Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Teach the Controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There several interrelated articles on Wikipedia about this subject, see:
Phillip E. Johnson; Wedge strategy; Darwin on Trial; Icons of Evolution; Santorum Amendment; Discovery Institute; Howard Ahmanson, Jr; Center for Science and Culture; Michael Behe; David Berlinski; William A. Dembski; Stephen C. Meyer; Jonathan Wells; Bruce Chapman; George Gilder

Teach the Controversy

Topic covered on the page dealing with the movement's sponsor: Discovery Institute

Note 1: there is also a merge poll on Talk:Teach_the_Controversy. Master Thief Garrett 23:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge. Topic covered on the page dealing with the movement's sponsor: Discovery Institute Ian Pitchford 17:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disagreeing with a movement is no reason to delete the article about it. Nor is the fact that it is not currently a very good article. Various users already suggested that this be merged with Discovery Institute, a suggestion that failed to achieve consensus (see the talk page). DJ Clayworth 20:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • First, no-one here has suggested that it be deleted because they disagree with it; secondly, the poll isn't over yet, and was affected by the false statement made by an admin that "voting is not permitted on wikipedia", which some people unfortunately believed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Discovery Institute. This is one of the DI's key campaigns, and the DI page isn't long enough to split into subpages. Guettarda 22:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. movement is distinct from the discovery institute, supported by a number of independent organizations. Ohio, Minnesota, [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355080/posts charles colson], renew america, and access research network. Ungtss 01:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good try with the references but ARN is a mouthpiece for DI, Chuck Colson is simply a bandwagoner and Ohio and Minnesota statues were written by people with DI connections. Joshuaschroeder 00:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
just because they've got connections to DI doesn't make them part of DI itself. the issue here is merge. when there are a lot of people outside DI working on a movement, merge is inappropriate. Ungtss 00:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment - The Ohio policies were created and debated by DI members, not just "people with DI connections." The "renew america" reference above is a column that mentions "teach the controversy" while discussing the Ohio policies, and they cite a Wired article that proves the direct involvment of DI members in that situation. Furthermore, it's a column on a website for one branch of a political/religious movement called "Declarationist." ("Declarationist" gets 164 google hits, and not all of these are related to this movement.) This is hardly evidence of a major, growing TTC movement separate from DI. Look at Colson's sources for his TTC comments on his primary soapbox, which is the "Breakpoint" column @ the Prison Fellowship Ministry, not the forum cited above; they are primarily papers and articles by DI fellows. Colson is simply parroting DI theories and strategies. The ID supporters in this discussion have yet to provide significant evidence of a TTC theory or movement distinctly separate from the Discovery Institute. Nor have they provided evidence of "a lot of people." Merge. Soundguy99 15:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Discovery Institute. While others may have been involved it is essentially a Discovery Institute mover. Megan1967 02:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Keep. I don't really know which. While on the one hand it's probably (as Megan1967 said) a movement powered by DI, both already have very long pages and a merger probably puts it over the optimum KB recommendations. I really don't know which. Master Thief Garrett 07:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, attempt to subvert talk page discussion process. Sam Spade 15:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment there's currently already a merge poll occurring on Talk:Teach the Controversy. Kim Bruning 23:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that, I've added it to the top so it's a clearer heads-up than your comment is, but the poll here carries official weight whereas that other does not. Not to say it should be stopped and all votes put here, but this is the one with the balance of power. Master Thief Garrett 23:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that this is a borderline article content vote, something which is a really bad idea for an online encyclopedia. We should ask Ian Pitchford what his intent was. In fact I've dropped him a line already. :-) Kim Bruning 18:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Why are you assuming bad faith? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I'll plead the fifth on that one. I'd like to debug how this poll collision came about. Kim Bruning 20:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Hmm, Ian Pitchford nominated in good faith apparently, but he seems to be a bit sloppy at times. He just plain missed both the original poll, and my first request for clarification. %-) Kim Bruning 22:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • That would be the poll at which you stated, dogmatically and with no qualifications, that voting isn't permitted on Wikipedia? A statement which a number of people – who would otherwise have voted – believed? And having tried to disrupt that poll, you came here and tried to cast doubt on the integrity of the person calling the VfD? Isn't the one vote that we all get good enough for you? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • Now, now. Tsk, tsk. The answers to those questions are: No. No. No, and No. Furthermore those questions are all the wrong questions. The real questions center on the following. What is the bug in the Wikipedia system that sets off this recurring train-wreck? It is déjà vu all over again. ---Rednblu | Talk 09:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Discovery Institute and redirect. The material in this article is in fact largely duplicated across a number of similar articles, in what seems to be an attempt by the movement's supporters to give it maximum coverage. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic easily stands on its own. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Teach the Controversy policy is supported by numerous other organizations (see cites above and on discussion page); has been approved by Congress; adopted by Ohio, Minnesota and New Mexico (see article). Those who want to merge or delete want to bury this article in another article or kill it because they do not like the concept. Much of the duplication that Mel mentions is the result of opponents pasting the same ad hominem attacks on multiple pages. They want it to appear that it is only about the Discovery Institute and deny the broader support and implementation by Ohio. The article should be improved by focusing on the merits of the policy and on the current implementation by Ohio and the other states, and the debates in other state legislatures and local school boards. Apparently, 19 states are considering adopting this policy. Suppressing this info is not worthy of Wikipedia. --VorpalBlade 13:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The point is not how many political gains the TTC movement has recently made, the point is whether or not the TTC theory and strategy is distinctly separate enough from DI to warrant a separate article. Both the Ohio and the Minnesota cases have been proven above and in the discussion page to have direct DI connections. They do not provide support for keeping this article. Soundguy99 15:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- the existence of "links" is not sufficient to justify a merge. Intelligent design, Irreducible complexity, and Specified complexity all have "direct DI connections" -- but they have their own articles, because they are an independent idea which, tho fostered by DI, is broader than DI itself. The issue here is simply article quality -- allowing a separate page to discuss the issues specific to this particular policy is simply the most logical organization. Ungtss 15:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm interested to discover that the duplication of material across articles is the result of opponents adding criticism; how could they add criticism of the material if it weren't already there? Could you provide diffs? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment What the US Congress has approved doesn't seem to me to amount to support for "Teach the Controversy", in that it doesn't affirm the existence of a scientific controversy over evolution. No one denies that evolution is controversial in (certain segments of) society at large. Gareth McCaughan 19:14, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  • Comment, following up the above: in fact it seems a bit weird to say that "Congress has approved" even the rather aetiolated statement quoted in the article: it doesn't come from the actual law, but from an explanatory document produced by the bill's conference committee, which has no legal force and was never voted on. It's there because at one point there was an amendment to the bill that would have made it include some language sympathetic to the DI's cause, but the amendment didn't make it into the law; it wasn't even ever voted on in the House. To interpret all this as saying that Congress has approved "Teach the Controversy" is ... well, as I say, a bit weird. Gareth McCaughan 23:02, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems to me that the following two questions are independent. (1) Is there widespread support for what the DI and some others call "teaching the controversy"? (2) Should there be a separate Wikipedia page for this particular term? In particular, it is possible to imagine circumstances in which the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively. I make no judgement on whether those circumstances actually obtain. I guess I'm just agreeing with Soundguy99 here. Gareth McCaughan 19:14, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  • Comment Merging need not involve suppressing anything. If the TtC article were merged into the DI one, there's no reason why the new section there about the "Teach the Controversy" slogan shouldn't mention whatever takeup it's had in US legislatures. Gareth McCaughan 19:14, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  • Keep (or merge) -- As it stands right now, the Discovery Institute page is pretty lengthy. I think this page can work on its own as a daughter page to that similar to the Wedge strategy. However, I don't think that it necessarily need be that way. A merge is justifiable. If people really think a merge is appropriate, I point out that no one need vote for such a thing. An industrious editor can carry out the merge all by him/herself. -- Joshuaschroeder 20:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is not a vote--for votes are forbidden.  ;) As I read the reasons given for both the Merge and Delete votes above, I see that there is not one logical reason given for either Merge or Delete votes. For if you remove all of the ad hominem fallacy arguments from the Teach the controversy page, there is nothing to merge. And certainly the moral depravity of the "Teach the controversy" movement should be reported on Wikipedia. But in any respectable logical system, you cannot show the moral depravity of Fast food by exposing the corporate history of McDonald's; you have to show the depravity of "fast food"--forget the vendor. Evidently, the moral depravity of "Teach the controversy" lies in the chimpanzee brain of Americans that look for some simplistic way out of the very-real problem of taking personal responsibility for being born a descendant of the ancestors of the chimpanzees into a world in which there is no God to trust. Lighten up folks. 8)) The real problem is in the demand-side of the market and in the stupidity of American voters--not in the supply-side of the market. The Discovery Institute and Phillip Johnson are just "fast food" vendors. The significant story here is why Americans gobble "fast food" when it makes them sick and fat. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be one problematic part to the fast food comparison. There are a large number of providers of fast food, but there seems to be only one provider of Teach the Controversy, and that is DI. If McDonalds had a monopoly on fast food and had invented the concept then merging a fast food article and a McDonalds article would be justifiable. Separating them would also be justifiable. Joshuaschroeder 00:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your false premise is that no one but DI is promoting TTC. There are parent groups doing it everywhere. Ungtss 00:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All those parenting groups put together probably don't equal the power of DI! If there was another DI-like organisation promoting, then yes. Just DI and some "parent-teacher" groups, then no. Master Thief Garrett 02:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
One last comment before i withdraw. Your requirement for a "DI-like organization" is an arbitrary criterion. parent-teacher groups and school boards have real power at a local level. All DI can do is market. Those parent-teacher groups are just as powerful, if not more, than DI. it is their promotion of TTC that really matters. Ungtss 02:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Taking the above argument about fast food, Ungtss is making an argument akin to claiming that the consumers of fast food are the ones with the real power over fast food. This is just ludicrous. There is only one organization out there pumping out "Teach the Controversy" ideas. PTOs, school boards, and lackeys like Colson are the consumers. Joshuaschroeder 21:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well Super Size Me if this one isn't making sense:). Ungtss 21:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment - 1) where is your evidence that parent groups are "doing it everywhere"? 2)Where are they getting their TTC info? If they are getting it directly from DI or from "one step removed" people like Colson, I think it's diffcult to claim that TTC is an "independent" movement. Soundguy99 15:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per the above. Would you like fries with that? Radiant_* 10:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, yes, but I'll have the Diet Coke please. I'm watching my waistline... Master Thief Garrett 11:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


<<There are a large number of providers of fast food, but there seems to be only one provider of Teach the Controversy, and that is DI.>>
  • Heh! That's a laugh. That's an interesting piece of personal research that flies in the face again of all published expert opinion. I bring to your attention again, just for fun again, the published writings of Eugenie C. Scott whom the evolutionary biologists have elected to be their spokesperson. 8)) She names a whole list of international "fast food" vendors, including such international franchisers as "In Turkey, Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (BAV; the name translates as Science Research Foundation)." (Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch. 2003. "Evolution: what's wrong with 'teaching the controversy.'" Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18(10) 499-502.) ---Rednblu | Talk 15:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's some mighty poor research you did there, Rednblu. Bilim Arastirma Vakfi does not advocate a "Teach the Controversy" model. They use ICR materials. [1] Joshuaschroeder 21:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was gonna withdraw, but schroeder's latest nonsense is too good to pass up. in the very link he cites is the sentence, "The thought did not originate with the 'intelligent design' movement, however. The Institute for Creation Research, the oldest major anti-evolution organization in the USA, recommends that students and teachers be 'encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, to promote the development of critical thinking skills.' The quote is from ICR. We found our burger king. This further obliterates schroeder's argument that "BAV does not advocate TTC because it uses ICR materials" because, as clearly demonstrated in the article mr. schroeder neglected to read, ICR supports ttc, and did so in 1996, when the cited article was published in Impact. Thank you, gentlemen. Vive l'inquisition. Ungtss 23:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No dice, Ungtss. Teach the Controversy aims as defined by DI is explicitly rejected by Henry Morris of the ICR as being too accomodating [2]. Joshuaschroeder 23:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No dice, schroeder. your latest link is not about "Teach the Controversy" -- it's about ID -- so it is irrelevent. ICR explicitly did promote TTC -- the article you failed to read proves that. You can find people who want more -- i'm sure morris wants more -- but other icr types supported ttc long before DI put a label on it. Save your nonsense for the Fabio, eh?[3] Ungtss 00:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article cited by Joshuaschroeder says not only that BAV used ICR materials but that it uses them to produce "creationist books". That is not "teaching the controversy", it's outright creationism. But yes, certainly creationists have been saying "teach children about the evidence against evolution" since before the slogan "teach the controversy" arrived; what's distinctive about TTC is that it avoids going further and disclaims even the idea that students should be taught about, say, "intelligent design". Whether that's out of humility or part of a subtly deceptive long-term strategy or what is, of course, controversial :-), but that's what distinguishes TTC from earlier attempts to get evolution argued about in schools -- and that's what, if anything, justifies the existence of a separate article about TTC. If TTC amounted to no more than "some people think we should teach children to look critically at the case for and against evolution" then there wouldn't be the slightest reason to have a Wikipedia article about it. Gareth McCaughan 00:24, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Agreement then? Ungtss 00:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Between whom and about what? Gareth McCaughan 00:47, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
between us about keeping the article? Ungtss 00:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I haven't expressed an opinion about keeping the article, beyond saying that if it's right for it to exist then it depends on TTC not simply being a new name for an old creationist (more precisely: anti-evolutionist) plea. The present state of the article -- a big mess, subject to repeated mutilations from both sides and frantic reversions -- is depressing enough that I'd personally be relieved to see it gone, but of course that isn't a real reason for deletion and if there's any prospect of the protagonists starting to listen to reason and make a more serious attempt at impartiality then it wouldn't even be a pseudo-reason. Gareth McCaughan 23:47, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Now that's good reasoning:). i hope all your dreams come true in this case:). Ungtss 23:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
<<Teach the Controversy aims as defined by DI is explicitly rejected by Henry Morris of the ICR as being too accommodating [4].>>
  • Very nice. Teach the controversy? I challenge you to find even one occurrence of the word "teach" in that link.  :)) Furthermore, I challenge you to find even one occurrence of the word "controversy" in that link. However, I will concede that you win this match because I found twenty (20) occurrences of the word the and then stopped counting. 8(( So you win this match. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. The article clearly criticized TTC as defined by DI. Ungtss makes a good point below. The number of times someone uses a phrase is only indicative of the use of the phrase and not of the ideas being promoted. Joshuaschroeder 00:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More nonsense. The words "teach" and "school" do not appear in that article. it has nothing to do with policy for public schools, which is what ttc is. it is about whether ID is sufficient for christian belief. not schools. totally different topic. You're dead wrong, schroeder. Ungtss 00:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Over 200 instances on this talkpage. does that mean we're promoting TTC too? Ungtss 00:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please its not necessary to merge `Yuckfoo 00:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. NPOV/merging debate. Not VfD material. Keep vote is not an opinion on whether merging is necessary. JRM · Talk 10:48, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Keep. NPOV/merging debate. Not Vfd material. (Ditto to JRM). You folks realise that the person closing this out will just go like "Conclusion was to keep in any case, should be merged, have a nice day!", right? ;-) Wrong place for the wrong debate. Ah well. Same as above, not an opinion on whether to merge or not, just pre-emptively counterbalancing anyone who might stumble in and vote delete. ;-) Kim Bruning 00:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is very important article about, interesting subject! Strong KEEP. --Mateusc 00:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely not VfD material. I tend to think that the proposed merge is also a bad idea. Article clearly needs the benefit of mediation. Kelly Martin 01:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, as this seems to be a bad-faith attempt to end-run the merge vote on the talk page. That said, this should be merged with DI, but this is not the place to debate that. A Man In Black 13:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I really don't think this was a "bad faith" nomination - when people several people said that voting was not permitted (when the "Merge" poll came up on the talk page), it sure looked to me like the correct way to decide whether or not to vote on merging was via VfD. I can't be certain what motivated the nominator, but I don't think the evidence is there to construe this as being "bad faith". Guettarda 19:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm. A misunderstanding is something else entirely, you're right. A Man In Black 06:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. No idea why this was ever listed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing it was listed because people said there was no other legal way to vote to merge. Guettarda 19:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge with Discovery_Institute Compare the content of Teach the Controversy to that at Discovery_Institute... way too much verbatim duplication of content. Someone has been cutting and pasting large swathes from one to the other. Also, the Teach the Controversy movement is largely a product of the Discovery Institute. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: As you well know, the duplication is a result of MPLX copying text over there in an effort to demonstrate redundency to justify the merge.[5] I would strongly support removing the material he introduced over there, because it is redundent to the material here. As you also know, and as is demonstrated above, according to articles critical of TTC, the idea of TTC did not originate with DI, but with ICR, a different organization, and Johnson just put a new label on an old idea, and a number of separate organizations have promoted the same idea independently of DI. Finally, even assuming that TTC is entirely derivative of DI, so are Wedge document, Intelligent design, Irreducible complexity, and Specified complexity, all of which get their own articles, because they are unique and notable ideas. This idea is analogous to those, and therefore should have its own article. Ungtss 20:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An important issue that should be reported separate from its main sponsor, the Discovery Institute. BlankVerse ∅ 11:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep And do not merge. Pollinator 23:51, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete/Merge with Discovery Institute or, I might add, Intelligent Design. As it stands, "Teach the Controversy" appears to be a rhetoric tool and a slogan, and not a true school of thought or movement. It is a term, as the article iteslf points out, designed to characterize the argument in favor of one view: by arguing for moderation it places unlike ideas on a like platform. While there is room in Wikipedia to discuss the lexicon, it should be done in a manner which does not result in Wikipedia itself being manipulated by proponents of the argument. ~CS 03:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong merge/or keep. Someone mentioned there has been no reason given to merge. It's my understanding slogans are not given articles of their own. - RoyBoy 800 06:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/Teach_the_Controversy&oldid=1312146"