Talk:Scopes Trial

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)

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":

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

• (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.

Markbassett (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

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 <<Citation needed>> 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)

Should actual history timelines be restored to Scopes Trial article - or Not?

Original {{Life timeline}} and {{Human timeline}} 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)

@TomS TDotO, Rjensen, and Vyselink: 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)

@Drbogdan: 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)

@Vyselink: 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scopes Trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520091924/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061118195330/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/menck04.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/menck04.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 2 December 2017 (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)

 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 29#Monkey vs. scopes trial 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)