This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
education and
education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Creation and evolution in public education is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject
talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Zoroastrianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Cleanup : *Move all references into references section.
Expand : *Discuss countries not currently mentioned, such as strongly religious countries.
Pakistan (more sources/details needed)
Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and others
Discuss the abscence of an article
creation and evolution in education. Is non-public education not worth mentioning? Should a new article be created? Or should this one be moved and broadened a little?
Should we have some other sections rather than just a 'by region' approach to everything?
Other : *Discuss what qualifies a case/region to be in this article? Are we focusing on controversy, distance from scientific consensus, or what?
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Depaek.
There may be some convention on this so I haven't done an edit, but why, if Turkey is in Europe, is Russia in Asia? Especially considering that the only piece in the Russia section is about St. Petersburg... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.11.124.48 (
talk)
19:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Regarding
this edit, reverted by Orangemarlin, I agree that the Louisiana section warrants attention. While 75.50.99.94 removed the section for alleged POV issues, my concern is that the section has no citation and appears to be unsourced. I don't see a POV issue with the claim as written, so long as it is supported and appropriately channels the source's POV. If it's a state bill then surely it has been discussed by mainstream or otherwise notable sources. If no source can be identified, that section needs to be removed on grounds of
original research, no matter the degree of its
neutrality. If I find time, I will help look for one to use.
JohnShandy` •
talk05:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Regarding
this edit which reverted an IP's addition of
theistic evolution, I think there is confusion on part of Charlesdrakew. I don't think the IP was intending to give an example of a religion that accepts evolution, but was meaning to introduce theistic evolution because, as the article reads "While some religions do not have theological objections to the modern evolutionary synthesis as an explanation for the present form of life on Earth...", it is true that some religions (e.g. the Catholic Church, per
Pope John Paul II#Evolution &
Catholic Church and evolution) have accepted evolution by Darwinian natural selection. This would be a notable point to add to that paragraph, and wikilinking to theistic evolution as well would be appropriate. We can add the references from the articles I've mentioned here and cite them in this article.
JohnShandy` •
talk13:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)reply
I have reverted the recent rewrite for the following reasons:
Overuse of primary sources. This resulted in a section that concentrated too heavily on the bureaucratic minutiae of the process.
Use of unreliable sources, such as UD & CMI.
Simple listing of the
WP:SECONDARY sources, rather than actually making use of them: "Deutsche Welle[60], International Society for Science and Religion[61], Committee for Sceptical Inquiry[62], Radio Vaticana[63] and Die Welt[64]"
An expansion based upon the contents of these secondary sources would be useful. I would also recommend against using the acronym
PACE in the section heading -- it has far to many different meanings to be particularly helpful. HrafnTalkStalk(P)03:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)reply
First you suggest to put the information here and recognize that the sources I've mentioned could justify the expansion of that section - now you delete that information from the article with a vague cliam that it's baly written... Strange.
In this specific context, PACE documents (primary sources) are the safest for referring to official texts of the motion of recommendation, reports and resolution (full texts, not misundersttod by a journalist - and I did not insert any interpretation of those texts which would need secondary sources). For some aspects, primary sources seeem to be also the only ones (secondary sources mention the general division of votes - but I do not see among them any which would show specifically, which delegates voted in favour and wich - against the resolution). That may seem to be "bureaucratic minutiae" - but that is the struggle for content, important when writing about a text adopted by a parliamentary assembly.
Fuseau (
talk)
10:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Those sources (UD, CMI, Yahya) are not used to support some scientific point where they have proven themselves questionable - they just show the wide reaction of the creationists/ID proponents to the resolution. Do you question that reaction to a document is suitable to describe when writing about that document?
Those sources were mentioned, first of all, to satisfy your demands for establishing notability. One can of course describe in a more detailed way what they tell (in some cases, however, that would mean retelling resolution - I doubt whether that's needed).
Mentioning PACE is not ideal, but "Council of Europe" is too vague. There are different bodies in the CoE, and they might have different opinions.
Fuseau (
talk)
10:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)reply
First, I would point out that I objected to the over-use of primary sources on
The dangers of creationism in education, so you should not be surprised that I object to their over-use here.
Secondly', what I suggested was specificallySECONDARY sourced material -- so you should not be surprised that I reverted an expansion that contained none (just a listing of the secondary sources).
Thirdly, such paper-pushing is generally considered to be a quite irrelevant level of detail.
Fourthly, it is NOT sufficient simply to list independent sources to meet
WP:Notability, you have to demonstrate that they offer "significant coverage", by actually stating what they say about the topic (my suspicion is that they don't actually say much).
Fifthly,
WP:WEIGHT only allows for weight to be given to viewpoints contained in reliable sources.
WP:ABOUTSELF specifically forbids the use of self-published and/or questionable sources for opinions about third-party topics.
Sixthly, very few readers will have heard of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (a fairly obscure, archaic, redundant & toothless body), let alone realise that the acronym PACE refers to it. Therefore the inclusion of this acronym in the section title is singularly uninformative. As it is one of only "two statutory organs of the Council of Europe", the slight vagueness is acceptable, especially as it is cleared up by the opening sentence of the section.
I would question whether www.breakingchristiannews.com is sufficiently reliable a source that it can be used beyond the constraints of
WP:ABOUTSELF.
I fail to see how an article from the
Evangelical Church in Germany's own website is a secondary source on an Evangelical Church in Germany conference.
I continue to have concerns over how having two full sections based entirely on primary sources complies with
WP:PSTS, or is needed.
I would note that Darwinian evolution was regarded as too elitistly heditarian (survival of those with the best genes) by many communists, who favoured a more
Lamarckian view of evolution. The most prominent example of this was
Stalin's promotion of
Lysenkoism. The views of the "east European deputies" are therefore misleading and should not be stated baldly as though factual. HrafnTalkStalk(P)03:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Lysenkoism was really anti-darwinist, but it didn't last a bigger part of "real socialism" times in Eastern Europe (from 30ies to 50ies). Those deputies probably remembered later time, when Darwinian evolution wasn't denied. Anyway, I've carefully put that quote in quotation marks and the quote itself doesn't say those delegates to be right - Reuters just says that they "recalled" certain information. They might be mistaken - its not our business to define it in the given case. We just show (as did Reuters, a reliable secondary source) their statements in relation to resisting Lengagne report, be those delegates factually accurate or not.
Fuseau (
talk)
20:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)reply
The point remains that Darwinian evolution conflicts too much with the Marxist worldview for it to be "a favorite theory" in whichever period (and I would point out that "a favorite theory" to merely "wasn't denied" is massively moving the goalposts). The deputies appear to be engaging in some rather dubious guilt-by-association.
Placing a factual claim in quotation marks does not obviate the fact that it is highly misleading. We can reliably confirm that they said it, however we have sufficient reason to believe that what they said has little probative value, and therefore that inclusion of this quote will not in fact add to readers' accurate understanding of the topic.
Darwinian evolution conflicts too much with the Marxist worldview I suspect you confuse the Lysenkoism with the Marxist worldview. If you take a look at
Dialectics of Nature, you'll find the high respect for Darwinism shown by Engels.
It's very speculative to call that statement misleading (see above and in the next section on this talk page). And the inclusion of that quote is helpful for the readers, since it gives information on the stated motivation of delegates voting against (be they sincere or not - it's not Wikipedia's business)
Fuseau (
talk) 11:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. An example of Soviet recognition of Darwin's legacy:
The Origin (novel) was published by in Moscow by Political Literature Publishing in 1983 in the series "Library of Atheist Literature" (drawing 200 000). One can see the impressum
here, with some data in English.
Fuseau (
talk)
19:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Is the level of (mainly primary sourced) coverage of the 'drafting and adoption' of this resolution excessive? Particularly with view to the Parliamentary Assembly's lack of prominence, and purely advisory nature. Such primary-sourced details would most probably be available for many (most?) of the other sections, but has not been included.
Is the level of quotation from the resolution excessive (given similar considerations)?
Is it appropriate to include the factual claim "that Darwinian evolution was a favorite theory of their former communist rulers" given clear evidence of communist distaste for Darwinian evolution (e.g.
Lysenkoism), even in quotation marks? Does
WP:REDFLAG apply?
No. Primary sources are suitable in the specific case (votes divisions, amendments and similar details aren't usually covered by news agencies etc, but are significant when writing about a document). PACE is prominent (one of two principal bodies of the Council of Europe, including representatives from 47 states; its resolutions are advisory, but so are
Category:United Nations General Assembly resolutions) and its website is reliable. The reason of different level of details between sections is this article is
User:Hrafn's resistence to existence of a separate article on the resolution, despite its existing in fr.wiki and ru.wiki
That can be discussed. Which quotation do you consider to be excessive?
a) That's a quotation, not a claim by Wikipedia; the article doesn't state whether the quote is right or wrong. b) If one spoke about the short time of Lysenkoism (most of which - until 1945 - didn't include Communist rule in Poland, Hungary, Romania, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia etc), this statement would be wrong. Speaking of the longer time period between mid-50ies and 1989, however, it is an accurate desciption (atheistic Soviet ideology liked to use resistance of some churches to Darwinism in its anti-religious propaganda; I can point to printed sources in Russian). [[User:|Fuseau]] (
talk)
11:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)reply
RfC Comment. I came here in response to the RfC notice. It looks to me like this is a content dispute between just two editors. It does seem to me that the section in question is overly reliant on primary sources, and needs to be shortened to better reflect
secondary sources. I also detect a tone of "guilt by association", whereby teaching evolution is equated with totalitarianism. It's one thing to document that this position has been taken by some parties involved with the debate about teaching evolution in Europe, but the amount of
weight given the position needs to be in keeping with how secondary sources have treated it. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
16:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)reply
RfC Comment. Also responding to RfC-bot notice. I'm broadly in agreement with
Tryptofish's comments. I don't believe there is much at fault with the content here though. I think the use of primary sources has been largely confined to appropriate situations, but it would be worth having more editors analyse the tone of the section in connection with the secondary sources to ensure the section is in keeping with what the the secondary sources and ensure there's no breach of
WP:NOR here. --
Topperfalkon (
talk)
19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Could you please clarify your comment: you start by stating "I'm broadly in agreement with
Tryptofish's comments", but then go on to state conclusions that appear to be the opposite of Tryptofish's. HrafnTalkStalk(P)03:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Rfc Comment. Largely agree with Fuseau.
As long as primary material is relevant and produced in appropriate context, it would take serious excess to justify objection. Accordingly these quotes don't seem anywhere near excessive. They certainly did not take long to read.
Similarly, fulminating against a couple of paragraphs of direct quotation (assuming that the quotes are essentially accurate) would be pointless and excessive; the material does not suggest to me that the Parliamentary Assembly delegates understood the issues, either evolutionary or educational, any better than most politicians, but I am not inclined to waste my time and emotional resources by going to the source myself just to engage in yet another holy war against WPOR.
Discussion of point 3 in the RFC amounts to discussion of idealistic baggage that has little to do with either the theme or the resolution. Certainly nothing in the article suggested any NPOV on the part of WP. If anyone disagrees and can mend the situation without provoking rival amendments, let him adorn the article with a few disclaimers to strengthen the awareness of the reader that WP is not taking sides for or against the wording of the resolution.
IMO, storm in teacup. Recommend no change in line with the RFC. I'd rather discuss the science, philosophy and didactics, which would be out of place here, it seems to me.
JonRichfield (
talk)
14:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Rfc Comment per bot request.
I do not believe the primary sources are misplaced in this section. The inclusion of secondary sources would strengthen the content, but their absence does not leave the content unverifiable.
The quotes I observed do not appear excessive nor tailored to a specific end. I am also assuming fidelity in transcribing the quotes.
The particular quote appears mislabeled as dubious. This does not imply I agree with its premise, but rather that it faithfully represents the quote as it appears in the source. For balance, a proportionately opposing view would better illustrate contention. The tagging as dubious implies nefarious intent which I do not see.
Pretty blatantly excessive. Obvious undue weight granted to this "resolution"
See comment above.
Frankly I'd just exclude the quote while paring down the rest of the section. I don't think it really provides much clarity or context. Additionally the "reuters noted" language is childish and unencyclopedic.
NickCT (
talk)
13:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Could you possibly add some argumentation? Currently your response is limited to labels: emotional ("Pretty blatantly", "Obvious", "resolution" in quotation marks, "childish") and non-emotional, but supported by emotional evaluations only ("excessive", "undue weight", "unencyclopedic"), which aren't convincing, to say the least.
Fuseau (
talk)
19:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Generally agree with Hrafn. "Excessive" seems to me a bit excessive in describing just over a screenful of properly sourced material in a much longer article. Authors should be able to assume a reasonable attention span in readers at this level. Anyway, the section was sufficiently split into subsections to make it easy for readers to skip the boring bits. Nevertheless though to my mind the content does not present much of a problem, the writing is clumsy and makes it confusing for readers unfamiliar with the material to follow the facts or grasp the thread. I certainly struggled, even after a couple of rereads. I grant that I have at most a feeble grasp of such matters as the mindsets behind the politics of fundamentalism, but no feebler than the majority of interested readers, so I strongly urge that someone does a bit of carefully constructive conditioning of the account. I would willingly do it myself, but I feel ill-equipped. OTOH, if whoever does the job would like me to put my effort where my mouth is, I don't mind assisting on request.
JonRichfield (
talk)
07:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Could you please clarify your comment: you start by stating "Generally agree with Hrafn", but then go on to state conclusions that appear to be the opposite of Hrafn's (disagreeing with his evaluation of drafting coverage and quotes as "excessive" - Parts 1 and 2 of Hrafn's criticism, and not supporting his contesting the specific quote on Eastern Europe), while raising other issues.
Fuseau (
talk)
00:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Ooops! Sorry; I got the sigs confused. I meant Fuseau! Oh well, at least the sense was consistent, if inverted! The "other issues" as I have mentioned them though, I still stand by.
JonRichfield (
talk)
20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I hope that Portillo is not assuming personal authority in matters concerning the intrinsic sense of serious articles. He has now twice arbitrarily deleted a reference to the
Flying Spaghetti Monster article, first on the grounds that he had labelled it as garbage, apparently unread or uncomprehended or both, and then because he said it had nothing to do with this article. I have reverted both his deletions, the second time warning him that I shall report him if he repeats his action, and urging him to take it to this talk page instead. (I at least assumed no such authority as he did for his own assertions!)
What T's me off about this is not whether his view has any merit or not (I never wrote, nor to my memory contributed to the FSM article, nor yet linked it to this article, nor even was terribly interested in it as such), but the fact that though it is a serious article, seriously discussed, and seriously linked to in a serious context, Portillo assumed the right to scrap the link on no more substantial justification than his own unsupported and disputed insights. If Portillo reads this, I hope that he will respond here rather than edit warring, and makes some better points than blank assertions such as those accompanying his recent two deletions.
JonRichfield (
talk)
12:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I agree that Portillo was unjustified in removing the reference. Both of his edit summaries suggests that he is not familiar with the nature and history of FSM. It is clearly not "garbage", and it most certainly does have to do with the subject of this article.
With the power that the Texas school board has to determine which books will likely enter into schools outside of Texas, shouldn't there be more said about the members current political stances. For example, "I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state" (David Bradley, Texas State Board of Education).
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=0
I have just modified one external link on
Creation and evolution in public education. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified one external link on
Creation and evolution in public education. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
So, it seems teaching evolution in Romania was quietly discontinued around 2006-07, shortly reintroduced for 2 semesters in more vague and general terms and then dropped again, at least according to the Romanian wiki
[1] . It's also relevant, that even in the year it survived, it was seemingly taught only in upper school any more (people drop out earlier or go on to the second educational track in significant amounts so the effect is higher in RO than it would be in any other Western country).
I was not able to find any good source to confirm (googled the big news outlets looked for key terms in politician's tweets; repeated for key terms in Romanian, French, German -- nada. The two sources in the article seem "legit", no idea how well those sites monitor journalistic standards). Probably somebody actually has to go through the education ministry's (mostly offline?) archive to confirm when and what exactly was being taught. Who did separation of church and education ever work well for... /s
LlllllllIl (
talk)
19:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Teaching the Bible in public schools
Hey, I think Wikipedia may be lacking an important page, namely a page on efforts to include teaching the Bible in public schools in the USA. Here's the page of a representative who has put forth a bill in Florida to implement such classes:
Kimberly Daniels. It is an interesting topic. In an ideal world, I would personally support having this kind of class, but my guess is that such classes would become preaching classes & an automatic A if you put in a little work (that's where my bias would lead me). Is there any page that I can add information about "The Bible in public education"?
Geographyinitiative (
talk)
02:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply