Talk:Teach the Controversy

GENERAL COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Template:GC This article is one of several all featuring ORIGINAL RESEARCH by a handful of polemical writers who insist that only their view remains. One problem is that this same original research has been intentionally spread over a number of other articles under other names, but all dealing with the same subject matter. Below this notice is a partial list of similar articles, because it is not known precisely how many of these articles have been created. However, by observing the current article it will be discovered that it is overlengh and that its many references and links belong to other related articles on Wikipedia. Heavy editing according to Wikipedia style; conformity to a proper use of the English language and prevention of religious POV is immediately required and requested. MPLX/MH 19:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

The original discussion had exceeded the normal length of pages. Please find the entire prior discussion here:

STRAW POLLS AND CONTINUING TALK:

Merge and Delete staw polls with continuing commentary:

MERGE

Strawpoll: Should we merge this article into the Discovery Institute article? (6/5/0). This is a non-binding straw poll, to discover if consensus has been found. Please leave your opinion below. It is considered polite to give a reason for your opinion, to facilitate discussion.

Yes, we should merge

Merge MPLX/MH 04:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Amended due to the change of status of the poll): This article is badly written because it is a vanity article pushing a book written by a person without the qualifications to write it; it is also a duplicate of a book article, a author article and an organization article (and there may be more!) - all on Wikipedia. The article is badly written, unencyclopedic and a fraud that begins by claiming that a controversy exists over Darwinism being taught in US public schools when Darwinism has been replaced by current scientific enquiry. This article could be merged into the book article, the Johnson article or the Discovery article (and there could be and probably are more of them.)
Merge. The apparent impossibility of agreement on the content of the article is, I think, at least in part the result of its subject being a single political project of the Discovery Institute rather than a topic in its own right. There is, as MPLX/MH says, nothing here that isn't already, or that could easily be, covered by other existing articles. Thus this article serves merely to spread a topic dear to the hearts of its supporters over as much of Wikipedia as possible. If either the Discovery Institute or Phillip Johnson articles were long and rich, then there'd be a point in separating this out — but they're not, so there isn't. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Having spent the last 2 1/2 hours reading the discussions, different versions of this article and the Discovery Institute article, I feel that the best NPOV analysis of "Teach the Controversy" is within the Discovery Institute article and that despite valiant efforts on the part of several editors (both pro and con) expansion of this subject is well-nigh impossible without degenerating into POV from either one side or the other. Furthermore, I have not seen any convincing evidence that the "Teach the Controversy" movement exists in any significant way separate from the Discovery Institute. Soundguy99 18:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Note to those protesting that the articles aren't duplicates—yes, that's true. Merging is also used when one article fits well within the context of another. Since Teach the Controversy seems to be almost entirely a project of the Discovery Institute, then it seems to fit quite comfortably within that article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge. This whole thing makes no sense outside of the Discovery Institute's agenda. It isn't a separate movement. Ian Pitchford 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Creation and evolution in public education is worthy of its own article, but a specific slogan used by a single group in that controversy is not. RadicalSubversiv E 21:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge. (with redirect). We can include the information on the DI page and if it gets too unweildy restart this page. Joshuaschroeder 22:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Concur with the above. R adiant _* 10:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

No, we should not merge

Do not merge. Ungtss 11:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do not merge. Merging would be a violation of Wiki policy, because these are not duplicate articles and the topic stands on its own. Teach the Controversy policy is supported by numerous other organizations (see cites above); has been approved by Congress; adopted by Ohio, Minnesota and New Mexico (see article). Those who want to merge want to bury this article in another article because they don't like the concept. They want it to appear that it is only about the Discovery Institute and deny the broader support and implementation by Ohio. This is pure POV and has no place on Wiki. --VorpalBlade 14:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do not merge. Topic has been debated by school boards, and plenty of organisations outside Discovery institute. This would be like merging Theory of Relativity with Albert Einstein. DJ Clayworth 17:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do not merge. Topic has been discussed in multiple areas. I have actually heard very few debates on Teach The Controversy where the Discovery Institue has been mentioned. It is now easy to find critiques of evolution outisde of the Discovery Institute. User: Mred64 17;06, 21 Apr, 2005 (EST)

My vote should probably be in the Newbie vote section, but I don't want to mess with the poll and accidentally change something. I didn't see a "Newbie vote" section when I originally posted my vote. Mred64 22:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Newbie vote

Do not merge. Topic has enough information behind it to warrant a seperate page from the DI, and has been picked up by other organizations outside of the DI. This article can warrant as a timeline of the movement's life, outside of the DI's birthing. Whether or not the entire article deserves heavy rewriting is aside from the matter at hand. I'm still laughing over the 'eating babies' comment. TheRayven 16:11, 21 Apr 2005 (EST)
- User has only five edits.

Alleged vote

Grace Note is apparently voting no, but placed her comments below. She says in part, "First of all, I don't think this is a particularly significant "movement" but I'm a proponent of broad coverage for Wikipedia, so I support a separate article. I think we ought not to use our POVs to determine what there should or shouldn't be articles on, only criteria such as "Is there actually a movement?", "Does it have a platform that can be discussed and criticised?", "Does it have a membership?" and so on." --VorpalBlade 10:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I couldn't find anything signed 'Grace Note' below, or in the history log, so I fail to see how that can be construed as a vote. R adiant _* 10:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- See about half way down Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive5. Seems like a clear preference for not merging; whether it should be counted as a vote is a question of wikiquette that I'm not qualified to answer. Gareth McCaughan 14:16, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

VOTE FOR DELETION

For:

1. Very well. I've voted for deletion. It's obvious that proponents of the movement are going to keep changing the page until the mainstream has been edited out completely. As I've pointed out before even reference to a scholarly work on the movement has been deleted, which gives some indication of how genuine is the desire for consensus and balance. Ian Pitchford 17:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Because editing this article which has been duplicated on Wikipedia under other names, is impossible. I agree with Ian. Delete. MPLX/MH 15:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Against:

1. your concerns about bias do not justify vfd, your vfd was made after the vote here failed, and your actions are extremely improper. vive l'inquisition. Ungtss 17:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RESTORED TO VERSION BY MEL

This version was agreed to. It is still over the length. VorpalBlade decided to reinsert his own POV version which is way out of line in both content and length. The opening was agreed to as stated FACT and the rest should be brought in line. THIS ARTICLE IS ALSO A DUPLICATE OF AT LEAST TWO OTHERS ON WIKIPEDIA and zealots are trying to paste their POV everywhere and in so doing they are destroying the entire academic concept of Wikipedia as a sourse of RELIABLE knowledge. 14:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

calm down, bro. This article needs to fairly describe the policy, the pros, and the cons. that doesn't rape wikipedia in any way at all. Ungtss 15:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your version was never agreed to. It was very misleading and involved deletion of 120+ lines without explanation or discussion. --VorpalBlade 15:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

STOP MISLEADING! - The agreed version was not mine it was by Mel and it is noted below! MPLX/MH 15:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss STOP DELETING MY COMMENTS ON TALK! MPLX/MH 15:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MPLX If you really believe that Ungtss has been editing your comments on talk, please give the edit where this happened. I checked back on this talk page as far as 12.00 April 24th and I can't find it. DJ Clayworth 16:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) (incidentally this comment was also erased accidentally - maybe that's what happened to yours)

How does one erase accidentally? The paragraph below was originally posted and then it disappeared under his editing, unless you are he and that is the reason for your concern in something that he did? Sockpuppets and vandals have recently appeared on this page. Check the history. MPLX/MH 18:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accidental erasures can occur when there is an edit conflict, and an editor incorrectly copies their additions into the top box. It can also occur when you revert a change, and fail to notice that there was more than just the change you wish to revert. Another way is when you are removing duplicate sections and when someone modifies one section between you reading the sections and pressing edit. That is what I believe happened when my original posting of the above question was erased.

As I said, I did check the history and failed to find any case where Ungtss deleted any comments of yours, or any other comments, from this talk page. Now I may have been mistaken, which is why I asked you where this erasure had taken place. Then maybe we can do something about it. DJ Clayworth 19:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I finally found where your entry was erased, and it was done by VorpalBlade, not Ungtss. Wild accusations don't help things here.

VorpalBlade, please don't do that again. It's very bad etiquette. DJ Clayworth 21:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOW REVERTED BY Ungtss

The 2 MAJOR reversions that have now taken place to destroy the agreed opening text by Mel and partial layout of classification show that this is a hopeless editing undertaking. THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE LOCKED BY ADMINS AT THE AGREED VERSION BY MEL. Then several related and duplicated POV articles should also be examined by Admins because they carry the SAME religious message by the SAME editors under different names. Clearly a handful of people have decided to use Wikipedia as their own personal means of religious propaganda. Editing is now a hopeless and lost cause on this topic which covers so many other articles under different names on Wikipedia. The bad faith is shown by destroying the agreed opening version by Mel which stated facts and which has been reverted to poorly written nonsense. MPLX/MH 15:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DATE OF AGREED VERSION BY MEL

To find the date of the agreed version by Mel please see the history of the article and look for this date and these comments by Mel:

21:34, 24 Apr 2005 Mel Etitis (manually rerting (admin rollback seems to be up the spout), and correcting ) (Text follows):

Teach the Controversy is an idea proposed by author Phillip E. Johnson and promoted by the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, of which he is a member, to encourage public schools students in the United States to both debate and critically evaluate all current scientific evidence concerning the theory of evolution.

Members of the the Discovery Institute who support the proposal include Michael Behe, David Berlinski, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer and Jonathan Wells. Substantial financial support for the proposal is provided by Howard Ahmanson, Jr and The Maclellan Foundation [1].

Controversy

Opponents, including most mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach.

Can I point out that the first person to edit this 'agreed' version is the same MPLX who is now complaining that an admin should lock the article at that version. In these two edits MPLX cuts out an enormous amount of the article. That doesn't sound much like it was an agreed version. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did NOT disagree with the text reproduced above which is the only part that was agreed to because it is a statement of FACT. This is is not a movement, it has no officers, no organization, no address other than the idea by Phillip E. Johnson, promotion by the Discovery Institute and funding by Howard Ahmanson, Jr. But because it is a duplicate of other articles under other names about the same subject it should be merged. I removed the OBVIOUS duplications of links and texts that had nothing to do with a proposed idea called Teach the Controversy. MPLX/MH 16:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know what you think about the movement. However you should not call for an admin lock if the only part of the article that has been agreed on is the introduction. DJ Clayworth 16:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on some facts. I read in the current version of the introduction "has been explicitly endorsed and promoted by other creationist organizations, including Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, Leadership University [1] (http://www.leaderu.com/focus/teachcontroversy.html), Renew America [2] (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/041004) and BreakPoint [3] (http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint_Commentaries1&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=15454). ". Is this factually true? We should be able to find out by following the links. If it is true, then the statement should stay. Isn't that the logical thing to do? DJ Clayworth 16:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No its not. First of all this Talk page has duplicated sections in it and I am trying to straighten this mess out. Second it is obvious that you just want to continue with obfuscation. The article is on Wikipedia - NOT in ORIGINAL RESEARCH! MPLX/MH 16:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you meant that "no the statement is not true" or "no it's not the logical thing to do"? DJ Clayworth 17:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COMPLAINT ABOUT ORIGINAL RESEARCH

This article contains a novelty of interpretation forming original research concerning a idea being translated into a movement. The title of the article is "Teach the Controversy" - it is a proposal of future action - not an ongoing activity. The controversy would occur (future) if the idea was put into practice. However, the word idea has been changed to movement, yet there is no movement having a policy, officers and address. The idea was proposed by Johnson and taken up by the Discovery Institute as a part of their agenda. Both receive financing from the same source. Another word for this same idea is wedge as in wedge strategy, and there are several articles on Wikipedia which all need to be examined since they are all primarily the work of the same editors who are driving the polemical and original research interpretation of this article. MPLX/MH 19:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is original research. If you are right, then it's been mislabelled as a movement when it should be an idea. That can be fixed with a single edit. The ban on original research is to stop Wikipedia authors using Wikipedia to promote theories that they have come up with. For other theories the criterion is simply whether or not the movement/idea is notable. That doesn't mean lots of people support it, it means that lots of people have heard of it.

There is also no reason to remove this article, or merge it, just because the article is about a call for future action instead of action that is going on now. We have an article about Nuclear disarmament, which is a proposal for future action (it even says that right in the introduction). I don't think a movement (or an idea) needs an address before we can talk about it. We have plenty of articles that don't. DJ Clayworth 20:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is an attempt to define a situation that doesn't exist in order to promote a propaganda campaign. Clearly, it's not suitable material for Wikipedia. Ian Pitchford 20:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that nobody is talking about "Teach the Controversy", because that doesn't seem to be the case. As I'm sure you're aware, the threshold for notability is pretty low on Wikipedia. You will find, for example, that there is an article talking about the theory that Reptilian humanoids have invaded the earth, and Modern geocentrism. Teach the Controversy is much better know, and probably more agreed with, than those. DJ Clayworth 21:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the article refers to a state of affairs that doesn't exist, i.e. controversy in scientific circles over the status of evolutionary theory, in order to advocate a "remedy" that is, in fact, a vehicle for promotion of the group's political and religious agenda. It's all very straightforward. Ian Pitchford 21:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are two states of affairs in discussion here. first is the state of affairs that you're concerned with: the presence of a controversy. the second is the existence of people calling for a "Teach the Controversy" policy. Even conceding for the sake of argument that the first state of affairs does not exist, the second one does. This article should concern itself with the second state of affairs, which is factual, and note as related to that fact that the scientific community tells us over and over like a mantra that there is no controversy to teach. it's all very easy, gentlemen. there's a very easy way for you to vanquish your foe in this case. simply put your energy into a kick-ass criticism section. Ungtss 21:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like an mantra? Is that surprising when you are faced with people who refuse to be swayed by facts, who fixate on little bits taken out of context? It's a article about a fake movement pushing a fake controversy - forget about DI - we should just redirect to The Daily Show? Guettarda 22:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to be drawn into a debate with you. your comments are irrelevent to the content of the article. put all your hatred of us stupid, ignorant creationists in a kickass criticism section. don't waste your time on me. i'm a lost cause. too ignorant and bigoted. no hope for me. but maybe you can help the reader by allowing TTC to make all its best arguments, and then obliterating them. Ungtss 22:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hate? Not really. Not the people who actually believe it. The cynics who twist reality for their own ends, who knowingly publish books based on falsehoods - I'd say I'm pretty upset with them. The followers - I'm saddened, nothing more. It's ridiculous to copy the same thing into a half dozen articles and then have to edit-war to even get something halfway NPOV. I came here with an open mind as to whether "Teach the Controversy" was something real enough for an article. I didn't vote in the straw poll, I spent a few days looking around and trying to figure out what the correct thing to do with the article was. Sure, I came here well enough aware that this was just another one of Johnson's fantasies. But that has little to do with whether there was enough distinct information here to warrant a distinct article. And my conclusion was "no". More to the point though, this dispute was not about whether this movement was a big enough deal to have an article - what it amounts to is an attempt to push POV. So while I voted "merge", based on the antics here (and I'm not just talking about one side) I should have voted "delete". [And yes, I did fix the VfD notice, but that was after it was already up]. And if you consider yourself "ignorant and bigoted" (not my words, not my choice of words) then you should really think twice about whether you should be editting this article at all. Guettarda 22:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you couldn't identify my sarcasm in calling myself bigoted, can't recognize that the duplication been a result of evolutionists copying this material elsewhere in an effort to demonstrate redundancy in the name of a bizarre conspiracy theory, and are still trying to bait me into an irrelevent debate. i want this article to consolidate all the information on this policy. It is your homies who are copying this stuff everywhere they can think of. Ungtss 22:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss this is for you: You have a bee in your bonnet that everyone who is opposed to this article is opposed to the idea of God. That is false. I am in total agreement with the opening words of the US Declaration that attributes everything to "Nature's God" and the "Laws of Nature", but like Tom Paine who helped to inspire all of that, I am one of those who read his book the Age of Reason and found myself nodding in approval. I dislike all man-made religion, but it does not mean that I do not believe in "Nature's God" and the "Laws of Nature", because I do. I am against the hypocrisy of man-made religion - its lies and its distortions and its wars of hate ... all of which are showing up here with the flag wavers. The FACT of the matter is that this was Johnson's IDEA adopted by the Discovery Institute and made a part of their agenda - their movement. It has NOT been adopted and therefore it is (as the title implies) a proposal to teach ... not teaching ... but future: to teach the idea which will then create controversy. You lot want to brand everyone who disagrees with poor English, a misstatement of the obvious facts and a long and rambling duplicated bit of polemical nonsense, as atheists who hate God. That is the problem. In your view this is a religious dogma that you either accept or reject - in your terminology it is either "them" or "us". You seem to forget that we are all co-equal editors here on a encyclopedia. We are not in church and we are not going to get excommunicated if we stand up and say that this is a load of old cobblers ... because "Nature's God" and the "Laws of Nature" have made us all equal in death. So back off and remember where you are. This is not a church (thank God for that!), this is a encyclopedia and we are all editors looking for just the facts. MPLX/MH 22:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<You have a bee in your bonnet that everyone who is opposed to this article is opposed to the idea of God. That is false.>>

You're damn right it's false. i said nothing of the sort. I could care less what you think about god and religion. i've never met you and i never will. i'm concerned with an npov article here, and you have proven yourself deadset on preventing it. ttc exists and is notable. we need an npov article describing the policy and criticism. your problem is that you think your perception of "my religion" as "man made religion full of hypocrisy" and whatnot should justifies its exclusion from wikipedia. wrongo. your religion is no better than mine, and npov allows them all to coexist in harmony, if we're all willing to play by the rules. Ungtss 23:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I can't tell when you are being sarcastic and when you are not being sarcastic because that is how I understood your comments. Stop being sarcastic and then we will all know what you mean. Now to your NPOV comment I am all for that but you see you keep renaming an IDEA as a POLICY of a MOVEMENT. There was an idea by Johnson which was accepted as the policy of the Discovery Institute. But as the name implies it is a FUTURE controversy IF the policy of the DI was ever adopted. Stick to the facts and we will get along just fine. MPLX/MH 23:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When people call themselves bigoted and a "lost cause," check twice for sarcasm. Secondly, here are the facts: "Teach the controversy, according its proponents, is a policy advocated for public schools which recommends that they teach facts but in support of and challenging evolution." Those are the facts. That's it. Conspiracy theories go home. That's what the idea/movement/whatever is. Ungtss 23:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you now want to pretend that Johnson and the DI had nothing to do with "Teach the Controversy"? That is what we are discussing, not one of the many other duplicate articles, or have you forgotten which page you are on? MPLX/MH 23:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(restoring text inadvertantly deleted by mplx. please be more cautious). Listen. i want the intro to state what the idea is, who came up with the term, and who supports it. your intro only does the second. that's ludicrous. Ungtss 23:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having two comments ongoing in two sections is confusing. See all of my further comments under your "intro" heading. MPLX/MH 23:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

General note

I have twice removed massive duplicated sections of the same page due to careless editing. This clean-up takes time. Please be sure that you are not saving material twice. All previous material except for polls (and duplicated material) is now on archive 6. MPLX/MH 22:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Introduction (first paragraph of article)

your intro, mplx, is utter nonsense. Ungtss 23:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now which intro is that and why is it "utter nonsense"? As usual you have made a statement which lacks meaning. MPLX/MH 23:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) it doesn't state what ttc is -- what the idea is. second, it ties TTC to johnson + DI when, as demonstrated on the VFD, the ideas of TTC predate johnson, and johnson only put a label on a very old idea. next, your last sentence lacks any coherent meaning whatsoever. "if the idea was ever accepted as reality?" The idea is accepted as reality -- the idea exists and is being promoted by a lot of people. secondly, there is a controversy -- the controversy is over whether or not there's a controversy to teach. Finally, "which is how the name of this idea evolved." Evolved? How did the name evolve? Johnson came up with it. That's it. The intro is sheer nonsense, bro. Ungtss 23:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fact: If you want to discuss something other than "Teach the Controvery" then take it somewhere else! This idea began with Johnson in his book. It was adopted by the DI. The title of this article is a FUTURE event, it is not something that has happened in the past. If that is not what this is about then even the article has the wrong name! This is why I asked Mel to wade in with English 101 and perform a clean-up of style and words. Clearly you are not up to this task but Mel has the qualifications that you cannot dispute. (Well, I take that back because you seem to dispute even the meaning of the word "evolve"!) MPLX/MH 23:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fact:TTC is an idea being discussed right now. It is a not a future event. It is a recommended policy. Fact: the policy of teaching pro/con on evolution is very old, and advocated by ICR long before johnson did it. Fact: the only task you've been upto is deleting arguments in favor of this idea. Ungtss 23:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you do agree that it is an idea? Second, whose policy is this? To have a policy (a policy) you have to have a organization with officers with an address. Where is this organization if it is not the DI? The title says that it is a future event that will cause a controversy. If that is not what this is about then rename the article! MPLX/MH 23:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me take a step back. what is this future event you're talking about? Ungtss 23:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heaven help us all! WHERE ARE YOU MEL?????? The title indicates a future event. If it was "Teaching the Controversy" it would be ongoing. The title as written is an instruction to do something that has not yet happened: teach. Teach what? Teach the Controversy. So there is no controversy until the teaching begins! MPLX/MH 23:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Come back to reality. The controversy is the "pro-con" on evolution. according to proponents, the controversy already exists, it's just not being taught in schools. They're saying: "The controversy exists. Teach it." Ungtss 23:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Ungtss, at last you have identified the problems:

This article was named Teach the Controversy about an idea proposed in a book written by Johnson.
Johnson is a member of the DI who adopted Johnson's idea.
The only "policy" is that of the DI because THIS article is about Johnson's idea in a book, it is NOT about a movement.
The title is not a "come on now" issue, it was named "Teach the Controversy". I did not give this article its name. The name is future tense - not present - nor past - it is future. The controversy is also future because Johnson's idea is stated in the future tense. MPLX/MH 23:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're still missing it. The future tense refers to teach, not to controversy. according to creationists, the controversy already exists -- it's simply not being taught. Teach (in the future) the controversy (that already exists). Ungtss 23:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not about anything more than an idea in Johnson's book. He gave it a name and others adopted the idea. But his idea remains on this article an idea and therefore any controversy that would flow from the teaching of that idea would be as future as the teaching. You cannot have one without the other. However, since it is obvious that you are trying to make this article into something other than what it is, you want to predate the idea before Johnson ever gave it a name. But that is not what this article is all about. It is only about Johnson's idea and it is stuck in time and cannot be moved. Now the DI can move it ahead but this article is not about the DI ... or is it? You are setting your own trap! MPLX/MH 00:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)