Talk:Scopes trial/Archive 1

POV
1925 is when this happened. Not 1926 like what it says in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.20 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Much, if not all, of this so-called "evidence" would be regarded as very quaint indeed by today's standards. My dirrrrrrrrrrrrkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Is there any way that this could be rephrased to show what the actual "evidence" was, rather than having this rather unencyclopedic sentence? &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 09:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- did this solve anything at all???207.63.251.216 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

who thought that "all men were created in the image of God." that's why i thought it relevent -- to preempt the "oh those religious kooks! they were just trying to explaining his motivation. Nothing about eugenics. And, I hate to say it, it looks an awful lot like he's just a "yokel" (though a polite and well-intentioned one). You can of course dispute the accuracy of this depiction (the author of the article seems to take delight in his country phrasings), but I don't see any hint of an anti-eugenics motivations. I've re-typed it here: Talk:Scopes Trial/Butler Act. --Fastfission 00:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a was the first implication at which I revolted. It led me to review

the doctrine and reject it entirely. If hatred is the law of man's development; was he is acting for the good of his patient; but kind."

it goes on. that's bryan, noting that his heart first revolted at the notion of evolution because if its explicit recommendation of eugenics. we've also got explicit references to "scientific breeding" in his summary of the scopes case to the jury. do you need more? Ungtss 08:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You've done a good job in showing how familiar Bryan was with Darwin. Yet that mendacious play/film Inherit the Wind portrayed the Bryan character (Brady) as saying that he had never read Darwin's book, and "never will".138.130.193.19 13:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * lol:). the TRUTH!?  why would they tell us the truth!?  it's much easier to throw around hackneyed stereotypes about how "fundamentalists are willfully ignorant of scientific fact" than to acknowledge the long, detailed, and point by point refutations Christians were making on both an ethical and rational basis.  evolutionists have adopted a policy of "eugenics of the soul," you might say.  a Great purge of the mind.  a Holocaust of the spirit.  well good luck to them.  they've been trying to extinguish us since Nero in one way or another, but we just keep cropping up:).  Ungtss 14:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel obligated to point out that if Bryan really said that evolution/Darwinism in anyway involves the strong killing off the weak, he is ignorant of scientific fact. It seems to me that he very convincingly defeats the straw man argument he set up, though.  So well done, I guess. ThatGuamGuy 22:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)sean


 * You're dodging the question, once again. Just be direct at it: Can you in any way substantiate the argument that the Butler Act or the Scopes Trial had anything to do with eugenics or the eugenic portions of that text? The answer seems to be no. You seem to want to argue that the Butler Act was motivated by a fear of eugenics&mdash;I contend this to be a wholly unwarranted statement, one which is dishonestly trying to dodge the fact that it was motivated by far less sophisticated concerns. --Fastfission 16:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Bryan was intimately involved in promoting the butler act.
 * 2) Bryan wrote of evolution and eugenics in interchangeable terms in books he published immediately before the act, as noted above.
 * 3) Bryan noted that the policy of eugenics was the first thing about evolution that turned him off to it.
 * 4) Bryan referred to "scientific breeding" in his concluding statements to the jury.
 * 5) It seems to me quite obvious from the above text (which it would seem you didn't bother to read given your response) that Bryan, who was the driving force behind the Act, was motivated in significant part by his concerns over eugenics, and have provided a very explicit articulation of that concern. do you have any evidence that this was not a concern of his at all?  Ungtss 16:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The one thing that seems still missing from your approach is the Bryan/Butler Act connection. That's the real problem here&mdash;you need to show, with reputable references, that Bryan was involved in the writing/passing of the Butler Act in a direct way. If you'll look at the article I painstakingly re-typed for you up above, I think it makes a plausible case that this was not what made Butler write the Act. I'm willing to cede to a better source, though, if you have one. It seems to me that the true chronology of it is probably more something like this: Butler writes the Act because he fears Evolution will undermine religion; ACLU gets Scopes to go to trial; the trial, where Bryan argues against Evolution on a number of grounds, one of them the racism/eugenic aspect; trial over, etc. I think your current version of the context is fairly ahistorical. Evolution was not a "new" idea at the time (it was not even a new idea when Darwin wrote on it); it was linked to materialism more than it was atheism (a separate by related fear); the bit about the "Humanist Manifesto" is completely irrelevant; etc. I think the emphasis on the "eugenics" and "white supremacist" aspects of the textbook (two whole sentences out of the entire thing) is misleading unless they came up during the trial or during the passing of the Act. I think your desire to paint the Tennessee law creators in a positive light (by appealing to modern mores) is clouding your ability to write a neutral article, I have to admit. But I'll let you get back to me on that one. My other question is whether or not the textbook itself featured heavily in the trial proceedings, or whether it was just the stand-in text (much as Scopes was the stand-in offender). I suspect the former rather than the latter, but if you can cite something to the contrary I'll take your word on it. I'm not trying to be a complete pain in the ass here, I'm just trying to make sure that this article is a neutral recollection of the events as they were understood in their time. If you could provide better citation for your bigger claims, I wouldn't be bugging you on them.--Fastfission 23:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks for being so reasonable and conscientious with this ... i appreciate your making me check things out. the first thing i find in my google search is this:
 * "By 1923, Bryan focused much of his efforts on securing state legislation banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. In speeches to state legislative bodies, Bryan urged enactment of laws that contained no penalty provisions and proscribed only the teaching of evolution “as fact.”  “A book that merely contains it as an hypothesis,” Bryan said, “can be considered as giving information as to views held, which is very different from teaching it as fact.”
 * Bryan took his antievolution crusade to Tennessee in early 1925, where he spoke in Nashville on the topic “Is the Bible True?” A Nashville attorney supporting legislation banning evolution sent copies of Bryan’s speech to every member of the state’s General Assembly to “guide” their deliberations on the issue.  Within days of his Nashville speech, legislation was introduced in each Tennessee house prohibiting instruction on the subject of evolution in state schools.  Bryan wrote to the author of the antievolution bill in the Tennessee Senate urging that he remove his penalty provision.  He urged that a fine or jail term was unnecessary and a possible drain on support for passage of the bill, but the provision stuck. When the Butler Act became law, Bryan offered his praise. In a telegram to Governor Austin Peay, he wrote, “The Christian parents of the State owe you a debt of gratitude for saving their children from the poisonous influence of an unproven hypothesis.”

reputable source = article written by law professor on lawschool website. what i see there is that "within days of bryan's speech in support of anti-evolution legislation, it was introduced, copies of his speech were sent to each of the legislators, and he even communicated with the author of the bill in an attempt to alter it somewhat (although that failed). it's true that he didn't introduce the bill.  however, his speech was used to sell the bill to the legislature, and the bill was introduced DAYS after the speech.  does that do it for you?  Ungtss 23:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm suspicious of this guy's take on it, in part because his biography of Darwin on the same site reflects either ignorance or a poor choice of sources (he commits many of the same historical errors that Creationists often do--i.e. quoting Darwin out of context, making it seem like Darwin didn't think the eye could be evolved, etc.). But rather than shift all of the impetus to you, and because I think this will help cement my understanding of this, I'll consult a respected print source and implement changes as I see them, with citation. Edward Larson's Summer for the Gods seems like it fits the bill for this -- well received in every peer-reviewed legal and historical journal I found in JSTOR (and even received a primarily favorable review from your favorite website, AiG), by a respected historian of law and science, published by respected academic press (Harvard), winner of the Pulitzer Prize in History. So anyway, we'll see what it comes up with, after I find some time. I think the article needs a rewrite in general, as it is current an incoherent mash-up of facts and interpretations, and I think a fresh consultation of a well-respected source might provide that. --Fastfission 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * i support a rewrite based on published sources, and i'll seek out some others to complement the project. i'd just like to remind you, tho, that there are TWO spins on this trial -- one, that it was a bunch of fundamentalist yokels fighting reality, and the other, that it was educated and articulate creationists explaining exactly why they thought it was irrational and immoral.  either "spin" here will be unacceptable ... but it would be fantastic if we could introduce the FACTS used by proponents of BOTH sides in our quest for npov here ... Ungtss 13:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is why I suggested a source which was recently written by a professional historian and was well-received by historians, biologists, and creationists alike (which the Larson book seems to have been). I think the best way to get around spin is to pick good sources to begin with. --Fastfission 14:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan:). Ungtss 14:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question: If his speech was called "Is the Bible True?", how is that evidence that he was arguing from a eugenics POV as opposed to a religious one? ThatGuamGuy 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)sean

Bryan and Darrow
The article seems to neglect the fact that, while Darrow cheated Bryan out of a chance to question him, that Darrow ran circles around Bryan and indeed compelled him to admit the likelihood that the "Jonah and the Whale" bit did not, in fact, happen. Why is this, and much else in the article, portrayed so one-sidedly? Wally 01:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A bit late in the day to answer this, but for future readers it is worth pointing out that this contributor is entirely mistaken.

In practice Darrow's cross examination was ponderous, repetitious and unimaginative (read the trial transcript - it's available as a download for about $6.00 - last time I looked). On the point of Jonah and the whale, Darrow initially asked Bryan if he believed that Jonah had swallowed the whale - then he corrected himself. Bryan first pointed out that the Bible did NOT mention a "whale" in connection with Jonah, NOT in the original story and NOT in the New Testament reference to the story (which was quite correct - though a seemed to flummox Darrow for a moment or two). He then stated that he had no more problem believing the story of Jonah than he had believing in any other miracle. [User:Andy Bradbury] 18:06 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this answers Wally's question.

"There were many serious deviations from actual events in the movie to rule it out as literal history" This is awkwardly put: movies based on real-life events are not usually taken to be 'literal history', and at any rate *any* deviations from actual events would rule something out as literal history. Why not just say: "There were many substantial deviations from actual events in the movie:" ?

"I truly wish Bryan had answered the questions regarding Cain, Eve, and Jonah. There are answers to these questions and he wounded his own credibility by being so vague. Also the reason "Whale" isn't found is because the original Hebrew word meant "large fish". Some modern translations of the Bible say "Whale" for comprehension purposes. I understand that everyone has a bias but I have studied both sides; creation and evolution, in depth and I regret that some of Creations evidence was presented poorly." -Rebekah Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.81.150 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

McCarthy and the HUAC
McCarthy's committee was not the same as the infamous House Unamerican Activities Committee, as he was a Senator. His demise began at the Senate's "Army-McCarthy" hearings when Jospeh Welch asked him, "Sir, have you, after all, no shame?" McCarthy and the HUAC had some commonality of interests, but he was never a part of it as he was never a U.S. Representative. Rlquall 04:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the person responsible for this misinformation I agree with RIquall. McCarthy in fact headed up the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, in 1953-4, (now referred to simply as the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.185.114 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole section on the 1950s context of the play needs help. E.g.: "(The McCarthy prosecutors accused some defendants of being anti-American simply for having had a boyfriend or girlfriend who was or had been a member of the Communist Party.)" Who on earth are these McCarthy "prosecutors" and "defendants"??? Unless I'm much mistaken, McCarthy was an opportunistic senator who made his name by harassing the Truman administration and its members... He did not bring anyone to trial! Perhaps most of that section could be moved to the Inherit The Wind article and rewritten by someone familiar with both the play and its historical context. - 67.174.217.156 (2005 July 26, 01:42 PDT)

Monkey Trial and Comics
Seems there should be a lot of scanned images on that topic??

The trial as a publicity stunt
As much relevance as the trial had on the evolution debate, it was mainly intended to get the small town some publicity. If you disagree with this i cant offer much more evidence than a documentary i saw about a month ago. In any event, i would like it if that were stated directly, instead of casually mentioned, but I'm not quite sure how to go about it myself.

About the comics, doesn't that violate some type of copyright law?


 * Sure, the trial was a publicity stunt, but one that grew into a defining moment in American civilization. The town fathers had no idea just how negatively the publicity would be regarded by much of the sophisticated world.  Yes, the comics might have orignially been copyrighted, but at the time copyrights only ran for 28 years (for contemporary ones, until 1953), and could then be renewed for 28 more (until 1981, and I think that some extension acts may have begun to come into play by then), but the odds of someone going through the effort to renew the copyright on a 28-year-old "Monkey Trial" cartoon in 1953 are pretty slim, I'd wager, unless it had won a Pulitzer or something similar. I'd say that the odds are high that at least nearly all, if not all, of the contemporary cartoons (which are almost certainly the vast majority), are public domain by now.  P.S. Please "sign" your comments.  Thanks!  Rlquall 01:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This trial was a publicity stunt for both the town AND the ACLU. This is never mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and this disinformation continues to spread. Read the book "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson, he lays it all out. The idea for a trial on evolution was hatched by the ACLU in New York - they paid for both the defense AND prosecutor fees to gain publicity for their Darwinian cause, and a New York man who recently moved to Dayton seized the opportunity to gain publicity for the town of Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes was friends with one of the prosecutors and agreed to be prosecuted even though he had never even taught evolution and was not even a biology teacher. He did not spend a minute a jail, did not pay a single fine and when it was over was renewed his teachers' contract. Yet this article and all other garbage literature makes him out to be some brave martyr who suffered unfairly at the hands of evil Conservative Christians. Why is this not in the article anywhere??? --63.241.158.8 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know this too, but when exactly was that book published. I mean only how long the 'stunt' thing has been known? And it is certainly odd there is nothing on the article about it. 82.141.72.152 (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I noticed there is something about it. Didn't see it until searched the page with word 'stunt'.


 * But it is approached differently. Haven't read the book, but understood it as that the parties had made a deal of the trial. 82.141.72.152 (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I clicked to the author's article, and there the publication year is 1998. I think it's quite recent, isn't it? 85.217.45.223 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Robinson’s Drugstore, and John Scope’s tennis game
And how amazingly casual it all was. Some guys shooting the breeze at the local drugstore, George Rappalyea walking in with the newspaper that has the ACLU announcement in it, more good talk, and then sending for John Scopes, who of course finishes his tennis game first! And when John gets there, George starts it off, "John, we've been arguing and I said nobody could teach biology without teaching evolution." And it kind of continued on from there, just a good-natured argument and discussion.

In fact, it was all so casual that local lawyers Herbert and Sue Hicks who were also present, agreed to be the prosecutors.

And the motivation? “Listening to Rappalyea, the others--including School Superintendent Walter White--became convinced that publicity generated by a controversial trial might help their town, whose population had fallen from 3,000 in the 1890's to 1,800 in 1925."   (This is an excellent website on famous trials hosted by the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, a different page of which is included as an external link for our main article.)

Also present that day at F.E. Robinson’s Drugstore was Mr. Fred Robinson himself, who besides owning the drugstore, was president of the school board. And he too thought it was a fine idea.

Here’s a link that gives a photo of the “drugstore conspirators” as it were!

So, the above person’s comment is quite correct. It all did very much begin as a publicity stunt.

And I agree that including some cartoons would be a good idea, as well as some photos and/or descriptions that show the circus-like atmosphere that prevaded the town as the trial began. FriendlyRiverOtter 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes
I've changed the sentence under the "Textbook in question" heading to say: "However, it also reflected some of the moral concerns that drove Bryan's opposition to evolutionary thought." It previously said: "However, it also reflected some of the concerns that drove the Tennessee legislature to enact the law." The evidence presented here and in the article suggests that Bryan was indeed concerned about the moral implications of evolutionary thought; however, it is not clear to me that this was also the case for the Tennessee legislature itself, to any significant degree. Unless there's clear evidence to this effect, I think it's best to attribute to Bryan here, since he was also a main figure in the trial.

I removed: Much, if not all, of this so-called "evidence" would be regarded as very quaint indeed, not to say highly inaccurate, by today's standards. This needs to be backed up with evidence, and written in a more encyclopedic manner. Who were the experts, and what was so quaint about them?

I think the article is generally quite good, and it was informative to learn about Bryan's beliefs on evolution. However, this section still needs some NPOV / fact-checking work:


 * At that time, the theory of evolution was strongly linked with atheism. Second, it called for a radically different understanding of human identity, as it asserted that men were descended from a common ancestor with modern apes, an idea which was (and is) highly offensive to many. Finally, it was strongly linked with eugenics, or the policy of exterminating or sterilizing those considered "genetically inferior." These ideas conflicted with the belief that all people were created in the image of God, and were vehemently opposed by many Christians.

These "strongly linked with atheism", "strongly linked with eugenics" claims are not sufficiently backed up, and it's not clear to me what "strongly linked with" means anyway. Who linked evolutionary theory with atheism and in what way? Did the media portray it as such? Also, for the eugenics claim in particular, it would be good to have more evidence before making a claim like "strongly linked". Currently, the section is a bit apologetic; it should acknowledge that many fundamentalists simply rejected, and continue to reject, evolutionary thought on the grounds that it contradicts literal Biblical doctrine.--Eloquence* 05:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Changed the statement that Darrow led an all out attack on Byran. This is untrue according the the trancript. It was only an attack on the literal interpretation of the bible. The trial transcript lacks even a single ad hominem attack of Darrow on Byran. --AceLT 07:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of errors in this page. Today, I fixed the "comtempt of court" issue. Darrow was never found in contempt, he apologized the next day.

Also added some of the famous exchange (transcript). --AceLT 07:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Case law listing?
I am not familiar with legal citations, but I wonder if we should include relevant information:

Scopes v. State, 152 Tenn. 424, 278 S.W. 57 (Tenn. 1925).

Tennessee Supreme Court later upheld the statute but vacated the conviction against Scopes in a divided opinion. See Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 (Tenn. 1927).

Validity of Sources?
I was reading through this article, and noticed that it took a considerable amount of ideas from the links listed at the bottom of the page. Upon visiting these links, I was questioning the validity of these websites, considering they are .com sites. Particularly the website www.themonkeytrials.com, in it's critique of the factualness of the film Inherit the Wind, the site provided no links to back up his claims. It seems like a very opinionated website. Not that it's a bad thing to use alot of the ideas from these sites, but aren't there more academic or reliable essays about the Scopes trials other than these websites? --Spencer 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Jokestress 09:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there's far too much dependence on the listed websites, which do indeed seem very opinionated. The article, as a result, comes off more as a work of journalism than an article in an encyclopedia. For example, these lines are totally out of place in an encyclopedia article: ``In practice, this was entirely the wrong way to challenge the constitutionality of a law under Tennessee procedure, but the ACLU were in far off New York and had little or no understanding of how things were done in Tennessee. In any case, following the "proper procedure" would not have gotten them the publicity they were looking for.'' I'm going to edit out this line and others. Please discuss any changes here!

Here's an interesting sentence from the "Aftermath" section:

"However in totality, the majority of Christians denounced evolution."

What's the source? Somebody named Goetz, in a magazine called Christian History. Besides being demonstrably false (widespread theistic ideas about evolution, and their integration into mainstream theology, date from the 1880s or even earlier, and by the 1920s were broadly accepted, certainly by most Episcopalians, and many other groups too – see Jackson Lears' book, No Place of Grace), the sentence is weirdly constructed. What is meant by "in totality"? The total of all Christians in the US? Or is it supposed to modify "evolution," so that it means that the majority of Christians did not accept the totality of Darwin's ideas? And how can a totality be followed by a "majority" which implies at least two different views, rather than a single view held by all? In short the sentence is a nonsense, and I would suggest that a magazine called Christian History, is likely a biased source, one of those blandly titled but still fundamentalist organs, rather than a publication devoted to an impartial search for the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.161.86.159 (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gets decreasingly informational
This reads more like a journalist's attempt to tell the "other side of the story" regarding the Scopes Monkey Trial.

I'd like to see some academic sources cited, or at least some sources cited that cite academic sources.

(Nicholas Mann 03:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I am trying to include material from Larson, a historian. StudyAndBeWise 20:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays
What do you think? Add in some info about the recent problems with creationism and evolution? Teh Teck Geek 13:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be left up to the school's decision whether or not they want to teach creationism along with evolution. People act as if creationism has no hard evidence which it does. As long as it is not soley based on faith, then i think that it should be allowed in schools. I mean the Bible says that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so does that mean that we can not teach 2nd graders about how the sun revolves around the earth? Just because it says it in a religious book, does not mean it can not be taught in a classroom as long as it has scientific evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.225.114 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-02 22:02:57 (UTC).


 * Anybody who teaches ANYONE that the sun revolves around the Earth is either a liar or a fool, and shouldn't be teaching. FergusM1970 (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This article needs to be about the Scopes trial, not recent developments that many see as being parallel to it. When similar arguements are used in encyclopedic later/current cases, they can be linked to this article as appropriate, but info contained here does not need to be repeated verbatim or rehashed at length in those articles, and information about those developments certainly does not belong here.  Rlquall 16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good article ;-) It would be nice to know which, if any, US states still have similar laws. 80.81.16.121 23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Textbook in Question
I have removed this section. As the article notes, the textbook itself barely came up at all in the trial; its contents (beyond the fact that it violated the state's laws on evolution, which is noted elsewhere) do not seem particularly significicent in this article. The (unsourced) claim that Bryan's opposition to evolution stemmed from his views linking it to eugenics might be approprate in his own article, but there is no reason to believe that the content of the textbook had anything to do with it, nor that that aspect of its contents was considered particularly significicent by anyone at the trial or any later commentators of note. --Aquillion 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article paints Bryan in an unremitting bad light, and his opponents in a good light. Magat (1997) said of Bryan's motivation for participating in the trial, "Bryan was concerned that the teaching of evolution would undermine traditional values. He also feared that the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest was used to justify laissez faire capitalism, imperialism, and militarism." The article seems incomplete and to be a whitewash when no mention is made of Bryan's objection to evolution and Darwinism as a pretext for eugenics, and of the support by early 20th century evolution proponents for eugenics, including the author of the textbook in question. A section on the textbook should be returned to the article. That has more of a place in the article than a fictional play loosely based on the trial. I quote Magat (1997): "As it turns out, Hunter, author of the offending textbook, himself embraced eugenics, along with many evolutionary biologists of the time. By 1935, 35 states enacted laws to compel the sexual segregation and sterilization of persons viewed as eugenically unfit, particularly the mentally ill, retarded, habitual criminals, and epileptics. To prevent such forms from spreading, Hunter said, society has "the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibility of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race." Human beings were the result of slow evolution from simple forms of life; the Caucasian race, said Hunter, was "finally, the highest type of all. . . represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America" (Larson, 1997, 74)." See Larson, Edward J. 1997. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, as cited in in THE FORGOTTEN ROLES OF TWO NEW YORK CITY TEACHERS IN THE EPIC SCOPES TRIAL. Richard Magat. Science & Society. New York: Oct 2006.Vol.70, Iss. 4; pg. 541, 9 pgs. Edison 15:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Philip Mauro and the Scopes Trial
According to, the legal argument which William Jennings Bryan used, and thereby won the case, was prepared by Philip Mauro (1859-1952), a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of the foremost patent lawyers of his day. As yet there is no reference to this in the main article, so I record this here as a suggestion for someone else to pursue and perhaps add further details. DFH 19:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Further reference: Gardiner, Gordon P., Champion of the Kingdom: The Story of Philip Mauro, Hess Publications, 1998, ISBN 0873770471. DFH 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution
Should parts of this article be placed in a "debates" chapter in Evolution or a similar article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrant Rex (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 January 2007


 * Evolution is a universally accepted theory, to create a wikiproject on debates about evolution just validates creationism as science, which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.222.221 (talk • contribs) (19:38, 1 February 2007 ''

Discussion of press coverage - POV?
The section Humor on the Scopes Trial appears at first reading to have a defensive tone taking the part of the prosecution and its allies. Certain phrases in particular contribute to this tone:
 * "fitted the defendant for martyrdom"
 * "onslaught of ridicule"
 * "the butt of these jokes was"
 * "predictably frequent and nasty"

The section includes numerous excellent specific instances of media coverage (which, however, lack verfiable citations), but the meta-discussion of these instances is not substantiated by reference to any reliable source.

Perhaps the resolution to this issue is for a knowledgeable editor (not me, unfortunately!) to carefully insert appropriate verfiable citations, and edit out those statements that can't be reliably supported.

I think this is a good section, and it does have parts that are in a reasonably neutral tone. But overall, it needs review for consistency with WP:NPOV.

-Ipoellet 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Placement of banner reverted by User:Orlady with a simple assertion in the article history that all the statements are factual.  Message placed on Orlady's talk page requesting comments on my concerns above.  -Ipoellet 18:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the statements in the article are essentially correct. Reference citations are needed, but this is not an NPOV issue. --orlady 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Theory of evolution was considered controversial"
I added the "essay" template to the section that begins as quoted below. The passage may or may not be true, but there is no indication as to whose interpretation of history this is. Someone else had inserted "Tennessee" to make the first sentence say "Tennessee public opinion." I deleted that because it's my understanding that the issue was not local, that most Tennesseans were utterly uninterested in this matter. (Now many Tennesseans are convinced that evolution is an evil concept, but that's another matter.) I hope someone can replace this with something that has an authoritative basis. --orlady 14:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC) At that time in history the theory of evolution was considered controversial in public opinion, and a large faction of its detractors linked it with atheism. It was not until the 1930s that the beginnings of the modern synthesis brought Darwinism to the core of modern biology....

Annual reenactment
Under the "Stage and film" section, I added a section pertaining to the annual reenactment of the trial held in Dayon as well as its upcoming film adaptation produced by Bryan College. Not sure if this requires any sources or not. I'm a citizen of Dayton and have been involved in the reenactment for a few years now, so it's first hand information. Windmillninja 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read about this in the newspaper. Search the web and you probably will find a news article to cite. --orlady 11:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Contempt

In fact, Darrow was held guilty of contempt and ordered to enter into a bond of $5,000 to appear from day to day and not depart without the court’s leave. Later that day he apologized and the penalty was waived. Lake rudyard 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Lake Rudyard

The citation at the beginning of the article is wrong. That cites leads to the APPEAL from the Scopes trial, not to the trial itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.200.140 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism!
Much of this article is plagiarized. I have found sentences copied verbatim from Popular Trials: Rhetoric, Mass Media, and the Law by Robert Hariman. Most of the Adam and Eve section is taken from page 72 of that book. A telltale sign of which sections are plagiarized is to look for non-Wikipedia-style references. --JHP (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Problematic sections can be marked with templates. Better yet, replace the copied material with a paraphrase & appropriate wiki-style citations. I agree that 'Adam and Eve' & a number of the sections around it look highly suspect. HrafnTalkStalk 06:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not know it was possible to plagiarize myself. I assume that applies to being able to use my dissertation as well, which is what the article was based on in the first place. Good to know. I understand why you have to delete everything I had written. No problem.

PSA: One can not plagiarize oneself. One plagiarizes only if one takes credit for someone elses' work. Not providing a citation is not plagiarism. If you wrote it please provide a citation so everyone else knows where it was first published. Some of us (professor types esp.) are a tad sensitive about plagiarism but in any case I would always ask first before deleting/reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.250.123 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Error?
"which forbade the teaching, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, of '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.'"

The way it's worded right now (above) contradicts itself. It says that it forbids any theory that goes against Intelligent Design, and to instead teach Evolution? Anyone care to take a stab at what's wrong with that sentence? Also, more to the point, which is it? Does it substitute Evolution in place of Intelligent Design, or does it require the teaching of both? 24.18.120.84 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Read it again, carefully. It makes sense.  The law disallows teaching a theory of biology that is not rooted in the Bible (i.e., instead of teaching Biblical creationism, teaching instead the theory of evolution).  Note that the term "Intelligent Design" was not coined at the time of this law; the law is openly requiring that creationism be taught, rather than using the veneer of plausibility that the term "intelligent design" lends to modern attempts to do the same thing.  149.175.207.31 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The full quote in the body of the article is clearer, and I've tweaked the lead section to follow it more closely. The act made it unlawful to teach theories not rooted in the Bible, and unlawful to teach instead common descent. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence in wrong location
At the end of the second paragraph within the section The Butler Act, the sentence, Scopes was later found guilty and was fined makes no sense in its current location.

Wisepiglet (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Found a photoset on BoingBoing
You might have seen it already, but I'll dump the link just the same:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/smithsonian/sets/72157607580371997/

Shinobu (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should definitely use some of these images! They are all in the public domain since they were shot in 1925, but not published or registered before 1978 (that means they fell into the public domain before automatic copyrights were in effect). This is also validated on the Flickr pages which state "No known copyright restrictions", per the Smithsonian. Kaldari (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The licensing explanation for those images is a bit tricky. For anyone uploading them, you may want to take a look at File:John_t_scopes.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "Aftermath" Section
There are two problems right off the bat in the Aftermath section. First there is the use of the term 'Liberals' in reference to some churches acceptance of evolutionary theory. This needs a citation and I am curious how the author is defining liberal.

Next, this section cites a work by someone named Goetz that claims "in totality" there is a "majority" of Christians that disbelieve evolution and yet according to this poll [ http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm ] seems to indicate this is a plurality, not a majority, though it is quoting another source (which is why I didn't bother to make the change already).

My point is, the first sentence in the Aftermath section is problematic and in my opinion should be revisited.

Thanks, Anonymous

Scopes Monkey Trial movie being filmed in Michigan
I agree, there seems to be a particular demographic who throw the term liberal around and recording these biased opinions in wikipedia will only make us look like bickering idiots in the future. The assertion that the majority of christians did not believe evolution to exist is completely not supported by the reference. That article even said that while the jury was convinced the American public were not. When you read the summation of the article you realise that it is close to verbatim compared to this section of this page. Ninahexan (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just added some information regarding the Scopes Monkey Trial Hollywood movie, which is being filed right here in Michigan. The movie, Alleged, stars Brian Dennehy and Fred Thompson, and features a brand new screenplay based on the trial. The movie has been filming right here in my neighborhood and it's an exciting time.--71.227.103.189 (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging and headings
Merged Celebrities with Origins, but think it should probably be further merged with the lead as this section just gives a summary of the whole trial. The Dayton heading could possibly be changed to something more descriptive of the section too. AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken Infobox
I'd like to point out that the infobox on the article is broken and has been broken for a little while, maybe as a result of the fixed recent vandalism? 98.215.151.177 (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, more summary
This article needs some better summary. Like who won the trial? Did the Butler law survive the trial? Just a few basics. It's too hard to find the basic information in this article, because it's too long for that. Thanks.--24.85.68.231 (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Evolution vs. Darwin, Darwinism, Darwinisiam Evolution etc.
Darwin is a person not a science. Darwin used in a term can needlessly provoke super naturalists. When referring to science please specify the science not the man/women. We don't write Newtonian gravity or Einstein Relativity or Curie Radiation or even Mendel inheritance do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.250.123 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor Fresnel diffraction, Fourier transform, Euclidean space ... "Evolution" is better though. J IM ptalk·cont 10:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Who Paid the Fine?
Didn't see that. Seem to recall in the film Tracy/Darrow/some interested party did. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The ACLU paid Scope's fine. Don't get your facts from the movie, many of the involved parties (in the actual trial) were quick to point out many of the fallicies in it.

Newspaper Articles
Where can I find the original newspaper articles on the trial, especially the one that started it all, the Chattanooga Daily Times front page of the May 4th 1925 edition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.54.212 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"which"
First sentence has two "which"s in it -- not good writing. Loopy48 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Substitute teacher?
If I remember correctly, wasn't Scopes a substitute teacher? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned in the article somewhere? It goes to the fact that this wasn't just some innocent teacher who was simply doing his job, but rather a man who was essentially put up to it by the ACLU. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcome (I tend to believe that squelching debate is nearly always bad), I think it should be made clear that this wasn't just a teacher doing his job, but a guy who agreed to go along with the ACLU's plan to attack the law. LHM 04:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he was. --173.77.225.251 (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Balance of information
This article mentions several questions regarding Biblical history asked by Darrow but is silent concerning the scientific evidence presented. It is my understanding that there was some confusion on Darrow's team as to the difference between human embryo development and evolution. If there was other evidence presented by Darrow it should be present in this article to balance the inclusion of the Biblical questions that Bryan was asked--even if that evidence is no longer accepted today.72.211.209.14 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Toby Lawler
 * Got any sources? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Death of Bryan
I find it curious that there is no mention of Bryan's death just days after the trial. There are a host of sources and historians that suggest Bryan died due to the public and personal stress that had been put upon him, especially during his examination from Darrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosindave (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read that Darrow and his team celebrated the death of Bryan. Apparently, he had a real hatred of the man. 99.0.37.134 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have a source, by all means bring it here for consideration. Without a source, there's not much to discuss. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * His death 5 days after the trial is on his page, not really needed to be on the trial page. Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not proposing we add this to the wikipedia page and i know this is, oh, maybe 8 years old but I do like my history. Could it have been a murder that caused Bryan's death? It seems suspicious. Maybe im being rllly dumb and missing something haha Applejuiceandpeachh (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Inherit the Wind - Historical inaccuracies need to be mentioned
This is not a science article, but an article about a court trial. It's about history, not science, and all the information included merely talks about what happened at the trial, which is compared to the play/film. The play/film, mentioned in the article, did play fast and loose with the actual facts, and they all seem to make creationists, who are a large segment of American society, look bad. This article is about the Scopes trial, and it needs to be balanced about the fictional play about it. There are a significant number of people, not a tiny minority of the population, with creationist views, and the play showed a bias in the favor of the evolution side, as any examination of the facts shows. The ones who point out the historical inaccuracies are places like Answers in Genesis, though. Some of the inaccuracies could be reported without a source like AiG, but not all could be included, and pointing them out without a source would be original research. Pointing out blatant inaccuracies in the play which falsely portray a large section of society and which is backed up by clear evidence seems to make using AiG source necessary. And it seems fair to include a creationist opinion on how the historical inaccuracies are viewed by the people affected by them. The creationist response is also clearly labeled as such. Psalm84 (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for using the talk page. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I'll make two basic points and a procedural comment. First, this article is about the trial, not Inherit the Wind, which I assume has its own article(s), and extensive treatment of the play or movie is misplaced in this article. Second, you appear to be using primary sources to support the content you're adding; that's rarely acceptable, and it certainly isn't in this case. Unless a reliable secondary source can be found to document something noteworthy about ITW, what you're adding is essentially original research propped up by unreliable, non-neutral sources—a violation of the neutral point-of-view policy. In any event, you were bold and edited the article, and your edits were reverted. Now it's time for discussion to happen and consensus to be sought, not for reinserting the disputed content while you make your case. I'm not going to revert you again now, but in the event that no one else wanders along soon and joins the discussion and you don't revert yourself, I'll see about getting some more eyes on this. Rivertorch (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do also believe discussion about this would be a good thing. I'd also like to reply on a few points. What I added wasn't an extensive discussion of the play. It's still a very small part of the article. I added only enough to explain that despite its fame and influence, the play took serious liberties with the facts which were unfair to the creationist side. Even though the article isn't about ITW, there is a section on it, and any information on it has to be accurately presented.


 * I have in mind now to remove the last quote from John West that is similar to David Menton's view and add one by the editor of About.com's atheism page which also says that the movie isn't historically accurate: "Unfortunately, a lot of people treat it as far more historical than it really is. So on the one hand I'd like more people to see it both for the drama and for the bit of history that it does reveal, but on the other hand I wish that people would be able to be more skeptical about how that history is presented.”


 * IMO, the clear inaccuracies in the play which falsely portray creationists in a negative way should be noted in the article, and the AiG article is a fair response to them. Psalm84 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Re "the play took serious liberties with the facts":
 * Of course it did; it's a play. How many historical plays do you suppose don't "take liberties"? That the play failed to hew precisely to the events of the trial is not noteworthy. It might be noteworthy if it had.
 * Even if you and I agree it took liberties, we still need reliable sources to put that in the article, and the sources you're providing don't wash. I have opened a discussion about that here; please feel free to contribute.
 * Even if we were to find reliable sources, it's beyond the scope of the article on the Scopes Trial. Rivertorch (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As even Austin Cline, atheism/agnosticism guide at About.com, notes, the play/film is treated as history. Most people will never ever read a detailed book or study the case themselves. The play/film is their primary source of information about it, and what is true and what isn't can't be judged from the play/film itself. The play/film also says that while it isn't history, it is "unbiased," as the WP article says right now, which increases someone's confidence that it is close to the facts.


 * The ways in which the play/film departs from what happened are clear and not merely POV, and those ways tend to affect creationists negatively.


 * It is also not beyond the scope of this article to present a balanced and accurate picture of the play/film. Even if it was only a one sentence description, it should be accurate. Right now the article doesn't address the fact that the play/film took serious liberties with what happened. It is not NPOV itself.


 * The article also talks at length about the play:


 * "There have also been a trio of television versions, with Melvyn Douglas and Ed Begley in 1965, Jason Robards and Kirk Douglas in 1988, and Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott in 1999. The Scopes trial did not appear in the Encyclopædia Britannica until 1957, when its inclusion was spurred by the successful run of Inherit the Wind on Broadway, which was mentioned in the citation. It was not until the 1960s that the Scopes trial began to be mentioned in the history textbooks of American high schools and colleges, usually as an example of the conflict between fundamentalists and modernists, and often in sections that also talked about the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the South.[64]


 * "Since 1987, the city of Dayton has staged a reenactment of the trial using the original transcripts, performing it in the same courtroom in which the trial took place. The annual event occurs during Dayton's Scopes Trial festival with several performances showing over the weekend. In 2007, Bryan College, the institute founded in memory of Bryan, purchased the rights to the production and made a filmed version for DVD release using the same performers entitled "Inherit the Truth" in an attempt to clear up any misunderstandings regarding the trial due to Inherit the Wind.[65]"


 * On the sources, one I mistakenly left in was from "Creation worldview." The "Evolution News" source was from John G. West of the Discovery Institute. And there was also a newspaper source and a source from Austin Cline of About.com's atheism/agnostic page.


 * On this page, since it isn't primarily about the play, a response from the AiG source, which is its opinion that the play/film is biased, could be given. It could be said that creationists believe the film inaccuracies are bias and a quote could be added, such as:


 * "The evidence suggests that the inaccuracies in the play and film Inherit The Wind are substantive, intentional and systematic." Psalm84 (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The content is out of the scope of this article and the sources are unreliable so I have deleted it. Please stick to RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to address the first point right now. The article discusses the play/film at some length. It goes into some explanation of them. Just looking at it you can see all that it mentions, including different versions of the play/film and who starred in them, and that it didn't make it into the Encyclopedia Britannica right away. Shouldn't the description that's there be accurate and balanced? Psalm84 (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand what balance means on wikipedia - it means we give due weight to what a range of mainstream reliable sources are saying - it doesn't mean that we have to give equal weight to fringe sources sources such as the ones that you want to use. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do understand that. But you do know that a high percentage of the American public believes in creation, doesn't believe evolution, etc. A source that reflects that view wouldn't be representing a "fringe" view. No science is being debated here. And as I said, if AiG is so objectionable, how about a quote from the article which is clearly their opinion that they find the film to be biased and inaccurate? It would be their comment on it, and it's a claim that is backed up by a lot of evidence. The play/film isn't historically accurate, and as the AiG article says, slanders creationists.


 * And I also quoted the opinion of Austin Cline, from an atheistic viewpoint, who also sees the film as not true to history. Psalm84 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " And as I said, if AiG is so objectionable, how about a quote from the article which is clearly their opinion that they find the film to be biased and inaccurate?" but why would we give any credence to such a poor fringe source to start with? I'm not sure why you keep need to tell us that Austin Cline is an atheist? How is that relevant to if about.com is an RS? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for a full reply, but the reason to include at least an opinion from AiG is that the play/film portray the trial falsely. The play/film are used by non-experts because they're entertainment. Entertainment is pop culture. This entertainment isn't true to the facts, and WP should reflect that. Many of the differences, like the involvement of the ACLU that left out of the play, are clear just from reading the articles on the trial and the play. And the differences go against the creationists, which is also clear from facts like the ACLU difference. Psalm84 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On the About.com article then, would that be an acceptable source for criticism of the film/play? Psalm84 (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No. We use reliable sources for EVERYTHING on WP. Including entertainemnt. Your concept of reliable sources and NPOV are seriously deficient. You really have to read the policies well and understand them clearly if you are going to make a cogent arguemnt to get consensus. They do not say what you think they say, or what you want them to say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarity of lede
I have edited the lede to make clear what the body of the article does, namely that this trial was deliberately staged to attract attention to the town of Dayton, with Scopes deliberately incriminating himself. It was thus a highly unorthodox legal proceeding, which the previous lede did not at all indicate. The lede even breathlessly claimed that Scopes after winning on appeal was "set free," when in fact he was never jailed and the penalty after conviction was a $100 fine, not prison. In terms of legal (as opposed to social) precedent, the case was insignificant, as evolution laws such as the Butler Act were never enforced, a point the body of the article again makes clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsquire3 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's better but seems missing Markbassett (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (a) achieved small town benefit of publicity but missed the whole ACLU goal of undoing the law (until 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas) as things ran off track and the judge ended it on the 7th day.
 * (b) context in 1920s of populism vs intellectualism as both World War I and the massive increase in high school or contact via radio to previously isolated agrarian regions led to rejections of science as a good thing. That seems why it got inolvement from politicians and ACLU involvement and ceased to be limited to the science or law per se.

Incorrect picture of lawyers
In the section "The actual proceedings", the picture of Darrow and Bryan in court is not actually of Darrow and Bryan. This picture is a screen capture from the 1960 movie Inherit the Wind -- the picture is of Spencer Tracy (as Henry Drummond, the fictionalized Darrow) and Fredric March (as Matthew Harrison Brady, the fictionalized Bryan).

In other words, this picture does not belong on the Wikipedia entry for the Scopes trial; it does, however, belong on the Wikipedia entry for the aforementioned 1960 film. Please make the necessary changes. Thank you.

Recycler1973 (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)recycler1973
 * Are you sure? Have a look at William Jennings Bryan, as well as Spencer Tracy and Fredric March (which have pictures that appear quite different). Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnuniq Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Actual Date Trial Began
Could we see the actual date of the trial's start added to the article? Date when it was decided and a few days mentioned as 'on the sixth day...' and 'on the seventh day' do not explicitly name the dates of the trial BrattySoul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brattysoul (talk • contribs) 02:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sixth day? Seventh day? -- I can see where you'd want some hard dates here. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense sentence.
I removed this sentence. "Liberals saw a division between educated, tolerant Christians and narrow-minded, obscurantist Christians."

Who and what are liberals? If it is today's political meaning....the narrow minded Christians were as likely to be progressive as the tolerant Chirstians. Case in point is WJB. If it is Liberal theology...that is sort of obscure for the average person and needs to be pointed out.(frankly it seems like a small movement to point out anyways) anyways just pointing it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.65.191 (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

best known for?
I added <> after the statement that the trial is "perhaps best known for" the play and movie ITW. This seems like the sort of statement that's obvious to some and absurd to others. Me, I read about the Scopes trial for decades before becoming aware of the play/film. Paleolith (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cross examination
I would question the reference to Bryan being "denied the chance to cross-examine the defense lawyers". Witnesses are cross examined, not the lawyers.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)