![]() | Scopes trial ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 7 March 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scopes trial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 21, 2007, July 21, 2009, July 21, 2010, July 21, 2012, July 21, 2015, July 21, 2017, July 21, 2018, and July 21, 2019. |
−10 — – −9 — – −8 — – −7 — – −6 — – −5 — – −4 — – −3 — – −2 — – −1 — – 0 — | (
O. praegens) ( O. tugenensis) (
Ar. kadabba) (
Ar. ramidus) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
−4500 — – — – −4000 — – — – −3500 — – — – −3000 — – — – −2500 — – — – −2000 — – — – −1500 — – — – −1000 — – — – −500 — – — – 0 — |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Original {{Life timeline}} and {{Human timeline}} edits have been removed (ie, 1 2 3 4 5 6) - without discussion - and - without WP:CONSENSUS - by an WP:SPA ip editor - per WP:OWN? - Should these edits, regarding the actual history of nature (ie, real history based on scientific facts) - and - related to the article content - be restored to the Scopes Trial article? - per WP:BALANCE and/or WP:PSCI - Comments Welcome from editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 23:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The timelines are inappropriate for this article. Had the IP editor not been abusive and simply brought up this talk, would have been done with already. Vyselink ( talk) 01:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Drbogdan: A) Wasn't aware that anything other than a yes or no was required in the replies, so the sarcasm is unnecessary. B) I think that before we can declare this settled it needs to be allowed to percolate for more than a few hours. Vyselink ( talk) 05:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Good points, and in accordance have removed the timelines. The Scopes trial was specifically about teaching human evolution, and they're anachronistic as young earth creationism wasn't significant enough at the time to be a factor. The nearest thing to a relevant point in the text is a passing reference "to the creation science movement of the 1960s". There may be a case for finding sources which relate the trial to contemporary flood geology, but that was a tiny minority view at the time, when old Earth creationism was much more prominent. . . dave souza, talk 16:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JonGreenberger.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Scopes Trial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the scare quotes from "modern science" in the lede. It's not attributed to a source. It's unnecessary, ambiguous, and editorializing. Duckscoot ( talk) 21:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Monkey vs. scopes trial. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 29#Monkey vs. scopes trial until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
06:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed it, but don't see the start date of the trial. 76.88.55.202 ( talk) 18:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear, and reasonably supported by evidence and policy. BD2412 T 04:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Scopes Trial → Scopes trial – per WP:NCCPT QueenofBithynia ( talk) 21:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
regularly uppercasedis not the standard. Wallnot ( talk) 16:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
consistently capitalized in a substantial majorityof sources. That would obviously include sources published before 2019. And substantial majority is a much higher bar than
about even. Wallnot ( talk) 02:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
could technically be described as "just a descriptive term"), this is not intrinsically a proper name. While John and Boston are true proper nouns and readily identified as such, the article, proper noun, would continue and observe that cases such as this here are less than clear. The dictionary sources cited far from resolve the matter that this can
technically be described as "just a descriptive term"(Dictionary.com would have us compare this with common noun,
a noun that may be preceded by an article or other limiting modifier- such as is the case here). While MOS:CAPS acknowledges that caps are necessary for proper nouns (
capitalization is primarily needed for proper names), it does not attempt to define a priori what a proper noun is but relies on empirical evidence (
Wikipedia relies on [usage in] sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized) to resolve cases such as this. It also sets a standard to be met to determine if capitalisation is necessary. It does not create the exception you would suggest if one reads the lead in full. It is precisely because this case can
technically be described as "just a descriptive term"that WP relies on usage in sources to determine what we capitalise. As such, we are left to determine the matter by usage in source per MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.Capitalisation of trial is not inherently necessary. That it might be capitalised is determined by consistent capitalisation in sources. Per the ngram evidence, it does not meet this threshold. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The citation for "Darrow originally declined, fearing his presence would create a circus atmosphere, but eventually realized that the trial would be a circus with or without him, and agreed to lend his services to the defense" appears to be Summer for the Gods by Edward Larson, but nothing in that book implies such. In fact, Summer for the Gods says that "Darrow volunteered his service" (pg. 73) and that "several of [the ACLU's] members feared that Darrow's militant agnosticism would imperil Scopes' defense" (pg. 73). As made clear on page 100, the ACLU "did not want Darrow anywhere near [the Scopes trial]." The ACLU had instead been considering former presidential nominees in order to parallel Bryan's political career - Darrow had made the offer to one of the attorneys, John Neal, who accepted it without consulting Scopes or the ACLU.
If we keep the current language, I think it is necessary to cite sources for it. If sources cannot be found, then we should rewrite this paragraph. Mossgazer ( talk) 20:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Scopes trial ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 7 March 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scopes trial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 21, 2007, July 21, 2009, July 21, 2010, July 21, 2012, July 21, 2015, July 21, 2017, July 21, 2018, and July 21, 2019. |
−10 — – −9 — – −8 — – −7 — – −6 — – −5 — – −4 — – −3 — – −2 — – −1 — – 0 — | (
O. praegens) ( O. tugenensis) (
Ar. kadabba) (
Ar. ramidus) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
−4500 — – — – −4000 — – — – −3500 — – — – −3000 — – — – −2500 — – — – −2000 — – — – −1500 — – — – −1000 — – — – −500 — – — – 0 — |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Original {{Life timeline}} and {{Human timeline}} edits have been removed (ie, 1 2 3 4 5 6) - without discussion - and - without WP:CONSENSUS - by an WP:SPA ip editor - per WP:OWN? - Should these edits, regarding the actual history of nature (ie, real history based on scientific facts) - and - related to the article content - be restored to the Scopes Trial article? - per WP:BALANCE and/or WP:PSCI - Comments Welcome from editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 23:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The timelines are inappropriate for this article. Had the IP editor not been abusive and simply brought up this talk, would have been done with already. Vyselink ( talk) 01:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Drbogdan: A) Wasn't aware that anything other than a yes or no was required in the replies, so the sarcasm is unnecessary. B) I think that before we can declare this settled it needs to be allowed to percolate for more than a few hours. Vyselink ( talk) 05:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Good points, and in accordance have removed the timelines. The Scopes trial was specifically about teaching human evolution, and they're anachronistic as young earth creationism wasn't significant enough at the time to be a factor. The nearest thing to a relevant point in the text is a passing reference "to the creation science movement of the 1960s". There may be a case for finding sources which relate the trial to contemporary flood geology, but that was a tiny minority view at the time, when old Earth creationism was much more prominent. . . dave souza, talk 16:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JonGreenberger.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Scopes Trial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the scare quotes from "modern science" in the lede. It's not attributed to a source. It's unnecessary, ambiguous, and editorializing. Duckscoot ( talk) 21:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Monkey vs. scopes trial. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 29#Monkey vs. scopes trial until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
06:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed it, but don't see the start date of the trial. 76.88.55.202 ( talk) 18:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear, and reasonably supported by evidence and policy. BD2412 T 04:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Scopes Trial → Scopes trial – per WP:NCCPT QueenofBithynia ( talk) 21:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
regularly uppercasedis not the standard. Wallnot ( talk) 16:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
consistently capitalized in a substantial majorityof sources. That would obviously include sources published before 2019. And substantial majority is a much higher bar than
about even. Wallnot ( talk) 02:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
could technically be described as "just a descriptive term"), this is not intrinsically a proper name. While John and Boston are true proper nouns and readily identified as such, the article, proper noun, would continue and observe that cases such as this here are less than clear. The dictionary sources cited far from resolve the matter that this can
technically be described as "just a descriptive term"(Dictionary.com would have us compare this with common noun,
a noun that may be preceded by an article or other limiting modifier- such as is the case here). While MOS:CAPS acknowledges that caps are necessary for proper nouns (
capitalization is primarily needed for proper names), it does not attempt to define a priori what a proper noun is but relies on empirical evidence (
Wikipedia relies on [usage in] sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized) to resolve cases such as this. It also sets a standard to be met to determine if capitalisation is necessary. It does not create the exception you would suggest if one reads the lead in full. It is precisely because this case can
technically be described as "just a descriptive term"that WP relies on usage in sources to determine what we capitalise. As such, we are left to determine the matter by usage in source per MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.Capitalisation of trial is not inherently necessary. That it might be capitalised is determined by consistent capitalisation in sources. Per the ngram evidence, it does not meet this threshold. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The citation for "Darrow originally declined, fearing his presence would create a circus atmosphere, but eventually realized that the trial would be a circus with or without him, and agreed to lend his services to the defense" appears to be Summer for the Gods by Edward Larson, but nothing in that book implies such. In fact, Summer for the Gods says that "Darrow volunteered his service" (pg. 73) and that "several of [the ACLU's] members feared that Darrow's militant agnosticism would imperil Scopes' defense" (pg. 73). As made clear on page 100, the ACLU "did not want Darrow anywhere near [the Scopes trial]." The ACLU had instead been considering former presidential nominees in order to parallel Bryan's political career - Darrow had made the offer to one of the attorneys, John Neal, who accepted it without consulting Scopes or the ACLU.
If we keep the current language, I think it is necessary to cite sources for it. If sources cannot be found, then we should rewrite this paragraph. Mossgazer ( talk) 20:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)