Talk:Scopes trial

Should actual history timelines be restored to Scopes Trial article - or Not?
Original and  edits have been removed (ie, 123456) - without discussion - and - without WP:CONSENSUS - by an WP:SPA ip editor  - per WP:OWN? - Should these edits, regarding the actual history of nature (ie, real history based on scientific facts) - and - related to the article content - be restored to the Scopes Trial article? - per WP:BALANCE and/or WP:PSCI - Comments Welcome from editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO the trial was not about the time-lines. The law only mentioned "any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." Bryan, in particular, was not a Young Earth Creationist. And what the science of the day had to say about anything was not an issue in the trial. Nor the anti-science of the day, either. I suggest that a 21th century time-line would be an anachronism, anyway, as well as a distraction from what the real issues of trial were? IMHO.   TomS TDotO (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with TomS TDotO -- time lines are not appropriate here. Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The timelines are inappropriate for this article. Had the IP editor not been abusive and simply brought up this talk, would have been done with already. Vyselink (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the *excellent* replies - WP:CONSENSUS seems to be that the timelines are *not ok* for the article - yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for the replies - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

A) Wasn't aware that anything other than a yes or no was required in the replies, so the sarcasm is unnecessary. B) I think that before we can declare this settled it needs to be allowed to percolate for more than a few hours. Vyselink (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - for my part, it's *entirely* ok to continue with this discussion - all the comments have been excellent imo - other comments - and/or - points of view - are *always* welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Good points, and in accordance have removed the timelines. The Scopes trial was specifically about teaching human evolution, and they're anachronistic as young earth creationism wasn't significant enough at the time to be a factor. The nearest thing to a relevant point in the text is a passing reference "to the creation science movement of the 1960s". There may be a case for finding sources which relate the trial to contemporary flood geology, but that was a tiny minority view at the time, when old Earth creationism was much more prominent. . . dave souza, talk 16:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My experience has been that a simple "up" or "down" vote is often not enough to establish a consensus of opinion. Sometimes there is a question of how good the reasons. About "sarcasm", there was no intent on my part to be sarcastic, but I realize that I am sometimes inept in conveying my tone, so please accept my apologies. TomS TDotO (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A timeline of the actual case might be of interest. Chrisdevelop (talk)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JonGreenberger.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2019
Remove the scare quotes from "modern science" in the lede. It's not attributed to a source. It's unnecessary, ambiguous, and editorializing. Duckscoot (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Þjarkur (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"Monkey vs. scopes trial" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Monkey vs. scopes trial. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 29 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 06:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Trial Dates
Perhaps I missed it, but don't see the start date of the trial. 76.88.55.202 (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is technically in the "Courthouse" section, but good catch as it wasn't anywhere else. I have added it to the lead. Vyselink (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2022



 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear, and reasonably supported by evidence and policy. BD2412 T 04:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Scopes Trial → Scopes trial – per WP:NCCPT&#32;QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943  (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% certain about this. The name most often used is Scopes Trial, so in this case the trial is part of the title, not explaining what the Scopes thing is. (If that makes sense.) Sir Joseph (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like Scopes trial is the most commonly used name: . MOS:CAPS says to uppercase terms only if they are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of reliable sources. It looks like the trial in Scopes trial isn't even capitalized in a majority of sources, much less a substantial one. Wallnot (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Scopes Monkey Trial seems the common name and per ngrams is regularly uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As you know, regularly uppercased is not the standard. Wallnot (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This Ngram analysis appears to show that "" is more common than either capitalization of "Scopes Monkey Trial". Per Wallnot, "Scopes trial" seems more common than "Scopes Trial" (at least historically if not for the last single data point). Also per Wallnot, Wikipedia uses sentence case, not title case, which differs from the convention followed by some other publications. There is a mixture of uppercase and lowercase in the sources. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ping participants. Steel1943  (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It's a title, "Scopes Trial" is the proper name (not the "correct" name in that there are not more official terms, just that this is a "proper name"), not the type of trial. sources refer to it as a title and capitalize it as such. - Aoidh (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Some sources do capitalize it, for sure. But most don't.  Have you looked at WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS for how Wikipedia choose in such situations?  We choose lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The NGram linked above doesn't appear to support the assertion that most don't capitalize it; it looks about even to me. I am aware of WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and the point I am making is that as a proper name, WP:NCCAPS supports the capitalized Scopes Trial. It is not a trial called Scopes, it is the Scopes Trial. That is a proper name for the article, and because of that Wikipedia convention supports capitalizing it. Despite what is claimed below, it need not be an "official name" to be a proper name. Scopes Trial is no less a proper name than Buckingham Palace is; just because palace is a description does not mean it is not part of the proper name and Scopes Trial is no more a descriptive name than Buckingham Palace or United States is, even though United States is not its official name. - Aoidh (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not clear where you're looking. Try this n-grams plot.  While there's a recent trend toward more capitalization, that's likely influenced by Wikipedia's capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Ngram above shows majority lowercase until 2019. In 2019, it is, as you say, about even. But MOS:CAPS requires that a phrase be consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of sources. That would obviously include sources published before 2019. And substantial majority is a much higher bar than about even. Wallnot (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The part about what MOS:CAPS requires in terms of a majority of sources is irrelevant; a proper name is a listed exception to that rule, and what I am saying is that Scopes Trial is a proper name for this topic, which means per the same MOS:CAPS, Scopes Trial should be capitalized. - Aoidh (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we hear you saying it's a proper name. That doesn't make it so.  MOS:CAPS says how we decide, and it's based on consistent capitalization in independent relialble sources. With so many sources using lowercase, the assertion that it's a proper name just doesn't hold water. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:CAPS says proper names are capitalized and are specifically listed on that MoS page as an exception to "consistent capitalization in independent reliable sources". That the head of the proper name is a common noun doesn't make it a descriptive non-proper name any more than White House, United Kingdom, or Jonas Brothers would; these heads are all common nouns that are still part of a whole that constitutes a proper name, even though they could technically be described as "just a descriptive term". It's not "me saying so" that makes it a proper name, I'm going by what makes a proper name; it is a proper name by any definition and meets the definition as given in both Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster. That some sources use lowercase is not an indication of whether or not Wikipedia would or should, as we have a specific manual of style that we follow that random sites crawled by Google do not follow. Let's agree to disagree; I oppose the move per MOS:CAPS because it's a proper name, and you disagree that it is a proper name; I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other so let's leave it at that. - Aoidh (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per my main comment below and as you acknowledge (could technically be described as "just a descriptive term"), this is not intrinsically a proper name. While John and Boston are true proper nouns and readily identified as such, the article, proper noun, would continue and observe that cases such as this here are less than clear. The dictionary sources cited far from resolve the matter that this can technically be described as "just a descriptive term" (Dictionary.com would have us compare this with common noun, a noun that may be preceded by an article or other limiting modifier - such as is the case here). While MOS:CAPS acknowledges that caps are necessary for proper nouns (capitalization is primarily needed for proper names), it does not attempt to define a priori what a proper noun is but relies on empirical evidence (Wikipedia relies on [usage in] sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized) to resolve cases such as this.  It also sets a standard to be met to determine if capitalisation is necessary.  It does not create the exception you would suggest if one reads the lead in full.  It is precisely because this case can technically be described as "just a descriptive term" that WP relies on usage in sources to determine what we capitalise.   As such, we are left to determine the matter by usage in source per MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What I was saying about being descriptive was addressing the concerns that others had that it was a descriptive term and that this somehow makes it not a proper name; it is no more a descriptive term than Jonas Brothers, White House, United Kingdom, The Game of the Century, other very clearly proper names that are also descriptive, so saying that it can be called a descriptive term does not negate it being a proper name; descriptive terms can also be proper names per very well established usage. The quote about relying on sources is immediately followed by saying that there are exceptions, proper names being one of them. I'm taking this page off my watchlist so respond how you'd like, but I have given my opinion on the matter and have found attempts to change my mind unpersuasive, though I am aware that by weight of votes the consensus seems to disagree, and that's fine, I'm not going to spend more time on whether it should be "T" or "t". - Aoidh (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There are descriptive noun phrases that are consistently capitalised and treated as proper names but these are not true proper names. Ngram evidence for Jonas Brothers, White House and United Kingdom bears this out. However, there are many games of the century and this is much less clear from the evidence. Neither MOS:PROPER nor any other part of MOS:CAPS create an exception in this case. MOS:PROPER would have us capitalise proper names but does not resolve what is a proper name, particularly when this is uncertain, as in this case.  To resolve this, we need to revert to the primary guidance of the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've never seen such a bizarre interpretation of MOS:CAPS. It seems pretty clear in saying that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" essentially adjudicates claims of what is a proper name.  There is no suggestion that an editor's claim of "proper name" can create an exception to the clear guidance given there.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no suggestion that we can create an exception? We don't need to create an exception, because it's already there. What you're quoting is very specifically and immediately followed by "There are exceptions for specific cases discussed below." I'd say that's more than a suggestion. MOS:PROPER is listed below and says that proper names are typically capitalized. MOS:PROPER notes that "such names are frequently a source of conflict" so I think that (1) its not abnormal to disagree on this and following that (2) calling my rationale bizarre just because you disagree with it is hardly constructive. I'm not going to spend more time arguing over "T" vs "t" and I'm simply giving my opinion on why it should be retained as-is: per MOS:PROPER we typically capitalize proper names. This is a proper name. It being a proper name makes it an exception to what you're quoting per the wording in the MoS, and that's why I am opposing this RM. I am not going to engage in this conversation further because it's not productive, nor am I going to change my position, because the rationale the supporting comments give is not one that I agree with when viewed through the lens of the relevant MoS. I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so respond how you feel appropriate, but I will not address this RM further. - Aoidh (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support While also refereed to this as the Scopes monkey trial, the ngram evidence indicates that the WP:COMMONNAME is Scopes T|trial. The shorter form is preferred per WP:CONCISE and ultimately satisfies WP:CRITERIA in all respects by comparison with the longer name (Scopes monkey trial). The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes is the formal name. The shortened descriptive name is Scopes T|trial. While specificity is a property of a proper noun (proper name), it is not a defining property. Trial is a descriptive, category noun made specific by the attributive proper noun Scopes (the name of a person) and by the definite article (the).  Per WP:AT and WP:NCCAPS giving voice to MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.  Capitalisation of trial is not inherently necessary.  That it might be capitalised is determined by consistent capitalisation in sources. Per the ngram evidence, it does not meet this threshold. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous comments above. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and WP:COMMONNAME. The pseudo proper name Scopes Monkey Trial is not common enough to matter. Dicklyon (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - AFAIK, there were no other Scopes Trials. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a nonsense reason. My 53rd birthday will be this month. That doesn't make it SMcCandlish's 53rd Birthday, despite there being no other 53rd birthday of mine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The prominence of the trial, is why it's so often capitalised. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. And WP does not capitalize for prominence as some styles do. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We should keep this case capitalised. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Should" should be backed up by guidelines and evidence. Here, it's just an opinion, contrary to guidelines and evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The RM closer makes those decisions. Either the page title will be changed or either it won't. Nothing more, nothing less. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This is just one (the WP:CONCISE one) out of several common descriptive terms for this case. It does have a proper name, which is The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes or Tennessee v. Scopes for short. So, lower-case per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While of course it is, in this context, a completely anecdotal example, while doing my PhD (which had a focus on religion and how it interacted with the law) my professor never referred to this trial as anything BUT the "Scopes Monkey Trial" (obviously capitalization is technically inferred other than the one time it was written down by the professor), other than making sure we knew the actual trial name, i.e. The State of Tennessee v John Thomas Scopes. However, as "Scopes Monkey Trial" is apparently not on the cards, even the above Ngram evidence suggests that the "Scopes Trial" (barely) beats out "Scopes trial" and "Scopes Monkey Trial" beats out "Scopes monkey trial" by a fair margin, suggesting that the capital "T" is the more common name, regardless of if "monkey" is in there. Vyselink (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: it's just a descriptive term. Vyselink, your professor does not govern capping in English, let's be relieved. Tony (talk)  00:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCCPT.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, consistent with WP style convention on the letter case for article titles. "Scopes Trial" is not an official name, but merely a well-recognized descriptor for the event. Orlady (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation for Darrow's Reluctance (Dayton, Tennessee Section)
The citation for "Darrow originally declined, fearing his presence would create a circus atmosphere, but eventually realized that the trial would be a circus with or without him, and agreed to lend his services to the defense" appears to be Summer for the Gods by Edward Larson, but nothing in that book implies such. In fact, Summer for the Gods says that "Darrow volunteered his service" (pg. 73) and that "several of [the ACLU's] members feared that Darrow's militant agnosticism would imperil Scopes' defense" (pg. 73). As made clear on page 100, the ACLU "did not want Darrow anywhere near [the Scopes trial]." The ACLU had instead been considering former presidential nominees in order to parallel Bryan's political career - Darrow had made the offer to one of the attorneys, John Neal, who accepted it without consulting Scopes or the ACLU.

If we keep the current language, I think it is necessary to cite sources for it. If sources cannot be found, then we should rewrite this paragraph. Mossgazer (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)