and merging

This on Wiki policy:

Wikipedia:Duplicate articles From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Shortcut: WP:DA

Below is a list of duplicate articles that have been created mostly by mistake. They have to be merged into a single piece of work, and one title has to be redirected to the other (or a completely new page must be created) in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Canonicalization.

Categories that need merging can be listed [together] on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion where one category will be deleted after merging into the other.

Although this page does not automatically update as does Category:Articles to be merged, this page has nevertheless been kept because unlike the category page, this page allows editors to make comments about the articles to be merged.

If you disagree with a "merge" indication then you can remove it, or change the template from {{merge|Article Name}} to {{MergeDisputed}} and discuss it on this page until consensus is reached. ____________________________

The reason to merge is that two articles are duplicates of each other. I think that Discovery Institute and Teach the Controversy are clearly not duplicates of each other. If there is an appearance of duplication, I agree, and it is because others have included extensive ad hominem criticisms of the originators of the policy. A good article might contain brief mentions of such arguments and links to the other pages, but not lengthy discussion. This issue of relevancy was discussed above in Archive 1. The proper solution is to take out these lengthy discussions and move them to a different page, if appropriate, not merging the entire article.

We have shown widespread support for this policy outside the DI by many other individuals and organizations, as well as implementation or support of the policy by the US Congress, the US President, the state of Ohio (as discussed in the article) as well as the state of Minnesota. It seems quite strange to claim that this does not deserve a separate article.

The opinions on merging seem to be lining up according to who likes the policy and who doesn't like it (and who thinks it is a hoax or who has a conspiracy theory regarding it). Not liking a policy or movement is not a basis for merging an article. Nor is belief in a conspiracy theory regarding it. I continue to note that I have not seen much or any substantive criticism of the policy, even though we have a concrete implementation in the Ohio Model Lesson Plan (linked in the article). All the criticism is directed at the originators. This also seems to violate Wiki policy.

I guess you did not read my comments and talked on past them so I moved them here. My objection is to the title - because there is no controversy over Darwinism - that is a dead duck. This leads me back to my original comment which has not been answered:

The article is a fraud: The article is called "Teach the Controversy" - but there is NO controversy! The article claims to represent a "movement" but there is no movement outside of the coordinated activities of the Discovery Institute. Johnson himself has admitted to his own fraud: he has stated that he wants to wedge himself into the classroom on an issue for which he lacks any qualifications in order to push a religious agenda. He has admitted his agenda. MPLX/MH 15:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe that a vote to merge is a vote to violate Wiki policy on neutrality and Wiki policy on duplicate articles and merging.

--VorpalBlade 14:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. unfortunately, such votes to directly violate policy are the rule, rather than the exception, when related to this topic. they are, in fact, tacitly encouraged. Ungtss 14:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Merge this article

"The movement"

Why this is a straw man issue (or a hoax)

Yes please! Me Sir, me Sir!

The dishonesty of this article

Why this article is dishonest

Wiki policy on duplicate articles and merging

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search