Talk:Council of Europe report challenges teaching of Creationism

This does not seem to have been reported in a timely matter. --SVTCobra 09:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we change the date to reflect that (I do not think it is publishable though)?, as being a historical resource is one of the goals of Wikinews. --Nzgabriel | Talk 10:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you definitely cannot publish "as of" a past date, either. --SVTCobra 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in Europe Creationism is referred to as "the creationism" but I've never heard "the" being applied to the term before here in North America. —24.141.153.56 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

well see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Creationism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design (or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism)

Openings from those pages: "Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism...", "Intelligent design is a form of creationism...", "Creationism is the belief that..."; all lacking 'the'. —24.141.153.56 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

QuoteLeft

Quotes in quoteboxes are supposed to be lifted from the article itself. The quote should be integrated into the main body. --SVTCobra 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I very much oppose that duplicating approach. These boxes are an opportunity to expand on an article. -Edbrown05 06:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote is lifted directly from the article - I did it! CWiltshire 07:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

When I set up (with a little help from Doldrums) the {{QuoteLeft}} and {{QuoteRight}} templates the idea was based on something the BBC News site does. Where they have an article with no picture, or a long article that needs broken up a bit, they lift a quote from the article to highlight the subject matter. The general idea which SVTCobra didn't particularly well express is that you can read the bit in the box first - it stands out - and based on that decide to read the entire article where you will see the quote in context.

I hope I'm not rambling too much here, the quote templates are a great way to "brighten up" an article. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Single source

Is the use of both the English and French versions of the report a way to circumvent the single source standard? --SVTCobra 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, if it is the same story in English and French it is still a single source because they both have the same story. —FellowWiki Newsie 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I tagged it as such, then. --SVTCobra 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

French version is good if thinking about non-english readers who may prefere to read a background docs in diferent than EN lang

Does the single source standard count for when the article has been worked from a press release, or other document ? Example: If I wanted to write an article, say on a court decision, and the courts judgement was available online, I would think it preferable to write an article soley on the basis of the judgement, then to read two articles from different newspapers and write it based on that info. Regards 62.224.242.248 08:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC) that was me Sean Heron 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read a published report and write a story on that, then it is original - not single source. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing (sp?) so much I must go to bed. -Edbrown05 09:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I've removed some of the statements of fundamentalism from the article: although I agree with creationists being fundamentalists in my eyes, NPOV involves writing for the enemy. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV should not prevail the base of the information -> the reports states clearly that the "threat to human rights" is in fact the fundamentalism (travesti to "scientific discussion" against the darwinism). IMHO "fundamentalist doctrines" can not be translated to "a theory" as the meaning is not the same - the Creationism is not based to any scientific grounds and therefore it can not be called a theory (just a belief = a doctrine). --Alexandr Snajdar 06:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

note that fundamentalism can be used to mean literalism without implying any negative connotation. –Doldrums(talk) 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

so the term "fundamentalism" is well neutral ... I'll make the change (put it back) -- Alexandr Snajdar 09:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that "fundamentalist doctrine" can be used here, but on the other hand this article does not read as a neutral article, there has been no attempt to balance the article, it is a single-side slant against creationism.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The news is about the Council of Europe report - and the content of this report is unambiguously agains the creationims (which si treated there as a fundamentalist doctrine eventually challenging the human rights). Should be the content of the report changed? Or the news should be different then the fact? Or wee should not be informed about? -- Alexandr Snajdar 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Alex that there isn't any issue here We're merely reporting what the Council said. JoshuaZ 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point: you're single-sidedly using information. It might not be exactly the same, but I remember a discussion here: Talk:French presidential candidate Sarkozy accuses left parties of betraying left values that might prove insightful. I still dispute this: a reasonable attempt should be made to give the view of the "accused party" on this issue.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

With this approach you would be never able to present any resume of any speach, press release etc however important - because you would need to ask always meaning of oposing part-y/ies. -- Alexandr Snajdar 06:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it takes a lot of extra work, but I think such a reasonable attempt would greatly increase the quality of our articles.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

good - there is an opinion of a Committee of the Council of Europe in one hand, who would be the "contra" part? I really do not see how to realise what you suggest (and I see barely the use/need/... . -- Alexandr Snajdar 13:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

surely there's an organised group pushing for inclusion, whose views and responses to the report do merit a place in the article. an alternative is to report previously stated position on the issue by notable or representative creationists. Nature subscribers can see [1], [2] mentions Turkish writer Harun Yahya, US ID nutcases, small creationist groups and the Vatican's stance on literalist interpretation of creation. WP also has useful background. –Doldrums(talk) 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Council of Europe vs EU

Council of Europe is NOT European union. There are 2 very different organisations; although even Europeans are confused (given so simmilar names) -- Alexandr Snajdar 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed as I was! CWiltshire 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)