Talk:Anti-evolution legislation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pre-existing notes[edit]

John Stemberger as 'drafter'[edit]

Given that this bill is a virtual word-for-word copy of the previous bills, going back to Alabama in 2005, it seems highly unlikely that Stemberger did more than alter the numbering, punctuation and/or type in 'Florida' into the bill. I know its cited that he was a 'drafter', but given that we know that his input was, at best, cosmetic in the extreme, is it WP:UNDUE to mention this? Is he a sufficiently prominent to be worth mentioning at all? I can find no news reports that indicate that he's been a significant player on this issue. Florida Family Policy Council seems more interested in an anti-gay-marriage amendment than evolution at this point in time. HrafnTalkStalk 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan/Missouri/South Carolina bills[edit]

This bill appears to be identical to the (unamended) Louisiana bill. HrafnTalkStalk 04:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) The Missouri bill appears to be an abbreviated version of the (unamended) Louisiana bill. The South Carolina bill is an even more abbreviated version. HrafnTalkStalk 05:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florida bills are dead[edit]

The Florida bills died quietly with the end of the legislative session. I'm going to move to progressively slim this section down to the facts plus the most prominent opinions. The ACLU is clearly the most high-profile opponent, so must stay in. Luskin is a DI attorney expressing an opinion on DI-written legistlation, the "why not sex-ed?" question resulted in attempted legislative action, & Storm's prevarication is clearly notable. Stemberger is almost certainly for the chop, per above. Stein is notable as a figure, but his comments were pretty boiler-plate. Elsberry is a fairly tangential figure (not being directly involved in Florida), and his blog-post is (although reliable) not a particularly prominent source. My intention is to leave the 'Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement' & Liam Julian pieces in -- as there is an excellent chance that the DI language will be recycled in further bills. HrafnTalkStalk 06:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this isn't at cross purposes, but I've moved info here from Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#Florida legislators, with the intention of shortening that section and merging it into the #Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution section of that article. There seems a significant likelihood that there will be another attempt in Florida during the next session.[1] Comments? .. dave souza, talk 14:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-existing Expelled section was a bit brief anyway so, with a bit of trimming, the new stuff doesn't send it overboard. A Hays quote in the Florida section is perfectly reasonable. On further attempts, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised -- legislators in other states have essentially photocopied their old bills & resubmitted them year after year. But I would be surprised if it came to anything, given (1) the lack of competence they showed in their failure to coordinate on a consistent bill (2) the fact that it'll be a few months further after the new school standards, so not as white-hot an issue, & (3) there won't be the Ben Stein dog and pony show in town drumming up interest. If they wanted it through, this was the time to get it. In any case, my eyes are on Louisiana in the meantime. HrafnTalkStalk 15:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On two of the points that Wesley R. Elsberry makes, I would have to disagree. The creationists weren't well prepared -- Casey Luskin made a fool of himself, and Storms' lack of a sophisticated prevarication on whether the bill would allow ID/Creo was glaring. Also, there was a very large amount of coverage hostile to the bills in the mainstream Florida media -- Marc Caputo at the Miami Herald was particularly scathing. I suspect that the Florida pro-science crowd might be better off concentrating on individual smart/sympathetic/articulate journos than on the general 'gaggle'. HrafnTalkStalk 15:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree that Louisiana is the next focus, and there was certainly incoherence in the creationist efforts. However, the majority of legislators gave at least token support, so we shouldn't assume that they'll just forget about it. ... dave souza, talk 17:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated the organization of Florida Citizens for Science, provided their first website, provided continuing consultation for that group -- and others -- advocating the pro-science stance, and was part of the April 14th press conference organized by FCfS, FL ACLU, and other groups. Along the way, I was interviewed by the Florida press on several occasions and mentioned in connection with other events (things concerning Cheri Yecke and the Polk County school board advocacy of ID are verifiable easily). I certainly spent enough of my time working on the issue that it felt like I was involved.
Storms and Luskin's level of performance weren't the point I was making, nor do they set aside that point: The misappropriated "academic freedom" campaign in Florida was a coordinated attack on the integrity of science education. Those individual lapses in performance don't detract from the recognition that the overall plan from the DI was executed well.
The amount of press favorable to FCfS is also irrelevant to the point I was making: The DI and its fellow antievolutionists in Florida had disproportionate access to op-ed opportunities, and a significant portion of the press credulously passed on their misinformation. When one is contemplating making a difference in a socio-political setting, ignoring the fact that a goodly chunk of the press simply acts as a conduit for the antievolution talking points of the Discovery Institute doesn't seem like a good strategy. The people served by those outlets don't get the good reporting dished up by journalists like Matus and Caputo delivered to them. And that helps perpetuate the cycle of ignorance. We in FCfS do know enough to provide known clued-in reporters with material. Brandon Haught is excellent in that role.
Certainly it is up to the editors to figure out what is notable and what isn't for the article, but it seemed to me that the discussion here was not entirely accurate in its statements touching upon my degree of involvement and analysis of the situation. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wesley. I'm likewise concerned about things that seem to be slipping through the cracks. I'm on another continent and have been following this purely through the internet, and wrote this article (starting a couple of months ago) because I was daily seeing news stories on it on Google News, but it wasn't being covered on wikipedia. The main points:

  1. Your involvement simply hasn't shown up in the mainstream media. My statement at the top of this section was based on a general impression of what I had been reading on a general newsfeed on 'academic-freedom bill', so I just ran a Florida-specific check on your name & evolution -- nothing turned up. If you can point me to any prominent interviews/coverage/etc, I'd be happy to consider it.
  2. Likewise, the bill-positive op-eds that you mentioned haven't been turning up on my feeds (and again I've just run a Florida-specific check -- though admittedly, given the large number of articles, and an inability to filter for only op-eds, it is possible that I overlooked some). Could you point out a few of the more prominent ones to me?

I had thought that I'd been writing a decent article. Now I'm not so sure. HrafnTalkStalk 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polk County School Board incident, Cheri Yecke interactions, calling it in August, 2005. Non-zero Google results for "wesley elsberry florida evolution". As I stated in my PT post, the mainstream press failed to even mention half the speakers at the April 14th press conference; I was one of those overlooked.
I'll see about coming up with links to DI and other antievolution op-eds, but this is all the time I can spare right now. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley: from the links you've given me, it would seem likely that if a 'Creation-evolution controversy‎ in Florida' article were written, you'd probably be a major protagonist. (Now that I put my mind to it, I do remember your connection to Cheri Yecke's Florida excursion -- but am not a regular editor on her article, and hadn't read it for some time.) This is not however the article I've been writing (nor probably one I'd be in a position to write competently). The article I've been writing has been on a series of related bills, and necessarily starts when one is introduced and moves to the next state when it dies. That the Florida newspapers didn't give you a voice on these bills, when you are eminently qualified to speak on them, was a mistake on their part. It is not however a mistake that I am in a position to legitimately rectify.

I've attempted to do further drilling down on op-eds, doing a Florida-specific news search for 'Darwinism' a word more likely to be used by pro-Creo than neutral or pro-science writers. Even so, most of the articles caught were neutral to pro-science. The only exceptions were from sources not in List of newspapers in Florida: this rant (which seems more likely to be a letter to the editor than an op-ed) and this dishonest piece by Mark Mathis (who somehow fails to mention his connection to Expelled). Neither of them would seem to meet WP:RS, let alone be competitive for inclusion on a widely-covered topic. HrafnTalkStalk 19:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say congratulations to FCfS in general and Wesley in particular for achievements so far, and to Hrafn for covering it so well within the necessary restrictions WP imposes on using appropriate sources. Good work all round, the task obviously continues.... dave souza, talk 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Kroto is a member of Florida Citizens for Science?[edit]

You wouldn't think so from reading the news. The only link between the two that I could find was an Orlando Sentinel blog post (which didn't even mention him by name, just as a Nobel Prize winner). I'm beginning to see what Wesley meant by the poor coverage of the press conference (with everything going on at the time, it didn't really register at the time). This is also probably why I missed including it the first time round -- I would have been waiting for a source that actually laid it out clearly, rather than having to patchwork it together for myself. HrafnTalkStalk 05:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Freedom bills and ID[edit]

In their continually distancing themselves from previous iterations, (first through ID's split from Creation Science, then) 'Teach the Controversy', then 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' and now 'Academic Freedom' on evolution, the DI's campaigns have now lost any clear connection to their teleological roots. AF is Neocreationism with even the ID washed out. The void it creates could as easily be filled with YE Flood Geology or Baraminology (or some wacky New Age theory for that matter) as ID's talk of Irreducible & Specified Complexity and Conservation of Information. That being so, although ID definitely deserves a place in the lead, to equate AF with ID is erroneous. It is certainly not an identity that I've seen the NCSE (whose sterling work in documenting the history of these bills I've drawn heavily on) make. HrafnTalkStalk 16:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an odd full circle that Expelled returns to plain anti-evolution based on blaming Darwin for German atrocities, as Bryant did in the 1920s. The difference is that despite abandoning attempts to make ID scientifically credible, they continue to pretend that it's science. . . dave souza, talk 12:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the knee-jerk visceral appeal of the argument. Natural selection is very much evocative of a Mother Nature that is "red in tooth and claw", so it is easy to see a false parallel between that and the violence of war and genocide. But the violence of natural selection is a very immediate and personal one, killing to eat and to protect oneself and one's offspring and herd. This has no authentic connection to the impersonal organised violence of war (although propaganda machines may attempt to tap into it in order to make soldiers fight better). Equating the two makes about as much sense as blaming beehives for cities. HrafnTalkStalk 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nature red in tooth and claw from 1849 does of course predate publication of Darwin's theory in 1858, and apparently was inspired by Chambers' Vestiges of 1844. Back in the 1830s, Darwin was inspired by Candolle's concept of "nature's war" between species. Haeckel adopted the term Darwinismus without ever really accepting natural selection, so there's arguably a connection between "Darwinism" and German concepts in WWI, but those ideas didn't need Darwin and often have little to do with Darwin's writings, as well as making the "is-ought fallacy". . . .. dave souza, talk 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anti-evolutionists do have a problem with leaping from 'is evocative of' to 'is an intellectual relative of'. I think it would be unfair to blame Haeckel, or even the Germans, solely for WWI. It had its roots in the major power brinkmanship, paranoia and interlocking alliances of the turn of the 20th century Europe (immortalised in the boardgame Diplomacy). From memory, the war started Austria declares war on Serbia, Russia on Austria, Germany on Russia, Britain and France on Germany. Yes, Kaiser Wilhelm II stirred the pot of the paranoia and brinksmanship by his unwisely aggressive military expansion, but this was not the sole cause of WWI, and was merely an overextension of Prussia/the German Empire's expansionist policy throughout the 19th century, rather than some radical new idea that could be traced to Haeckel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 May 2008
Agree, though I think Bryant was blaming Darwinism for the ungentlemanly conduct of the war rather than for starting it. For info, I've described the origination of the "Nature's war" concept and its influence on Darwin in the A. P. de Candolle article, with references to D&M's bio. .. dave souza, talk 18:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with Bryan's view is that the 'gentlemanly conduct' of war had been breaking down at least since the military innovations of Napoleon. HrafnTalkStalk 05:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New source[edit]

Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy June 4, 2008 New York Times. Some highlights:

  • Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to "creation science," which became "intelligent design"
  • Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator." The words are "strengths and weaknesses."
  • Already, legislators in a half-dozen states—Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina—have tried to require that classrooms be open to "views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.

Odd nature (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another new source They're back!! Jewish Times Odd nature (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of this article[edit]

ASBMB Today August 2008 issue (American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology p11) mentions us as an 'additional resource' on this topic. HrafnTalkStalk 12:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice compliment. Without reading it in detail, I came across Forrest Analysis of SB 733—6/5/08 June 5, 2008 (Updated from May 19, 2008, Version) which looks good, but doesn't seem to be cited in our article. There may be other useful resources there as well. dave souza, talk 15:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At a quick glance this doesn't appear to have anything new -- but when I went to compare it with an older document Forrest wrote (on the bill under its previous numbering), I discovered that the link to the older document is now broken, so I've replaced it with this one. HrafnTalkStalk 15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific American/WSJ quotes in intro[edit]

I've moved the Scientific American quote to the intro alongside the WSJ quote because both quotes are relevant to intro and the Scientific American source is very notable. In fact, Branch is more notable and relevant to the topic than WSJ's Stephanie Simon and the Scientific American source is more recent. If two quotes are too much in the intro the one that should come out is the WSJ quote, being less relevant and notable. FeloniousMonk (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. As I stated in my revert of this change, two quotes in the lead is excessive. The quotes now dominate it.
  2. It is incorrect to state that the Branch quote is more relevant to the topic. The WSJ quote was talking about the topic generally, so is more appropriate for the general introduction. Branch was, your replacement of "the Louisiana Science Education Act" with "one Academic Freedom bill" notwithstanding, only speaking in the context of the Louisiana Act, so it is not relevant to a general introduction.
  3. That the Wall Street Journal, not exactly known for its liberal tendencies, gives such a forthright general statement on the topic is considerably more notable than the fact that the NCSE deputy director (who although well known to those watching the evo/creo controversy, is hardly a household name) condemns one bill.

In summary, I do not agree with this change. I will not edit-war to revert it, but I will not let this issue drop. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the original source, the quote is also mis-attributed and mis-presented. It is part of a piece by Branch and Eugenie Scott, so attributing the quote soley to Branch is inaccurate. It also explicitly starts out "In the meantime, it is clear why the Louisiana Science Education Act is pernicious: it tacitly encourages..." so it would be better to include the quoted passage's direct mention of the quote (either starting at "In the" or "it is clear") than to leave it out, only to reintroduce it as ""[the Louisiana Science Education Act] tacitly encourages..." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would further point out that the quoted excerpt is given no particular prominence within the (quite lengthy) Branch & Scott piece. So, while it is quite legitimate to present it in the context within which it was made (the Louisiana Act), presenting it as having some especial prominence in relation to the general topic would appear to be blowing it out of proportion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Florida bill[edit]

Is the 2009 Florida bill an 'Academic Freedom'-style bill? My impression from the news coverage was that it was a 'pre-Dover'/'Teach the Controversy' era throwback requiring (not merely permitting) teaching of both evolution and ID is evolution was to be taught at all. There have been a vast number of different types of creationist bills introduced throughout the years (NCSE have pages and pages on it), the original intention of this article was to cover those tightly tied to the 'Academic Freedom' theme introduced in Expelled & the DI's petition, so as to keep the narrative coherent. I would suggest if we attempted to cover all creationist bills here, the article would quite quickly get quite unmanageable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it struck me as an interesting follow-on from the 2008 Florida bills, but from the outset it's explicitly aimed at requiring discussion of "the idea of intelligent design". Its sponsor has made specific reference to Expelled, but otherwise does seem to be a throwback. . dave souza, talk 12:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to Intelligent design in politics, which already hads scads of such bills. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense. . dave souza, talk 14:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further complicating this issue is this press release from NCSE, which describes the bill as "Like other 'academic freedom' bills that aim to smuggle creationism back into the classroom", implicitly stating that it is an academic freedom bill. However the quoted text from the bill, requiring "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution", puts it in the Academic Freedom 'precursor' phase of Critical Analysis of Evolution in Neo-Creationism's evolution. I'm currently in two minds as to whether it belongs here or not, so would suggest a wait-and-see approach, to see if other commentators confirm NCSE's description and/or if the bill changes into something more/less AF-related. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the full NCSE writeup on this bill makes no mention of 'Academic Freedom'. (The bill itself is here.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources stating that it these bills are anti-evolution[edit]

  • WSJ
  • NCSE
  • Education Week
  • Washington Post
  • New Scientist
  • Anti-Defamation League
  • New Scientist
  • etc
  • etc
  • etc

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation[edit]

I'd like to suggest that this be re-organised so there's a section on state-level bills/acts with (alphabetical?) sub-headings by state. Additionally, the "Overview", "Discovery Institute position" and possibly the section about Expelled should be grouped together. I opted to make a post here rather than try to work something out myself, because I can understand the chronological order it's currently in. However, I think that in the long run my suggestion will make it an easier read.

Also, I created Evolution Academic Freedom Act and Louisiana Academic Freedom Act as redirects to the relevant sections here. If there is a re-organisation, please check for pages such as these to make sure the section they point to is changed accordingly. Recognizance (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article, and the vast majority of its contents, is about the "state-level bills/acts" -- so shoe-horning it all into a single section makes no sense at all. The DI & Expelled sections logically go immediately before Florida, because of the large involvement of them both in promoting the 2008 Florida bill. Given the changing (and generally not-particularly-overlapping) geographical emphasis of the push to introduce these bills (lone unsuccessful attempts in Alabama → highly publicised Florida → successful Louisiana), I think chronological works better than alphabetical (with the latter being little more than a fairly arbitrary default organisation, for cases where there's no inherent order). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I still think it's a bit odd looking to have an overview section a couple sections in though. Also, the link to the Conservapedia-esque "no comment" caption appears to be dead. Recognizance (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section 'Overviewing' the state-level legislation comes after the section laying out the idea's origin in a (failed) piece of federal legislation. I don't see that as unreasonable. As to Ronda Storms, I've updated the link. And as her failure to answer the (state senate committee's) questions garnered the comment from the Senate Democratic leader that "We could have stuck bamboo shoots under her fingernails and she wouldn't have answered", I see nothing "Conservapedia-esque" about recording the fact. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The narrative of the article is essentially: 'the idea started with the Santorum Amendment, it languished in the political wilderness at the state level until Expelled/DI came along and gave it a boost, thereafter it had a big profile failure in Florida & a big profile success in Louisiana.'

Time to delete "Roman Catholic opposition" subsection?[edit]

The "Roman Catholic opposition" subsection under the Louisiana bill seems a bit sketchy for two reasons. One, is that there is no traceable citation. Two, even if it was effectively cited, the entire section is misleading. It describes an objection by a Roman Catholic in a newspaper piece, presumably a guest editorial. It is the opinion of an individual who happens to be a Roman Catholic. Even if the heading were corrected to "Opposition by a Roman Catholic" or "Opposition by Holly L. Wilson," the lack of notability would be obvious. The section should be deleted unless these two problems can be fixed. I thought I'd post this on the Talk page before editing in case someone wants to suggest a fix before I delete it. Scoopczar (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok by me.... Allenroyboy (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Academic Freedom bills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academic Freedom bills. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Academic Freedom bills. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-evolution legislation. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted name change[edit]

The title of this article was changed without any discussion. It should be put back to what it was because the bills are called Academic Freedom Bills not Anti-evolution Legislation. Readers will search for Academic Freedom Bills. What matters is what the bills are actually called. --OtisDixon (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is whether the title is neutral and what the bills are called by reliable sources. See WP:NPOVTITLE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if sources label the bills anti-evolution, the bills are named Academic Freedom Bills in the press. When readers search for this article, they are most likely to search for the name Academic Freedom Bills. The article is quite clear that critics of the bills label them anti-evolution. Therefore the article is better served called Academic Freed Bills. --OtisDixon (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's accurate that these are named academic freedom bills in the press. I've gone through a whole bunch of the cited sources and none of them have called the bills "academic freedom" bills without quotation marks or other qualifying language to make clear that the sources are not adopting that language. Some of the sources pointedly avoid any names for these bills, just referring to them as "the bill," while others call them "evolution" bills, while still others call them "anti-evolution" bills. In fact I did not find a single reliable source that called these bills "academic freedom" bills without scarequotes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I have now gone through a host of more recent reliable sources I found by doing a search on Google News for "academic freedom bills," and I could not find a single one that referred to these bills in the way you describe. Of particular interest was this WaPo source, which states: These bills are worded as “academic freedom” bills, but they really are efforts to present foundational science as controversial.. We should not be using the framing of the proponents of the bill when that framing misleads the public. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also think as a broader matter that the former title "Academic freedom bills" was just plain confusing to readers. It did not indicate the verifiable fact that these bills are about the evolution controversy and have nothing to do with academic freedom outside of that context. We should employ the principle of least astonishment here; readers should not be "tricked" into reading an article about the evolution controversy if what they are looking for is something about academic freedom more broadly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that "anti-evolution" is the preferred term in news media. We would only use the advocates' preferred name if it were generally used. TFD (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I googled 'Academic Freedom bills' (variously titled "Academic Freedom Act" or Academic Freedom Law" by the government entities) and got several responses including this one from NCSE: https://ncse.com/creationism/general/chronology-academic-freedom-bills --OtisDixon (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Just to clarify, most of the bills themselves are called Academic Freedom Bills or Academic Freedom Acts. And that is what I think readers will look for in WP. What the NCSE or media may call them is not the point. --OtisDixon (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note they put it in quotes, which is what we would have to do and call the article something like "So-called "Academic Freedom" Acts." The NCSE normally refers to it as "antievolution legislation." as it this acticle. I don't think anyone but true believers would call it "academic freedom" acts. Funny kind of academic freedom that allows public school teachers to teach fringe views of science put have to follow the state-approved text books on politics and history. TFD (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Academic Freedom Bills seemed to have been a deceptive title too. I think that the current name is best, but we could add a redirect from Academic Freedom Bills to it if the concern is that some users may search for that. — PaleoNeonate — 23:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tempest in teacup. Redirect from Academic Freedom bill has existed for nearly nine years. Just plain Bill (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Super, then that's a non-issue. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 08:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just plain Bill - that is incorrect and misleading folks -- the redirection of "Academic Freedom bill" was to "Academic Freedom bills", and the topic is also retitling is now rather than simply redirecting. This thread is to discuss the rcent name change at here. Markbassett (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so not nine years; my mistake. Still, a path now exists for readers seeking so-called "academic freedom" bills. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Revert -- Dr. Fleischman -- OtisDixon is correct that this should go thru guidelines WP:MOVE and particularly WP:RM#CM as this is a contentious area. I suggest that you revert as the way to demonstrate good faith effort towards due process, and then restart that way. It may wind up at the same place, but it would then have demonstrated extra effort to do things the guidelines way, and would also show a full open discussion versus just an action by a solo editor. Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think my move was particularly controversial, as evidenced by the fact that no one challenged it for over 2 months. Therefore prior discussion was not required. I see no basis for self-reverting now as my move is now the status quo ante and this discussion is moving along just fine. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Fleischman - A few oopses there. I don't think you wanted to say status quo ante since that means "the way things were before" which would be the prior title. Also, compared to the article holding the title "Academic freedom bills" from March 2008 to March 2017, I don't think you really want to bring up two months for comparison. The 'not controversial' might not hold up either, since this is a WP:RFC about "unwarranted name change" by OtisDixon and RFC is a WP:DISPUTE mechanism.
As to not self-reverting, well seems OK if you're open to an equally casual revert. Self-reverting would be to demonstrate extra effort, up to you but I thought you ought given title change is a big deal and then someone griped about not discussing first. I don't think the RFC poster wants to revert necessarily, looks like he just wants the discussion. But if he or some third party later do go that way seems OK too. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any content argument from you, or even a content !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self-reverting would be wasted motion at this point, in my opinion. Is this worth RfC? (Is there an article on the general topic of disingenuous titles of legislative acts? It happens often enough...) Just plain Bill (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most recent argument that we should change the name back based on what the bills call themselves, and "What the NCSE or media may call them is not the point," is expressly contradicted by WP:COMMONNAME, which is Wikipedia policy. To wit: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. And: Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. And that's not even taking WP:POVTITLE into account. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what I think readers will look for in WP At the risk of beating a dead horse, readers searching for Academic Freedom bills will easily arrive at the WP article they seek, which is this one. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I'm the original author of this article, and I really resent having to come out of retirement to point out that the new title is inaccurate. This is NOT an article about 'Anti-evolution legislation', as that topic would include numerous (but disparate) pieces of 20th century anti-evolution legislation, particularly those overturned by prominent SCOTUS decisions. This article was (and as far as I can tell still is) on the narrower (but thus more cohesive) subject of a set of, very similar, DI-inspired, 21st century legislation that titled themselves 'Academic Freedom'. Thus I do not think thatWP:COMMONNAME applies in this instance. I am no longer a regular editor of Wikipedia, so probably will not notice, let alone respond to any replies in a timely manner. (I also do not wish to be dragged back into any wider debates.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hrafn It’s scary to se how much Allenroyboy and his socks have edited this article., including Otisdixon. I agree the current name is wrong but a new one needs to be more precise about its content than the original. Maybe FTN might help? Doug Weller talk 11:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Doug. Long time no -see. :) I'd really prefer not to get dragged back into this again, particularly as I'm now a decade out of date & rusty on policy, terminology, even basic markup, etc. I don't know what FTN means (who? what?). It seems however that Otisdixon isn't the only problem -- so is DrFleischman. I don't mind a new title, as long as it's one that's not so expansive as to drag in all the pre-ID anti-evolution legislation. Can I leave this with you? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Service: WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hrafn, good seeing your name, sorry you've been dragged back for this. You're right, as usual, as shown by ""One Hundred Years of Anti-Evolution Legislation Are More Than Enough"". National Center for Science Education. 27 June 2022.. Can see the reasons for avoiding the misleading "academic freedom" labelling, a more specific title such as ID anti-evolution legislation would work better but the current title covers too wide a field. . . dave souza, talk 19:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-evolution legislation. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-evolution_legislation&oldid=1204891849"