Talk:Level of support for evolution/Archive 3

are there any pro-science editors here?
Imbrella has still failed to raise any specific issues with this article, so I have moved this thread to her talkpage (if you want to debate her further, then do so there). An article's talkpage is a forum for the discussion of improvements to the article, not a soapbox for vague complaints and rants. HrafnTalkStalk 12:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I venture that we shun Imbrella - unless he/she brings up a valid point, just ignore it. I've wasted enough time here.  Imbrella - if you bring up a point we consider worth addressing, we will address it.  Otherwise, consider a complete lack of response to your comment a consensus that your suggestion has no merit.  We all monitor these pages, so we're all reading your comments, and we have all read what you've written to date.  And to date, consensus is a complete lack of merit to your contributions.  Go elsewhere.  Edit.  Come back and read.  If you still feel the need to post, do so in an appropriate manner.  WLU 14:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this cite #91 goes no where
In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry.[91] +   + And this resource is erroneous. Imbrella 14:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you have sources that dont even exist. Imbrella 14:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

??? It goes here. ScienceApologist 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Numerous copies of the article in this citation do in fact exist. The link in question was semi-broken (in that the portal it led to would not give easy access to the article), so I relinked it to a still-viable copy. No real issue -- the sort of thing that real editors handle all the time, without making a song and dance on the talkpage about it. HrafnTalkStalk 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at the complaints. Frankly, they are baseless.--Filll 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd reply, but I'm still shunning. I've added some citation templates, and made a wording change in that section.  WLU 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dead links is a problem I also have when I save journal articles to my Favorites when Im dong literature searches. It is good to report dead links but it is not a major issue-more a technical problem with Wikipedia. I haven't read all of Imbrella's comment but much seems a rant that no other editor understands science is my first impression. I can't find specific complaints about content only complaints about choices of citations. Actually, we could use peer-reviewed literature and books to support a posit rather than use Talkorigins (which was my initial response too), but for an encyclopedia Talkorigins has the advantage of being accessible and a resource for the novice, and it contains similar citations and references from books and journals. My knee jerk response was not to use Talkorgins as a reference but for an encyclopedia it really offers a wealth of info and addresses common questions and misconceptions, so I see the advantages (I would agree some material is dated). In regard to Imbrella he appears to be trolling and perhaps WLU is correct to ignore. Regards, GetAgrippa 01:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I should learn how to use those tools for capturing links so they never go bad. Anyway, I see plenty of problems with this article, which is why I have been working on rewriting it. However, people seem to complain about the silliest things, IMHO.--Filll 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

recent trends section
This section is full of OR. If I delete all sentences that are OR, the following will remain

''*The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[20] representing about 0.158% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that it had secured the endorsements of about 600 scientists after several years' effort.

''*The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.[131]

''*The National Science Foundation/Science Resources Statistics Division estimates that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.[132]

''*Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.054% of the roughly 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists that existed in the US in 1999.

''* A large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters are mathematicians, physicists, engineers and others. Ken Chang of the New York Times found that in February of 2006, about 75.1% of the Darwin Dissenters were not biologists.[133]

''* The list of Darwin Dissenters includes many non-US scientists.

* It should also be noted that the statement signed by the Darwin Dissenters merely expresses skepticism about evolution, and is not a ringing endorsement of supernatural intervention in the natural world.

Of course this is now terribly pulled apart and patchwork, but it would be a start to condense the section into something less OR. Some other things to consider: ....as a start Northfox 10:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Add public to the first sentence: The level of public support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal.
 * 2) The first paragraph mixed data from US scientists with data of scientists all over the world.
 * 3) round the number to 1.1 million in paragraph 4.


 * Northfox: have you any hard (i.e. quantitative, not anecdotal) evidence that level of "public support for creationism among relevant scientists" is different from the level of "support for creationism among relevant scientists"? Otherwise insertion of "public" is nothing more than illegitimate equivocation. HrafnTalkStalk 11:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn here. This is a request for a nonsense rewording. You want to insert the word "Public"? ?? What does that mean?

Look, what has often been claimed by creationists (I probably can and should find a link) is that the level of support for scientists for creationism is growing, that evolution is increasingly a failed theory etc. This is complete nonsense, and in fact the opposite is closer to correct. To be able to put these claims and the numbers collected by the Discovery Institute in proper context, one has to know how many scientists in relevant fields has the DI found compared to the total number of scientists in the relevant fields. And that is what is done in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your points 2 and 3 are silly as well. Of course data from the US is mixed with data from the entire world in that one paragraph, but you already claimed that observation was OR. So which is it?


 * It is quite clear from the first sentence of my discussion that the remaining sentences (and with them the last sentences of the first paragraph) are the ones that I think at NOT original research. Correct? Isn't it also correct that the 480,000 number is about US scientists, and the DI's 600 are world wide? I do not see any discrepancy in my argument here. Just a request for an clarification that the DI number is a world wide figure.Northfox 13:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rounding can be done but it will not change the final figures much. If the numbers are rounded, someone will claim this is OR. Better to just quote the numbers exactly as they are.--Filll 11:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * but the text says roughly, and then gives a number down to the rounded hundred of a one million figure. So if it is roughly, not exactly, it can be rounded to two significant digits, IMHO. Northfox 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, back to my original proposal to drain all the OR from that section. Anyone wants to try to get rid of all the it can be estimated, therefore, it is likely, seem to indicate blatant original research sentences? Northfox 14:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My comments here are to an old section, but if I'm going to comment on below, I might as well include them here.
 * I think the inclusion of 'public' would be silly. If scientists are unwilling to publically commit to criticizing evolution, that's a tactic endorsement of its worth.  I think public would be a weasel word in this context - it gives the impression that they disagree in private.
 * I don't see the mixing, but even looking for it, I don't see a problem here.
 * There's advantages and disadvantages to rounding - a precise number is very authoritative, but also very long. I have a slight preference to leave it as the more precise number.  WLU 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

recent public belief section
here is a summary of many polls over the years. This section here starts with the Gallup poll in 1991 that allowed for the analysis of university graduate responses, but the newer one (2005) doesn't quote any info about graduates. Would be nice if there was a comparison. Where to find the original Gallup data? Northfox 10:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This poll is garbage -- 19% of respondents think that it is definitely or probably true that "human beings developed over millions of years" and that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years", both at the same time. Two explicitly contradictory positions can't both be "probably true", let alone "definitely true". HrafnTalkStalk 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * it is not our job as editors to judge if a poll is garbage or not. Believe me - I got burned once trying that. As editors, we just have to report what is reported. And a newer report on graduate numbers would compliment the reported older numbers. Northfox 13:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A self-contradictory poll is by definition unreliable, and so impermissible. HrafnTalkStalk 14:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * is the poll self-contradictory, or are the people answering the poll self-contradictory? If the latter, the poll is still significant and can stay. I think you'll have a hard time prove the former. Northfox 14:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The poll reports self-contradictory results. It is thus unreliable. It should not be included in the article. Stop being obtuse. HrafnTalkStalk 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As such, it is a good example of how unreliable these polls are. In any case, these poll figures are not much different than what was obtained previously. To the best of my knowledge, the level of support by the public for creationism and evolution has been essentially stable for the last 100 years or so. At about the same level as these polls your link shows, which is about what is stated in the article. --Filll 11:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's so much on the page, I don't know what point is being supported - it could be useful as a source for the amount of public support for evolution, but it'd be difficult to pull out a single poll. I'd have to see a specific sentence mixed with a specific poll result.  And I'd rather it were linked to the actual poll than a summary site.  WLU 14:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Citaton templates
I went through the lead and changed everything to citation templates, and did a couple other MOS formatting things. I believe I caught all the changes between the original version I used and the current one, but feel free to check through. WLU 21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could people please check what these citation templates produce, rather than simply filling them in blindly. The templates for the Amicus Brief citation yielded a long-winded and not particularly informative citation. I have attempted to fix it, by making sure that mention of the brief came before the court case, and clearing out a long list of names of lawyers who were purely incidental to the reasons for inclusion. HrafnTalkStalk 13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I went through and constructed that particular template at an ENORMOUS expenditure time and thought on Evolution as theory and fact, but only because I couldn't figure a cleaner way of doing so. Your simplifications are a great improvement, I'll paste it over there.  WLU 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Section: Examining the level of public support
Most of this section is about belief and poll results in general and has very little direct connection to the article. I removed one particular OR paragraph. The rest should be revised, too. Northfox 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It gives context to popular disbelief in Evolution, by providing other instances of popular beliefs unsupported by scientific evidence. HrafnTalkStalk 07:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Per request from User: Filll, I detail my objections to the last paragraph of this section.

There are other difficulties in interpreting these results...

Says who? The editor? Then it is POV and should be removed. If a third party, then a citation is needed.

...because many of the survey questions are not well designed.

Says who? The editor? Then it is POV and should be removed. If a third party, then a citation is needed.

The poll results that follow this sentence could stay as they are, but if the surrounding paragraph is removed because of the serious OR and POV content, it makes little sense to keep the table with poll results, especially since the poll is mentioned above in the article.

Unfortunately,...

Says who? POV, should be removed.

...the answering options are not mutually exclusive,...

Says who? An editor, I assume since there is no citation. Should be removed, because it is OR.

Since most Americans probably hold a combination of the first and second options,...

This is the beginning of the most OR and POV sentences in this paragraph. Has to go.

...which correspond to theistic evolution,...

Says who? OR and should be deleted.

...this creates a difficulty.

with this POV, that sentence ends.

''People who support creationism might want to choose a combination of the second and third options. It is also conceivable that some respondents would want to choose a combination of 3 of the 4 options, or even all 4 options. Therefore, it is very difficult to interpret the poll results.''

Who decides who wants to chose what? As with the rest of this paragraph, this opinion is not sourced and thus not permissible on Wikipedia.

From these results, it appears to be difficult to ascertain the validity or usefulness of estimated public levels of belief.

A repeat of the previous sentence. POV. Should be deleted. Northfox 13:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Northfox here, the paragraph removed here did seem to be full of OR. The points may be valid, but without a citation this is very much OR to me.  That being said, I would think that a citation for these criticisms would not be difficult to find if you knew where to look.  Were a citation found, the section could easily stand either as is or with modification to conform to the citation.  I think the Public support section itself is somewhat problematic and walks a fine line of reporting and OR.  And the Political Identification table is just floating, without any real context.  Also, the spirit of this edit is a good one, but I think it requires adaptaion.  WLU 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I re-read, re-titled and re-wrote the entire section - I don't see what the beliefs about the paranormal and whatnot were doing in the section. In my mind, based on the evolution/creationism-specific citations that were there, the section was about the public's understanding of the epistemological, methodological and paradigmatic (or whatever polysyllabic words you want to insert) understanding of both camps positions or backgrounds.  There's still a large swath of text there that's commented out - I just don't see why it's there, it looked like it was there to portray the general public as scientifically illiterate or irrational, when I think it was a bit of a stretch to assume that from the evidence.  It's shorter, but it seems cleaner to me, with little to no OR.  Without specific links, I don't think the citations can be included in that section or even the page, since there's no actual mention of creationism or evolution in them.  WLU 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * More re-writing of the scientists section in question, and I removed the commented-out text completely. Please have a look, feel free to comment.  WLU 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Charts
Someone should check the accuracy of the tables in this article. I'm not saying that the data is false; I'm saying the tables might be accidentally mislabeled or simply confusing. --Armaetin (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV, please
"... it is also important in other countries where creationists are attempting to make inroads in the public discourse about education and research." -- Can we please NPOV-ify this? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the problem? --FOo (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is the implication that creationists are the "bad guys" and are attempting to upset some existing status quo.
 * - "inroad": 1. A hostile invasion; a raid. 2. An advance, especially at another's expense; an encroachment. Often used in the plural: Foreign products have made inroads into the American economy. - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition online)
 * I happen to agree that the Evolutionists are right and generally "good" and that the Creationists are wrong and by comparison "bad", but my opinion and yours aren't appropriate in the article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Better? WLU (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, no, unfortunately. Look at it this way. Would Creationists object to that phrasing? IMHO NPOV means that we have to phrase things so that both Evolutionists and Creationists should say "Yeah, that's fair. That's right." -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest as an alternative? Unfortunately given the manufactured creation-evolution controversy, creationists don't have much of a leg to stand on, and push a blatantly political agenda into non-political spheres.  In my opinion, the use of court challenges is an attempt to force education departments and schools to adopt a skewed, POV view of evolution.  And yes, I greatly enjoyed Creationism's Trojan Horse :)  All this makes it harder for me to write something that's going to be acceptable to creationists.  WLU (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Attempted NPOV fix. (Please note that this also shows text moved but not changed as red, so exaggerates my edits.)
 * We may want to tweak this a little, but I think it's pretty good as stands now.
 * I may also try some edits to other sections.
 * -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I also had a go... I'm not saying it's good, but it's there... WLU (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New survey
Evolution and Its Discontents: A Role for Scientists in Science Education -- conducted by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, covers acceptance of evolution, and a number of related issues. HrafnTalkStalk 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Eugenie C. Scott that might prove relevant
It's a blog comment, so unusable as a source. But i's links/interpretations may prove useful. HrafnTalkStalk 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eugenie Scott has her own page, and I think it's arguable that WP:SPS supports a judicious use of the information. She's a notable critic, a huge player in the culture wars.  WLU (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is usable since she is notable. However, we already have most, if not all, of that information with better sources.--Filll (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's a comment appended to somebody else's blog post, which I seem to remember is considered to be per se unreliable (probably as there's often no way of determining if the comment is from who it claims to be). HrafnTalkStalk 02:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek article
From main:


 * One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.85% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science. 

The Newsweek article is dubious - according to Conservapedia, which I do not trust, 700 scientists signed a letter saying that they supported Creationism, but it is not logical to conclude that every other scientist opposes it. It certainly seems to me there could be no adequate way of determining this 700 figure - surely not all scientists were polled? Evercat (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you would realise, if you had read Scott's comment quoted above, the 700 does not refer to signatories of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism but to membership of the Creation Research Society. HrafnTalkStalk 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I didn't, but it's still dubious. Presumably not every scientist who supports creationism is a member? Evercat (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This would seem to me to pass Verifiability. As far as I can tell, we should leave it in the article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly confused. This is indeed verifiable. And it is in agreement with other sources, such as the NIH article giving a 99.9% figure, and the estimates from the Discovery Institute list (which is hugely inflated by dishonesty of various kinds), and the estimates from the lists maintained by other creationist organizations. Even 99.9% appears to be an understimate and the real figure is closer to 99.995% or more. So 99.85% is perfectly believable and in fact far too generous and if anything an underestimate.--Filll (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to propose that we all agree here (aka Consensus) that this quote and cite (as removed by User:Evercat) are reasonable and should be restored to the article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea he had removed it. It figures...--Filll (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me Filll - I'm an atheist who reads Dawkins. But saying that because 700 scientists belong to a creationist organisation, so no other scientist supports creationism, is not logical. But if you can give a different reason for having a figure of around 99.85%, then go ahead. It is not the figure I object to, but the means by which it is arrived at.


 * By the way, since I don't have the Newsweek article in front of me, and can't find it on the web, it is possible that Hrafn and myself (and Eugenie Scott!) are mistaken about how the 99.85% figure was arrived at. But if we are not, I can't see how you can defend such obviously faulty logic. Evercat (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, what faulty logic would that be? The article states that this was reported in Newsweek. It was. The exact wording is included here in this article with a reference. And clearly the numbers are not that different than other estimates. And your problem with this is?--Filll (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The faulty logic of going from 700 members of a creationist group to nobody else being creationists. You think this is sound logic? Evercat (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Um ok. First, I am sure you have heard the expression, "Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth". This statistic comes out of a WP:RS publication and it is WP:V. So we use it.

Next, you or I do not know if the conjecture above is realistic. Neither does Eugenie Scott, who might or might not have posted that conjecture. My understanding is that the creationist society she is referring to had a membership of over 2000 or so at the time, so I do not put much stock in that "guess".

However, lets suppose that the guess is correct and examine it a bit. Not all members of a creationist organization or subscribers to their newsletter are necessarily creationists. For example, supporters of evolution might subscribe for laughs, or to chart the progress of the controversy. As a perfect example, at least 2 or more of the signatories of the Discovery Institute list are not creationists and have said so publicly. See the link above and the article A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

Next, typically only a fraction of the signatories of these lists or members of these groups are scientists (most are philosophers or English professors or historians or engineers), let alone scientists in the relevant field, let alone US citizens. Typically about 10-20% are scientists in the relevant fields, and 5% are scientists in the relevant fields and US citizens.

Of course, there might be a lot of secret creationists that are hard to find, and never would admit it on a survey or join an organization. However, no one can ferret them out and get a reasonable guess at how many there are, right? But creationism is antithetical to the actual practice of the science involved; you would have to violate your beliefs every day if you worked in radioactive dating or dendochronology, for example. So I doubt it.

Some like to count those who are subscribers to theistic evolution to bolster the numbers of creationists. However, the dispute with creationists has nothing to do with God, or why evolution exists; as some have said, "science is about how, not why". What possible conflict with science is there with someone who does not dispute any of the processes or mechanisms or interpretations of science?

So maybe you should reexamine your reasoning. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By showing how dubious the numbers are (in your 3rd and 4th paragraphs, above) and how difficult it is to go from such membership to actual beliefs, you've only strengthened my case that this is not a useful guide to what percentage of relevant scientists are creationists.


 * I agree that theistic evolution is not creationism.


 * In your 2nd paragraph, I'm not sure if you're trying to argue that actually we don't know how the "700 believers" in Newsweek was arrived at. But this would certainly be a valid point, which again undermines it as a source. It doesn't give its methodology.


 * "Of course, there might be a lot of secret creationists that are hard to find, and never would admit it on a survey or join an organization."


 * I would be perfectly happy with a survey. What I am not happy with is the claim that one would naturally expect all scientists who are creationists to belong to one specific creationist organisation (or indeed, any creationist organisation). I bet most scientists don't belong to some organisation set up to promote the theory of evolution either, but that doesn't mean they reject evolution. You just can't make the inference from "x number of members in organisation y" to "x number of people in the country who agree with organisation y's beliefs". Evercat (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confused. I never claimed that all scientists who are creationists belong to one organization. Neither does Wikipedia. Neither does Eugenie Scott. As far as we know, neither does Newsweek, right? We do not know how they got their numbers. All we know is they reported numbers.

Same with the NIH. We do not know where Alters got his numbers.

Same with the Gallup poll showing 5% of all scientists are creationists. What sort of scientists were surveyed? A lot of these jokers include engineers and medical doctors and mathematicians and philosophers etc as "scientists" and so this sort of estimate is flaky without more information. However, it is what we have, so we report it. If you want to do the hard work and find us more information, or other surveys, please do so. Otherwise, this hard work we have to do ourselves.

Same with the Discovery Institute List. Or the AiG list. Or the CMI list. Or a good half dozen other lists (although those are not surveys). All this is pretty flaky. But it is all that we have. Until we find someone willing to spend 10s of millions of dollars, if not more, to survey every single scientist working as a biologist or a geologist in the US, or a very large sample of them, and survey similar fractions of biologists and geologists in foreign countries, and devise some method to ferret out "secret creationists", as well as "secret evolutionists" (people who pretend to be creationists but really accept evolution, which the Discovery Institute Dissent list is laced with, apparently), then we will have lousy numbers. That is how it is. We report what we know, since WP is about verifiability, not truth. And we leave it up to the readers to do more original research. For Wikipedia to do more is forbidden by its rules on WP:OR.

Do you understand?--Filll (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I never claimed that all scientists who are creationists belong to one organization.


 * Great.


 * As far as we know, neither does Newsweek, right? We do not know how they got their numbers.


 * This is exactly the problem. At the very least, the text should mention this fact.


 * With regard to Verifiability, see my response to Writtenonsand at User_talk:Writtenonsand. Evercat (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Newsweek is a reliable source for this relatively minor comment. If you find an equally reliable source disputing it, you can discuss whether we should include it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try and get a hold of this Newsweek article, which I believe is at a library near me. Tomorrow, hopefully. Maybe it will make everything clear. Evercat (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy. I copied out the quote word for word. A creationist editor I was working with did the same. We checked it and put it into Wikipedia exactly as it is in Newsweek. Note that anything you want to put in must be in a reliable source and verifiable. --Filll (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I now have a photocopy of the article, and have corrected a couple of minor errors in the quote given (though is it possible I have some sort of international edition which differs from the U.S. version?) I have confirmed that it doesn't give its methodology, and without a credible source questioning it, I am therefore giving up.


 * I would however prefer it if the sentence in question was replaced with:


 * One 1987 estimate found that less than 0.15% of 480,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported creation science.


 * Simply because that's what the article says. It doesn't say they support evolution, and today someone might reject creation science (which is essentially young-earth creationism) but believe in "intelligent design" which is neither the mainstream theory of evolution nor creation science (which the article defines as "the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared abruptly") To see the distinction, note that ID people might say that complex life did not evolve and it did not appear abruptly. Evercat (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the original title is correct. The article does not say anything about "academic credentials". This is WP:OR and does not belong in the article. I think your version is different than what was in the United States version. I copied the text exactly as it appears in the article. The US article says nothing about 0.15%. Something else strange is that intelligent design did not exist in 1987 so no one could have defined it. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have in front of me a photocopy of the article I just made from a library and it's called "Keeping God Out of Class". And it does contain the words "with respectable academic credentials". Please stop accusing me of original research when I am simply correcting a quote.


 * As for 0.15%, you're correct that the article does not use this figure. Nor does it use the figure of 99.85%. It does say 700 out of 480,000, which is 0.15% when rounded to 2 decimal places.


 * And as for ID, I didn't claim it existed in 1987. I made the strictly logical point that evolution and creation science are not necessarily the only 2 possibilities (and I gave ID as an example to prove this, nothing more). The article states that that 700 (that is, 0.15%) scientists supported creation science, rather than giving a figure for how many supported evolution. It may seem sensible to conclude that everyone who rejects creation science accepts evolution, but I'd rather leave the reader to draw that conclusion himself. Evercat (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

ICR quote
The ICR quote is accurate and sourced to ICR itself:. Wikipedia is not used as a source for Wikipedia; ICR is a source for its views, not WP. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of balancing NPOV material
You cannot remove material you do not like willy-nilly as here. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia according to NPOV, and will not be allowed to remain like this. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See my reasoning in in the section labelled 'Applications' below. cheers. Mjharrison (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Applications
I'm not sure I agree with the assessment given in this diff. The article does not focus on applications, but this single sentence is followed by a hefty list of references, one of which is available online. Here is a quote from one of the sources provided http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html:
 * Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
 * Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
 * Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
 * Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
 * Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
 * Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
 * Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

I am therefore reverting this edit. I also find it highly suspicious that this edit, along with the other two recent removals of information, was incorrectly labelled as a minor edit. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that Mjharrison felt that the article was showing too few areas where evolution underlies research, which seems a fair point. I've modified the paragraph to combine the previous focus on practical applications with the new info added by Mjharrison, who's a new user so I've left a welcome. Haven't mentioned the issue about minor edits as yet. .. dave souza, talk 16:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mjharrison may also have a good point with this deletion – the context of the quote belittling the usefulness of evolution isn't clear, and it gives the impression of quote mining while possibly being given undue weight. The link to Coyne's review doesn't seem to be working just now. Suggest reconsidering this bit. .. dave souza, talk 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Err sorry about the minor edit thing - I haven't yet managed to wade through the veritable torrent of dos and don'ts yet. Re: the removal of the quote, yes I think it's highly inappropriate to include the quote because if one reads the entire article by Coyne, he is actually arguing that evolution has numerous practical applications, but not so many *direct* practical applications. As such, that small snippet of text quoted takes his article totally out of context. I should also note that the quote is from the opinions/reviews section of Nature, meaning that it's only meant to be taken as an opinion, is not peer-reviewed, and accordingly isn't meant to be referenced. Lastly, the full text of the quote is not available on the net without a Nature subscription, which i have, but most won't. Btw, it's impressive how fast things move here! Mjharrison (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we need some words to put the quote in context, but we need material to demonstrate that there is another side to the story. Unfortunately we cannot present just pro-evolution material without violating NPOV. If you look at the history of this article, the entire article was almost deleted because its first versions were too pro-evolution.--Filll (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see where Mjharrison is coming from with the Coyne quote. I have no strong feeling there one way or the other, but it was being used in a somewhat misleading way. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To demonstrate the other side, why not consult http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html – the second cite it gives, from Carl Wieland, is available at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp and has statements such as "the common fallacy that belief in evolution has something to do with real, practical science that works." Coyne is no creationist, but as it happens, another review of his in Nature has been quote-mined for peppered moth evolution. .. dave souza, talk 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

0.15% or 99.85%?
I think 99.85% is a better figure to use, since it is easier to compare to the NIH figure (which is 99.9% in the article). This is all a moot point in some ways since this entire article will be discarded and replaced with tables etc when I have finished rewriting it.--Filll (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to respond to my point above. The 99.85% figure just assumes that everyone who rejects "creation science" supports the mainstream theory of evolution. It's not necessarily as simple as that. So I made the change to 0.15% which is what the Newsweek article actually says. Evercat (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look do you understand the quote "Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability?" If you do not understand it, let me help you. It means you cannot shove whatever your own interpretation is on this. It is not allowed. Ok?--Filll (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, since this is mainly about the US, and you do not have access to the US version of Newsweek, we are going with the wording in the US version of Newsweek, which has been verified by multiple people.--Filll (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is you who is shoving your interpretation of the cited source into the article. The source clearly says 700 out of 480,000 scientists "give credence to" creation science. That is all it says. It is your interpretation that this means they therefore accept evolution. Evercat (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I quoted the source word for word.--Filll (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please quote for me the bit in the source where it says 99.85% of the scientists accept evolution. Evercat (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Evercat, I don't think you are correct here; if there were any significant number that had a view here other than evolution, Newsweek would have mentioned it. The phrasing pretty strongly implies that the others are all fine with evolution. The number of people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or similar notions is pretty tiny. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you JoshuaZ for making a sensible comment; it's a refreshing change from the wild accusations of "original research" that are currently being flung around here. I still see little reason to actually prefer the 99.85% figure to the 0.15% figure, which has the virtue of being a more accurate paraphrase of the source text. I don't understand why I'm being fought tooth and nail over this, if it's really so trivial.


 * But I'm tired of this whole discussion. I came to this page originally because I had seen the criticisms of this page by Conservapedia (I site I detest) and thought, no, Wikipedia's not like that. I thought we could talk about any problems rationally, but the tone was set when I was immediately called a cretin (the comment has since been removed above, no point searching for it). I eventually conceded defeat on the issue of having the Newsweek source (and yes, I may have been wrong about that) yet now I'm getting my edits reverted just because they're by me, and I seem to have aligned myself with the creationists (I'm actually an atheist - and no, not a creationist atheist).


 * So Filll, Orangemarlin, go ahead and push your POV. I won't try to stop you any more. Evercat (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert coming
As I look at how this article has changed over the last few weeks and months, it is clear that awful English, and all kinds of confusion and nonsense have been introduced in it. Therefore I am going to revert it back. Thanks for all the "help" everything. Nothing like shoving nonsense in articles.--Filll (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fly by admin editing
This edit which does not agree with the cited reference just is not helpful, and neither is the lecturing. But thanks for trying. --Filll (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How does it not agree with the cited reference when it is a direct quote? violet/riga (t) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If everyone will stop fighting, I will fix it.--Filll (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to edit warring by anti-science elements, the text has been changed from the source material.--Filll (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The text within the ref tag is presented as a direct quote. If it has been edited from what it actually says then it needs fixing immediately as that is unacceptable.  The wording in the body text can then be fixed as well.  violet/riga (t) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was changed. And I refuse to engage in this ridiculous fighting and edit warring, frankly. If there is wrong information in the article, it is not because I put it there but because others in their frenzy to fight introduced it. For me to change it and correct it before people settle down is frankly dangerous in the current climate. Many would prefer inaccurate information I suspect. So I will wait.--Filll (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets look at this a bit more closely, with the claims of WP:OR:

From These are not original research. If you cannot divide two numbers without it being OR, or subtracting two numbers without it being OR, throw out just about every science article on Wikipedia. I will protest this until I cannot stand up any longer. It is absolutely outrageous and beyond all reason. Good lord...--Filll (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The conversion to a statistic, worded as it was, was misleading and did not add anything that improved understanding. violet/riga (t) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We have three comparable sets of figures: The gallup poll from 1997, the NIH article from 2006 and the Newsweek article from 1987. To compare them all, they all need to be put on an equal footing. The only reasonable and rational way to do this is converting them all to percentages, and of the same form. We have to make Wikipedia accessible, and particularly in scientific articles, like this semi-sociological material discussed in this article, leaving the readers to do all the conversions is just plain silly.

You have no consensus for your suggestion. The previous version has been here and survived substantial scrutiny from dozens of other editors for a year. So I am sorry, I must beg to differ with your position.--Filll (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition we have data from about 4 or 5 creationist "petitions" or signed statements which presume to describe the substantial dispute for the reigning orthodoxy of "darwinism", or dispute of evolution, by immense groups of scientists. Therefore, we need to compare these data with each other, and other kinds of data. Percentages are a reasonable basis on which to do so, rather than asking casual readers to do a lot of dividing and subtracting. Sorry for any offense this causes.--Filll (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The source text says that the scientists "give credence..." - this is a little vague and to interpret that as was written (by both sides) is inappropriate. There is no need to present the statistics as a percentage, even when comparing to similar data.  Indeed, having variety in the presentation of such numbers actually adds weight to them and reduces repetition.  violet/riga (t) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Make Wikipedia accessible is not really an issue huh? OOokay...Let's do everything as fractions, all with different denominators, and some as logarithms, and some in base 2 and some in Hex and some as percentages and some in Babylonian base 60. Sounds reasonable.--Filll (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And thus ends my discussion with you. violet/riga (t) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking Octal, but ... Anyway, conversion to decimals is not OR, which I think was the original point of this thread. Additionally. presenting both the raw numbers and the percentages is helful; in fact, it's the academic thing to do.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so why not do both? (I at least don't see what the big deal is either way). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It originally had both. The problem is, this statistic is loathed by creationists because it makes them look silly. It is also listed on Conservapedia as something on Wikipedia that is inaccurate and Wikipedia refuses to change.--Filll (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me ask a related question: does anyone here think there is any reason not to have both? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if any regular editors think that the original version, which had both, was bad. It was fine here for about a year and survived many attacks and was the result of consensus of dozens and dozens of editors who offered input. I am just waiting a suitable time before I go back to the original wording.--Filll (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording of the quote clearly states that 700 scientists "give credence to creation-science", yet does not make anything clear about the views of the other 479,300. Some of them could believe in a world created in 6 days and not evolution.  Claiming that 99.x% of them "supported evolution over creation science" is not necessarily true because the source does not say that - it is an assumption.  While it is a fairly safe assumption that the vast majority of them support evolution we cannot say so without violating our WP:OR policy.  violet/riga (t) 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a good point violet. This is just another case of WP keeping the real reason down.  Baegis (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm doesn't aid discussion. violet/riga (t) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that a) the article quoted 700 X out of Y, and b) we are comparing those numbers to those of other studies, then I would say that percentages must be presented, and ideally also the sample sizes (700/480000). If the article said 700 "give credence to..." then it is totally reasonable to infer that the other 479300 do not give credence to creation science. Granted this is not precisely the same thing as explicitly asking for acceptance of mainstream evolution, but the overall implication is pretty damn close. For what it's worth, in 15 years of working & socialising internationally in research science I have never directly or by hearsay heard of any scientist disclaiming evolution in any way. Given the 150 years of research on evolution and hundreds of thousands of scientists that have worked on it, including literally millions of peer-reviewed, peer-reproduced studies, anyone who even attempted to disclaim evolution without having some seriously mind-blowing and validateable data would be treated with a great deal of contempt. Mjharrison (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually we have at least one other reliable source that states they believe evolution. And the original source itself by its wording, which is somethingn like "creation science with sudden appearance instead of evolution" makes it quite clear what the authors intended for the other 473,000 (however, a creationist mounted an attack and changed the text and source here, but since there is so much fighting I have not restored the article or added more material since this just seems silly while people are so so angry about nothing). And then we also have the dictum of "making necessary assumptions", since we have statistics from the NIH (99.9%) and Gallup (95%) which agree with the interpretation suggested by the original source, and other sources. So frankly there is no problem, unless someone wants to make one. Does anyone want to create a problem? Does anyone want me to pile up dozens of references for a huge fight? My goodness. Please people, lets let it drop already and return to common sense and consensus and sources. Why do some want to fight? Just because an admin is armed with admin tools does not endow the admin with more than police powers, remember. No offense intended, and I apologize if this offended anyone in any way.--Filll (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bump. Can we restore to the original please and move along?  Simple math is not OR.  Baegis (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting for you to provide a diff to show how the quote was changed. Until such evidence is provided it is a pure breach of policy to include that statistic and it should be included as data (as per the edit I made) or omitted.  Further, I also made the point that presenting data in different ways actually adds to the strength of an argument and reduces repetition, something that has not been addressed.  violet/riga (t) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for being imprudent, but I think under the current circumstances that inaccuracy and mistakes in the material and obscure misleading text is preferable. Sorry, but to go further in the current situation is just too dangerous. If you want to find the reprint yourself and rewrite the article, that might be an option. You can also try to find other references, such as the reprint of the 1997 Gallup report, which we would like to have and I am working on obtaining. However, finding other sources would be useful if you want to help. Otherwise, lets just stay with the errors for time being. --Filll (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You claim that the quote has been changed and specifically note it as an error. It is therefore not acceptable to include it in the article.  We can't present something as a quote when the source is not matching it.  I have therefore removed it pending a diff showing the original (correct) wording.  violet/riga (t) 20:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I will do so when I am not under threat.--Filll (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting a quote?
I can't make head or tail of Violet/Riga's edit-warring. This edit has uses an edit summary which says "we are not allowed to misrepresent a quote". Is he challenging the veracity of this text: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'.", and if so, for what reason? I see nothing in the above discussion which challenges the veracity of the quote, so I assume this is a new dispute? Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as well. Unless some kind of explanation is forthcoming, I will restore the deleted content. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reinserted the deleted material. I also found the original article, if anyone wants to see it.  I have yet to look at it.  Baegis (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I have no idea how you cannot see Filll state quite clearly, regarding the quote:
 * It was changed. And I refuse to engage in this ridiculous fighting and edit warring, frankly. If there is wrong information in the article, it is not because I put it there but because others in their frenzy to fight introduced it. For me to change it and correct it before people settle down is frankly dangerous in the current climate. Many would prefer inaccurate information I suspect. So I will wait. --Filll (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * and
 * Actually we have at least one other reliable source that states they believe evolution. And the original source itself by its wording, which is somethingn like "creation science with sudden appearance instead of evolution" makes it quite clear what the authors intended for the other 473,000 (however, a creationist mounted an attack and changed the text and source here, but since there is so much fighting I have not restored the article... -Filll (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * and
 * Pardon me for being imprudent, but I think under the current circumstances that inaccuracy and mistakes in the material and obscure misleading text is preferable... --Filll (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll is saying that the quote does not match the source, so it is totally unacceptable to include it until it is verbatim. Also, I did quite clearly state the reasoning behind this in my post here at 20:45, 15 January 2008.  violet/riga (t) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Current version:

Version at 14:50, 20 September 2007, 17:29, 20 June 2007, 11:34, 13 March 2007:

Version at 23:50, 28 January 2007:

So which is it? Clearly the latest version matches the oldest version presented here (I have not gone through it thoroughly). Is "with respectable academic credentials" included in the actual quote? Why is Filll still claiming that the quotation has been changed? violet/riga (t) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC) One more thing - if there is a claim that a quote is being misrepresented in an article it should be discussed and it is better to have the offending text removed. Better safe than sorry, and it really didn't harm the article to have it (temporarily) removed. If it were an anon claiming it then fair enough it might be a dubious edit, but to edit war in order to reinstate it is not appropriate. Why are some people so quick to undo things rather than discuss them? violet/riga (t) 23:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They're all the same - one is a longer quote is all; the date is given or not given, the source given as Newsweek, Newsweek magazine. Violetriga, you cited policy and "not ... misrepresent a quote)" in your removal - it is clear from the examples you give that no policy has been violated and the quotes are identical, with the exception of length - i.e., how much is quoted. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have personally verified that the quote, as it is currently presented, is accurate to the letter. There was a slightly different quote at one point giving different page numbers which may have been from a different part of the article or different edition (are there European/American editions of Newsweek?  I don't know.)  It's a moot point, since the difference was not dramatic.  The article is not misrepresenting the quote at all, nor distorting its original intent.  Silly rabbit (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Having seen the source I agree that it is correct. Now can I ask why Filll has been saying that it was "changed" and did not represent the original?  violet/riga (t) 09:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify
Let me try to make this more clear. The present quote is not from the US version of Newsweek, but from the International Version of Newsweek, and the two are indeed different. This was explained above if anyone had bothered to read it.

I have a copy of the US version of that Newsweek article. I also have a partial somewhat garbled copy of the International version of that Newsweek article.

Now that I see this has become quite contentious and people are fighting me every step (or even every inch) of the way (and seem to be absolutely enraged about "misrepresentation" etc and edit warring etc), this has to be done in a far more drawn out and bitterly-fought fashion. Frankly, this is all pretty needless but oh well, I did not choose to do it this way. My hand is being forced here.

I suggest we use the US version, not the International version since:
 * This is primarily an issue in the US, not internationally.
 * I suspect the circulation of the US version is greater, although I have to check this.
 * The reporters for the story were Americans in the US and the reporting for the story was all done in the US
 * The story in Newsweek is about a news story in the US
 * The editing of the story was done in American news bureaus

If you want to use something besides the US version of Newsweek, I suggest you present your reasons and let us discuss it or debate it for a week or two or however long it takes.

I also think that since people are seemingly so outraged by everything here, I propose that I find much longer and extensive quotes from the original US article to include, verbatim. If I catch anyone trying to change them, I think this interference should be reverted with prejudice. I think it is silly to clog the article with this sort of extra verbiage, but obviously it has to be this way because of assorted attitudes here. It is almost as though I have to type the entire article in here, it seems. It is quite disappointing that people are not WP:AGF but it is quite revealing.

I also propose that we include the percentage information, both of those who support evolution, and those who do not  support evolution, for each dataset. When the rewrite of this article is complete where this is all in table form, there will be one column for each of these, and other statistics, such as total population size etc.

I am shocked by the suggestion that simple subtraction and division to put all numbers on the same basis for comparison is somehow "original research". If you want to fight this out, we will fight. But believe me, it will not be pretty. I will not just roll over to acquiesce to some ludicrous demands because someone claims it is "policy". I think that this does not ring particularly true. Please point me to the place in the "policy" documents that states this official policy.

I am dismayed at how what was a simple attack by yet another creationist (there have been dozens here in the last year, after all, so this is nothing new) has turned into such a mess because of assorted fighting and edit warring, and a reluctance to understand the situation before drawing conclusions and making unfounded pronouncements. I cannot fix things if I am under threat myself. So it just has to be a mess because I am not going to fight with anyone, particularly on my own.

Sorry, but it does not have to be this way. But if things are wrong or missing for a while because people would prefer to fight than to build an encyclopedia, well that is not my doing.--Filll (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion about which one we use and care very little for this article. My involvement here was to try and help stop the reversions.  It is not acceptable to change the data to a percentage as I have already detailed and worse to misrepresent a quote.  You claimed that the quote was changed and did not match the source so I removed it.  Clearly this was not the case as the current version is correct.  violet/riga (t) 08:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How is it not acceptable "to change the data [sic] to a percentage"? The idea, as espoused by myself, Josh and Filll was to use both raw numbers and pct. I see nothing precluding such a usage of data.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How is "the data" not correct? Odd.
 * I've already explained why it is not appropriate to change it to a percentage that makes assertions about the remaining scientists. We do not know how the survey was conducted - was the question simply asked "Do you give credence to creation-science?" or did they go about it in a more involved manner?  It is inappropriate to perform calculations on figures presented in such a manner.  I really don't understand that obsession with saying that it simply has to be presented this way.  I've already noted that presenting it as the original quote both eliminates the "0.15% or 99.85%" problem, adds weight to the argument, and reduces repetition.  It makes it read better if nothing else!  violet/riga (t) 10:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read what I wrote. Please show me a passage in WP policy that states Wikipedia must use the International version of Newsweek when a US story is involved. Please show me where in policy it states that creating percentages are forbidden. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about now? Please read my comment that says "I have no opinion about which one we use".  As for the percentages I've told you that WP:OR is violated, and it doesn't need a policy to say about the other points I made.  But let me guess - you're going to reply to this without even mentioning any of that and just focus on the one tiny bit that you think supports your claim.  violet/riga (t) 13:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Maybe you did not understand. Please point me to the passages in the policy. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was right? Shocking.  violet/riga (t) 14:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Violetriga: "The data" is wrong because percentages are data too: You meant "raw numbers". Additionally, your reasoning regarding the use of percentages is fatally flawed.  First, saying "700 scientists, or .0146% ..." is standard academic usage; hence the derivation of a percentage figure is hardly non-standard nor is it forbidden. Secondly, your reading of WP:OR is incorrect and you have yet to prove how the percentage figures violate said policy. Thirdly, your claim that it "reads better" is purely subjective -- using both the raw numbers and the percentage figures is seen as necessary by the editors of any competent publication as they present the data in a fully comprehensive and comprehensible manner.  Merely giving a baseball player's batting average is hardly as valuable as also mentioning the number of hits or at-bats.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "The data" is not wrong because I did not assert that percentages were not data but merely referred to the numbers as "the data", but that's a pointless aside. Your second point is false as I have already detailed my reasoning why changing them is wrong.  Your third point starts off correct, but you miss an important point:  "700 scientists, or .0146% ..." would be acceptable and decent prose and I would accept that usage, but using "700 scientists" and "99.85%" together would be less readable and goes back to the problem of making assertions about the remaining scientists.  violet/riga (t) 21:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Assert, imply, let's all play the semantics game. Bad game to choose to play with a linguist; you did indeed imply that "the data" was restricted to the numbers. My second point stands: you have yet to show how using percentages is forbidden.  If Newsweek says that a survey of 500 folks showed that 400 of them prefer Brill for cleaning their clothes, is my saying that 80% prefer Brill OR? I think not.  Yet the crux of your argument lies in trying to denegrate simple mathematical functions. As for the remainder, see above: . Mille grazie.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I implied nothing of the sort. Following you analogy, saying that 80% prefer Brill is fine, but to say that 20% don't like Brill would be OR.  Why?  Because you don't know if they don't like Brill or merely don't prefer it.  You cannot make judgements about such a thing because you are not given sufficient information from the source.  violet/riga (t) 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said a word about "like", nor did I imply that such a corollary would be perinent ar feasible. You seem to be inferring something that isn't there.  Please, in future be so kind as to read my words and restrict inferences to items where an inference could reasonably be seen to be applicable. Gratias tibi ago.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, you realize that this is not what the original source says or implies, and therefore you are engaged in WP:OR and misrepresentation of the original source. Presumably for some special agenda you hold dear?--Filll (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that I used prefer in both cases. Your retort is both specious and spurious. Analogies are rather difficult, take your time.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there's my point! That's not what is being presented with the 99.85% wording that was in the article.  Thanks for the confirmation. violet/riga (t) 12:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Had you read my post in a previous section, and has you read JoshuaZ's reply as well, you'd have realised that your sound and fury signified nothing. Agian, I urge you: noli verba oralem meum ponere. Takk.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Before you feel too sure that you are "right", I would ask that you direct us  to the statements in policy that justify
 * preferring an international version of a US story about a US topic


 * your interpretation of correct data presentation formats, and why percentages for comparison purposes are discouraged as WP:OR.

I am still waiting.--Filll (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait some more - discussions with brick walls don't interest me. violet/riga (t) 21:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm so I am a "brick wall" now for asking an admin to clarify policy for me, since he quoted policy to push his own personal preference through. Is that an example of a WP:CIVIL problem? Is it an example of a WP:NPA problem? How about a problem with WP:OWN? I am just asking some innocent questions, which I am sure this esteemed admin can answer for us. So please, do tell us where US sources are deprecated in favor of international sources on US stories. And where in policy are creating percentages deplored as WP:OR? I sure would like to know.--Filll (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit too snarky and dismissive for an Admin. You might want to address that issue; admins should be above violating WP:NPA.
 * In any case, as I'm a relative newcomer to this discussion I'm sure you can deign to offer at least a condescending reply to my no doubt trivial observations. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When I am being asked to repeat myself on a medium that promotes rereading I really do despair. Filll's first point here is irrelevant as I have already made it very clear that I couldn't care less about which version is used.  The answer to his second point would be easy to find if he reread what I have written.  violet/riga (t) 23:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet I made direct comments of a questioning nature unrelated to Filll's comments; why have you not addressed them? De profundis clamo te, Violete, mihi da responsivam. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do point out where on this page I have not responded to your questions and I will happily answer them. Right now I can't see anywhere.  violet/riga (t) 00:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, semantics again. "Now" is, as you know, relative.  It took you three times to respond to me.  Hence, the point was valid at the time of its presentation.  In the "now" of the moment, it has been obviated in that you finally responded (not satisfactorilly, but a response is a response).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Learn to read datestamps - you'll avoid false accusations then. violet/riga (t) 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another vio of WP:CIVIL? Unreal.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is all over the page. Maybe you missed it. The big request is to show me where in policy it states that converting raw data to statistics is verboten, because we are not to do things like divide or subtract. Those are baaad.--Filll (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you have no problem with either the US or the International versions? Why do you despair? You have created this situation, have you not? You should be happy with it. I am afraid I am too limited to understand your reasoning on the second point. I gather that Wikipedia has some policy forbidding percentages or subtraction or division. We should then start some Wikiproject to delete all webpages which include percentages or on which someone has divided or subtracted from the raw data. Tsk tsk. Bad WP:OR. Bad. Now we just have to find the passages in policy which justify this and we are all set, right?--Filll (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, do point out to me where I have gone on about the different versions or advocated one over the other. As for the percentages let us just go with the "too limited to understand" bit.  All this just to try and include a statistic in one particular form!  Once more I cease discussions with you.  violet/riga (t) 00:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't open this discussion. I am afraid you did. You said it was against policy to divide and subtract and to compare percentages with percentages. So I just want to know where I can find this seemingly very important policy. So important you would spend a lot of time and edits and return to a page you do not care about, day after day to police it to make sure that those dirty percentages never return or are even hinted at, since percentages are bad...baaaad...very baaaaad. So where did you say that policy was?--Filll (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Once more I cease discussions with you"????? An uncivil threat?  I'd like to see a policy where simple math cannot be used also.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncivil? Aw shucks golly gompers, I dunno. A violayshun of WP:AGF, tho.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I havent noticed him ceasing any discussions have you?--Filll (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I will note that anyone who writes something like "The data" is not wrong is in a bit of trouble already, since the word "data" actually is plural. Have to know what you are talking about, don't you? And somehow I see about 10 errors here in your position. If I look further, I will find more I guess. And you do not have the original source do you? Yet you are drawing conclusions based on it? Interesting.--Filll (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * However, before we address all the other errors in reasoning here, I still want to see the section in the Wikipedia official policy that states it is forbidden to divide or subtract or to create percentages for comparison purposes. --Filll (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is clearly an important policy for Wikipedia, because a long term user has spent almost 10% of his edits so far this month arguing for it on a page he cares nothing about, and has spent 3 days here making his case, although I am afraid I cannot quite understand the reasoning. I guess I am too dense. But I am sure it will become clear if I keep trying.--Filll (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll break out of the not talking to you long enough to point out that 700 and 480,000 are both datum and thus the use of the plural data is fine, especially when it then also refers to the percentage as well. violet/riga (t) 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, once again, you seem to be missing the point. The data are, but the datum is.--Filll (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are the policies that forbid percentages?
I sure wonder where in Wikipedia policy it is forbidden to convert numbers into percentages for comparison purposes.--Filll (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It states quite clearly that simple derivations such as given population and an area it is OK to present a population density. this is even simpler -- it's presenting a fscking percentage for god's sake. CALCULATING A PERCENTAGE IS THEREFORE OK. In any case, from what i can discern, Newsweek did not include the full text of questions asked, methodology used etc (which are mandatory for statistics-based research in various fields), and given phrases like "by one count there are 700 scientists..." gives the strong impression that their numbers are iffy. Having worked and socialised in biological sciences for the past 15 years I've never once come across a scientist who has ever disclaimed evolution, so i even doubt there are 700 out of 480K. Then again, given the blind religious fundamentalism you guys have in the mid-west US, i suppose it's possible. Mjharrison (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You agree that the numbers are "iffy". Making assertions about the rest of the population would compound that.  It doesn't matter if it's a percentage or presenting it as "479300" - if you change the wording from what it states in the original source you all too easily bias the content.  Far better is to directly quote and avoid such manipulations.  violet/riga (t) 08:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well according to some, it is forbidden to create percentages for comparison purposes or to divide numbers or subtract them or otherwise engage in simple artithmetic, like to form population densities. And I just wonder where it says that in Wikipedia policy. Curious.--Filll (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Violet, perhaps you might wish to step back. Your're becoming quite tendentious and are, in a sense, disrupting this page by reading what you want into other people's posts, and generating arguments out of thin air.
 * My guess is that MJ may not have read the original source and is merely expressing surprise that 700 scientists could have abandoned scientific thought. ¿Entiendes?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hardly see my reply to MJ as being anything other than explanatory. It constantly surprises me how some people are so fixed on their own idea that they will stick their fingers in their ears and ignore everything else - quite a feat when typing!  violet/riga (t) 14:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. See, "You agree that the numbers are "iffy".".  MJ's point was, CALCULATING A PERCENTAGE IS THEREFORE OK.  QED.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And I clearly and politely stated that calculations on iffy numbers compound the problem. It's amazing how many times I have to say things on this talk page.  violet/riga (t) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think VR is missing something. Every survey, every poll, every petition is "iffy". All have errors associated with them of various kinds, some serious, some not so serious. However, WP is not about truth, but verifiability. Perhaps you read that before?--Filll (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When did you stop beating your wife? Not all polls are created equal.  violet/riga (t) 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * VR of course is the sole arbiter of which polls are more equal than others. And which formats for presenting statistics, of course. Sieg Heil!--Filll (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This unfortunately is a perfect example of VR not quite understanding what is being told to him, over and over, and unable to provide a single bit of evidence for his presumed stance. I am still asking, over and over, for him to show me where in the policy his position is justified. He claimed he was following policy, and I do not at all see it. And he has willfully refused or been unable to show how he is following policy, and where that policy resides on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the WP:NOR policy needs a new VR clause, that states clearly and unequivocally that arithmetic operations such as addition, subtraction and division are forbidden as original research on Wikipedia, especially percentages that are created for the purposes of comparison of data in varying formats. You can be famous VR! And stamp out that evil symbol, the "%"! (I have heard that the "%" symbol is the mark of the devil. In the bible they didnt mean 666 as the mark of the Beast, but %, except that % had not yet been invented yet so they had to make do with 666).--Filll (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop
OK - Stop. There is no policy stating that simple arithmetic calculations, including percentages, are forbidden. Such calculations done for clarity, consistency and/or comparison purposes are perfectly valid, such do not fall under WP:OR. Of course the calculated figures are no better than the numbers they are based on and care must be taken to avoid any such implication. A simple example is the calculation and addition of metric units when measurements are given in a non-metric system (here care must be taken to avoid changing the precision of the measure). So, do the calculations and add the percentages and violetriga won't revert without a specific and clear policy. Meanwhile, Fill - your comments are getting quite pointy, please tone it down a bit. On with improving the article and quit the quibbling. Vsmith (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not quite so simple a calculation. If we asked 100 people what their favourite type of music was and 20 said "Rap" we couldn't then say that 80% don't like rap.  It is a total misrepresentation of the original statistic - we cannot make such assertions.  I wonder what this obsession with policy is, and would like to remind people about wikilawyering - we don't need a rule set in stone for everything and common sense always applies.  There is no valid reason why the statistics need to be manipulated in such a way when the raw numbers present it without controversy, avoids the problems of rewording the source, and makes the paragraph flow better.  violet/riga (t) 10:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that this type of article often attracts people that are obsessive about their POV and must force it. Such people turn everything into an argument and are totally unable to discuss things in a civilised manner.  Compromises and sensible discussions always trump pointless arguments and stubbornness.  It makes it impossible difficult to develop a consensus as people are so sure that their way is right that they are blind to other options, even those that are actually a compromise position.  Thankfully not everyone here is like that.  violet/riga (t) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining why you are on this page, although I think we already knew that.--Filll (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, violet. Could you please clarify what the other option is if they don't give credence to creation science, as per Fill below?  Baegis (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You never know what crackpot theories these scientists have. The simple fact is that saying that they support evolution over creation science is not a true representation of what the original says.  If the original terminology was used with the percentage then it would be much better, but why bother to put our own interpretation of the statistics in when directly quoting lends much more weight to the argument.  It also removes the problem that we previously had: the edit war between representing it as 99.85% or 0.15%.  violet/riga (t) 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many times this has to be stated?
 * The original source does not state that
 * Even if it did state what you claim, what is the other option? FSM? Remember the other sets of statistics here. Is this so hard for you to imagine? It must be false?
 * your example is fallacious. If we asked 100 people what their favorite type of music was, and 20 out of 100 said rap, we could say that 80 out of 100 did not say their favorite music was rap. This is a lot closer to a relevant example, and you are the one trying to wikilawyer everyone to death
 * It does not read better to anyone but you
 * We operate by consensus here and you do not have it
 * You stated that it was WP:OR to convert the raw data to percentages because we are not allowed to divide and multiple and subtract here--Filll (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pro-evolution forces attempt to bury the truth in this article.
Remember the title of the aricle - "Level of support of evolution". No, not what one particular segment of society contends. By placing paragraph after paragraph of redundant material at the top, the essential core of the issue is buried. The vast majority of the American public does not accept "evolution" as the self-described scientific community defines it. This fact belongs at the beginning of the article. Any detailing of views of slices of the public should be subordinate. Z1perlster (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * huh? What is your problem? This is not a place for lectures. The simple truth is, most scientists accept evolution. A large chunk of the public supports it, either with a belief in God or without. However, more of the public believes in creationism than the science community. More physical scientists believe in creationism than biologists. More republicans believe in creationism than democrats. And more of the ignorant and uneducated believe in creationism than the educated. And more Americans believe in creationism than any other Western industrialized country. And that is it in a nutshell. And it says it in this article, or did before it was mangled. And so what is your problem?--Filll (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, read the title - no where does the word "scientist" appear. In essence, the title of this article now constitutes false advertising.  A reader curious about how the "level of support" for evolution won't find it here.  Instead, they will find yet another rehash of the appeal to authority fallacy so popular in evolution pages. Z1perlster (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c) The opinions of experts and scientists should receive a far greater treatment than that of random people polled by news organizations. Moreover, I also don't think that polls focusing exclusively on Americans should be emphasized.  As a slice of public opinion, the US is actually at bottom in terms of support (second only to Turkey).  A majority of the European public, for instance, support evolution.  I wonder if you would still take the same tone if the article were instead to emphasize the high level of support for evolution in European countries rather than (as you are advocating) the low level in the United States.  Silly rabbit (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The vast majority of people in Abrahamic faiths have no problem with evolution. The only people that do are a teeny tiny group of religious eccentrics who mainly live in the US. This is why creationists from the UK, from Canada, from NZ and AU come to the US; to make money from the rubes. They do not stay at home because they cannot make money there. They come to the US were the boobs and ignorant backwards public will throw money at them. Even in the US, when anonymous surveys of belief in biblical literalism (the foundation of creationism) are given, the vast majority of Americans reject it. Even among the most rigid conservative repressive regressive racist faiths that officially subscribe to biblical literalism, half of those who are members of the faith reject literalism in anonymous surveys. This is an instance of "the emperor who was not wearing any clothes" where no one wants to admit that biblical literalism is a load of nonsense. So this article is an effort to shed some light on the data, not to champion your own biases, and not to create a religious tract. You are free to go to a wiki like Conservapedia for that however.--Filll (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your silly personal attacks only highlight the weakness of your argument. If you don't like the truth, go to Fictionapedia.   No where have I even stated my "bias", let alone done anything to place it in the article.  Unlike you, I am concerned only with the relevant facts as to the subject of the article.  Whether any particular view is "nonsense" is completely irrelevant.  The relative sizes of the general population that support differing views simply must be in an article with the title "Level of support for evolution". Z1perlster (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are different ways to state the support for evolution - one is scientific evidence. It is the only evidence that matters, since it is based on a study of the empirical data to syntehsize a theory to explain it.  This is in the Evidence of common descent article I would guess.  Irrespective, the scientific support for evolution is very important, as is the support of scientists (specifically biologists and paleontologists) since they are familiar with the evidence (and the level of support among scientists is of interest since they're seen as being the relevant group of experts, though really it's only a subsection of scientists who are the true experts, and since this support has been mis-portrayed by creationists gunning for political public support).  Popular support, what people believe about evolution, is another way to discuss it.  This is addressed in the first sentence of the final paragraph in the lead, "Many claims in the creation-evolution controversy rest on whether or not evolution is genuinely disputed by those in scientific circles, the public's acceptance of the theory of evolution and religious and educational organizations and both sides of the dispute exhibit interest in evaluating the level of popular and scientific support for evolution."  I think the lead adequately sets up the page by demonstrating who the important parties are, how their beliefs and arguments are (mis)portrayed, and why it is important.  A lot to pack into a lead, and it does so very adequately in my mind.  WLU (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ludicrous, given. It is in the LEAD. There is a big secton it. This is about support in different communities and how we can measure it. As I said before, you are allowed to write an article yourself called Public support for evolution around the world. It should explore the statistics in at least 100+ countries, and in various branches of Christianity and Islam and Judaism and Hinduism and Buddhism and other major religions, both official and among the congregants and religious leaders. You should quote as many possible ways of estimating these statistics. It probably should include some time series data as well. I would expect that you find at least 100 references to cite. Good luck.--Filll (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Project Steve
Here is a WP:SYN calculation to show why there are problems with the following, "which would indicate a majority of at least 99% of scientists supporting the biological theory of evolution."

The article states there are, "480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists". There are 830 signatures on the list which is supposed to represent up to 0.01 of the total US earth and life scientists in support of evolution. So the total projected scientists in support of evolution is 83,000. 83,000/480,000 = 17.3%, which is much different than 99%. The problems with this calculation: many of the 830 are not from the US, and many scientists on the list are not earth and life scientists. That decreases the 83,000 number. Since the calculation combines data from two different sources WP:SYN comes into play. "In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor."

The wording in the article has the same problems. The 99% figure compares one survey to another from different sources. The Project Steve list is supposed to represent U.S. earth and life scientists in support of evolution, but the data is problematic as discussed. The Discovery Institute's list claims to have over 600 scientists that support intelligent design, but there is no accurate description of the population of this list. There is no way to correlate these lists because they were gathered differently, the populations of scientists polled can not be determined, there is no way to know how many abstained, and so on. The 99% figure is just not scientifically valid. Not only that, the 99% figure is WP:SYN just like the 17.3% figure. That is why the analysis is WP:OR, or needs a source. Ward20 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but you are confused. This is what happened when I let people with strong creationist agendas etc edit the text and turn it into a disaster. Sorry, but this is just lousy reasoning and based on nonsense.


 * the figure of 480,000 is for 1987 and was probably an underestimate then. The relevant figure today is well in excess of 1.2 million


 * The 830 signatories of the Dissent petition include a huge number of foreigners, so it is biased high.


 * The vast majority of the 830 signatories are not biologists or geologists (more than 75 or 80%)


 * the use of the Project Steve figures are silly, and this 99% figure has nothing to do with Project Steve. It has more to do with driveby nonsense included by creationists who like to ruin articles with spew and garbage.


 * Almost everything else you wrote is just rubbish and nonsense. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I seems to me the first three (bullets) agree with what I said about the list in Project Steve.
 * The fourth bullet states, "the use of the Project Steve figures are silly, and this 99% figure has nothing to do with Project Steve. It has more to do with driveby nonsense included by creationists who like to ruin articles with spew and garbage."


 * I am talking about the 99% number and wording in the Project Steve paragraph below:
 * "Therefore, if one can get N scientists named Steve or something similar to endorse the petition, one might expect that roughly 100xN scientists with all kinds of names would endorse the petition. As of September 20, 2007, 830 scientists named Steve had endorsed the petition, suggesting that if all scientists were allowed to endorse the petition, about 83,000 scientists would have signed.[61] This compares with the Discovery Institute's claim to have over 600 scientists that support intelligent design as of the end of June, 2006.[63][64], which would indicate a majority of at least 99% of scientists supporting the biological theory of evolution. " Ward20 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Ward20 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I should not even bother with this, but let's see if you can figure this out. 1% of 83,000 is 830 right? So is 830 more than 600? However, about 2/3 of that 830 are biologists, but less than 1/4 of those 600 are scientists in biology, so one is really comparing 553 to 150. So is 553 more than 150? --Filll (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand the calculations, and you forgot to multiply 553 x 100 to restate the projected number for the final correlation. It is clear an edit that uses numbers produced by different sources with dissimilar ill defined non scientific method in order to compute a percentage to compare anything is meaningless and WP:SYN. If you believe otherwise, well... best of luck and happy editing. Ward20 (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot assume that every scientist that believes such and such would fill out a petition saying he does so, which your 17.3% figure does. It is justifiable, however, to assume the two petitions are similar enough to compare, that the statistic for number of Steves is correct, and that that can be used to extrapolate an expected result for a larger petition. The assumption is that both petitions would try to get the maximum amount of scientists they could possibly get. Just to make it clear, I added "at face value" to the article to make it clear that it is only a basic statistical analysis.--Jorfer (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct, the 17.3% figure is not accurate because of the issue you discuss. It is a hypothetical unscientific example to show a WP:SYN calculation that is WP:OR in order to advance a position. I was trying to use that to show a comparison to the 99% calculation, which in IMO is very similar. It appears I did not do a very good job on either.


 * To reiterate, I do not dispute the overwhelming numbers of scientists that support evolution (nor the overwhelming evidence which is not the topic of the article). My goal is illustrate how the claim that starts with "which" is WP:OR. I do not understand why the 83,000 to 600 comparison has to be summarized by OR. The numbers are so overwhelming that the readers should be able to make up their own minds.


 * WP:SYN: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position."
 * "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion...then the editor is engaged in original research."
 * "Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly."


 * Composing this reply, I found a few small things I am going to change, but I will leave the disputed phrase for the other editors that have crafted this article to decide how they wish it to be. Ward20 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree in letting the facts speak for themselves, but it is important to mention this to a reader that may not immediately pick up on what the petition demonstrates. I don't view it as original research, because it properly represents what Project Steve was trying to do rather than simply the whim of the editors of this article. I would not nitpick on this. There are plenty of things on Wikipedia that deserve more time and effort then this simple statement. For example, you would be surprised at the lack of articles and information on the State by State election processes on Wikipedia. You could also comment on changes I proposed for the Dark Energy article on the talk page.--Jorfer (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly. I did not put that 99% there, but of course we are allowed to do simple artithmetic to compare figures if we want. To say that 100x830 to compare 83000 to 700 is not SYN, but 100-(7/830) is SYN is ridiculous. It is a sign of someone who is innumerate I am afraid. This is simple simple stuff. You are comparing apples to oranges, not reading the references and not understanding the material. --Filll (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This source says this list has 100x830 = 83000 (projected) scientists believe in X, and other list has (not stated) scientists believe in Y. Other source says the list of other scientists that believe in Y is over 700 (actual). Article states one list represents 83000 projected, other list represents 700 actual, (close enough). Article then draws a conclusion and calculates ratio of scientists based on these projected and actual numbers from different sources without a cite. That is OR (in my opinion) because of WP:SYN, "In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." That does not appear to be others' opinion. I won't belittle others and I hope that will be reciprocated. I already indicated that the other editors of this article can do what they want with that wording. Ward20 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That is nice. It is just incorrect. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)