Talk:The dangers of creationism in education

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turning the article into a redirect[edit]

User:Hrafn, you've turned this article into a redirect, referring to WP:FORK without any further explanation. Since WP:FORK is about copies of Wikipedia, you've probably meant Wikipedia:Content forking. In my opinion, first, it is not applicable here: quoting it, Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. Second, if one considers it necessary to merge those pages, I haven't seen any signs of using the procedures suggested by WP:Merging. Fuseau (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was on the subject of a couple of related reports and a single resolution on the topic that it was redirected to. It lacked any WP:SECONDARY source establishing these reports' notability and therefore any need for a subarticle on this topic. Lacking such secondary coverage, it does not even merit a mention in the parent article. Such paperwork is entirely routine within any legislative body. There are in all likelihood millions of such reports and resolutions worldwide each year. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The very WP:SECONDARY you refer to writes: primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Besides, several serious secondary sources were given (ECLJ, IHEU), and the attention to this particular resolution is shown in the many WP articles which mention the reports and resolution, and in fr.wiki article - Le Monde, University of Lausanne etc. If you consider more secondary sources necessary, you could look for them, request them or copy them from fr.wiki or at least start a discussion according to WP:Merging. It's true that not all reports and resolutions are noteworthy enough for an article, but many documents of international organisations are (see Category:United Nations General Assembly resolutions)Fuseau (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.

— WP:PSTS

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

— WP:N

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

— WP:V

No secondary/independent/third-party sources = no article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've named 4 such sources, half of which were already present in the English WP article, but you still speak of "no" reliable third-party sources without questioning the reliability of those I've named. Maybe you consider more to be necessary? This, however, is not enough for unilateral removal of content. I can of course add some more and restore the content with additional links, but will it be enough for your understanding of WP rules? I try to be co-operative, so that you could name, for which specific statements in the article you consider secondary sources to be lacking. Or do you refrain from acknowledging the wide coverage of the subject in secondary sources?Fuseau (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. Some more examples of third-party sources: [1] Deutsche Welle; [2] International Society for Science and Religion; [3] CSICOP; [4] Harun Yahya. Fuseau (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Original sources:

  1. IHEU is an independent source, just not a particularly prominent one, and arguably a partisan one.
  2. I do not consider the ACLJ to be a particularly reliable source.
  3. The other three sources cited in the article were clearly WP:PRIMARY.

New sources:

  1. Harun Yahya is a patently unreliable source.
  2. The other three new sources you mention above are probably sufficient to warrant expansion of this topic's mention in Creation and evolution in public education, but per WP:MERGE#Rationales #2, #3 & #4, do not appear to warrant an independent article.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that IHEU, ACLJ and Yahya are partisan, and Yahya - patently unreliable in scientific matters, but their statements are reliable to prove the wide attention on different sides of the debate to the PACE reports and resolution and thus their notability. Those are not the best sources to analyze the content of respective documents, but good ones to establish notability.Fuseau (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable sources never do anything to establish notability. Narrowly partisan ones, even if otherwise reliable, do not tend to demonstrate sufficient breadth of interest to demonstrate much notability. What is needed to demonstrate notability is significant interest from the likes of mainstream news organisations (WP:NEWSORG) or academic WP:SCHOLARSHIP). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources unreliable for one aims can be reliable for others... Anyway, attention from academic (U of Lausanne) and mainstream news organisations (Deutsche Welle, Le Monde) is shown. Do you have any other objections to restoring the content?Fuseau (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  1. No, unreliable sources like ACLJ & Harun Yahya may only be used WP:ABOUTSELF, and never demonstrates notability.
  2. You have not cited any publication from U of Lausanne or Le Monde, nor was any cited in the final version of the article.

Should this article be restored, it would be subject to immediate merger, per WP:MERGE#Rationales #2 (Overlap) #3 (Text) & #4 (Context). I would therefore suggest that you add any appropriate/reliably-sourced material to Creation and evolution in public education#Council of Europe's resolution 1580. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde link at fr.wiki article (I've referred to it on December, 6, in this discussion) is not opening now; the U of Lausanne, too. There is an article with similar name available on unil.ch [5], but it is not connected with the resolution. So I'll suggest the following links instead: [6] Die Welt, [7] Radio Vaticana, [8] German Lutheran Church Fuseau (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Why on Earth do you expect that I'd want to track down an article in a language that I don't speak to track down a source likewise in a language I don't speak, neither of which you've even provided a URL for? Please read WP:NONENG.
  2. If the unil.ch article "is not connected with the resolution", then why did you cite it? And none of the other reports appear to cover the European Parliament reports/resolution in much detail, appearing (at least as far as I can tell from Google Translate) to be either very brief (Vatican) or only mentioning them in passing in discussing a wider context (Die Welt & Lutheran).

Even if you do want an independent article on this topic (and I still way off being convinced that it merits one), the best way to demonstrate the need for one is to build up sufficient secondary-sourced material at Creation and evolution in public education#Council of Europe's resolution 1580, that an argument can be made for its being split off. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see on your userpage any userbox showing language skills, so I didn't know that you don't speak neither French nor German. I'm not sure why did the authors of fr.wiki refer to unil.ch article - they actually provided another link (but their link is not working now). And PACE is not the European Parliament.Fuseau (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_dangers_of_creationism_in_education&oldid=1137247028"