Talk:Kansas School Board has copyright withheld over teaching Intelligent Design

Sources and development issues

The article does not use sources correctly. Original documents are used in Original reporting, which this article very likely qualifies for. However, citing the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism site as a "source" to support speculation is not within bounds of acceptable reporting practice (no matter how humorous or deserved.) Likewise, the graphic is not specifically related to the article subject. - Amgine / ^talk 06:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Amgine: In what sense is this "original reporting"? What "speculation" are you talking about? The graphic seems perfectly related to the story. --JWSchmidt 12:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

FSM is good! It provides a wonderful wrap up to the article, keep it.

• Amgine, the FSM source is in there to give evidence to the claim that individuals are lobbying the Kansas School Board (letters posted on the website) and that several members of the school board are inclined to spport that initiative (responses by board members posted on website). My guess is that by "speculation" you mean the comment that move "is likely to aggrevate the tension". This has been removed by now, so the artile should be fine now. One question: Is this original reporting just because I read the original documents? Isn't that what should be done for every article, if possible? --vonbergm 16:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  Doing research, such as locating and studying the original documents involved in a news event, is what reporters do. They also, incidentally, read what all the other news sources are saying, and tend write the same background paragraphs, but write their original reporting on what they found which is not being said elsewhere.

  On Wikinews we support more basic levels of original reporting. If you have done the legwork of researching the original documents, interviewed subjects, etc. then, as per the original reporting guidelines, this article qualifies. Congratulations!

  On the evidence that FSM is lobbying the Kansas School Board... It may be true, but we only have their word for it. Far more importantly: How is the FSM lobby relevant to the National Science Education Standards decision? It isn't; it's just an interesting related piece of trivia. For this reason it should be at the very most a small footnote in a background paragraph, and it should not have the false prominence of being the only graphic. - Amgine / ^talk 18:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, the picture does not reflect the focus of the article. I will take it out. Your question is interesting and worth pursuing. I still believe the FSM paragraph adds to the article as it shows that the FSM are trying to exploit exctly the points of criticism in the proposed stadards to advance their agenda. This adds important background information to explain the somewhat radical decision to deny the use of copyrighted materials. --vonbergm 19:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"we only have their word for it" (above) "Moderate board members report they've received hundreds of e-mails as a result of Henderson's effort and that his Web site has become a focal point for discontent with recent board moves to alter Kansas' teaching standards." (source) "Board member Sue Gamble of Shawnee said she's received 676 messages criticizing the board majority's stand -- and most cite the spaghetti monster." The FSM effort has played a major role in attracting public attention to the story. Ye$, commercial new$ organization$ cannot afford to mention the FSM, but that does not mean that Wikinews has to follow suit and avoid telling the story. --JWSchmidt 19:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

<laughing> Excellent source, JWSchmidt! I should point out, however, that MSM (mainstream media) would actually love to use the FSM element in their reporting: articles are "sold" via wire services as fitting into a variety of possible news categories, and adding FSM puts this story solidly into both human interest and news-of-the-weird in addition to its news value. However, this still does not address the who, what, where, when, why, or how of the decision by NSES to withhold copyright approval. - Amgine / ^talk 19:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

FSM is a serious attempt to defeat intelligent design by highlighting the absurdity of allowing personal beliefs to be taught as "science". As such, it is perfectly applicable to the story, as is the related pic. There seem to be many sources, some of which refer to the FSM. Are you sure none of these sources support the claims that the FSM is being so used in this case ? StuRat 00:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat my question: How did the FSM influence the National Science Education Standards decision to withhold copyright approval? - Amgine / ^talk 00:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That particular decision is just one step in the Kansas debate. The previous actions regarding Creationism and the old board which was thrown out of office also didn't "directly influence the (current) National Science Education Standards decision", but are still related to the story, as is this. As for proper sourcing, this source appears to provide proof of the accuracy of the statements in the article:

• Don Lefler. "Evolution debate spawns a saucy monster" — The Wichita Eagle, August 28, 2005

<grin> Yes, that's the one JWSchmidt added above. Actually, the NSES withheld the copyright last time as well, so it is more clearly pertinent. I'm not opposed to FSM being in the article as background, but in its current state, and especially due to the image, FSM is waaaay over emphasized for the article topic. What I don't understand is why there is so much effort to justify such a large presence for FSM. Funny, yes. Serious, yes. Majorly important in this particular article, no. (btw: that's a hint - another article please!) - Amgine / ^talk 00:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, both the content and pic are at the bottom of the article. I do think it's an important part of the story as it may be critical in getting the public attention needed to have the new arch-conservative board thrown out like the last one. I would like to see some other pic added near the top, maybe of the board members ? If you want to write an additional story on the use of FSM in the Kansas debate, go ahead. Meanwhile I dont see any reason to suppress any portion of this material from the current article. StuRat 00:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Aparently you feel strongly enough about this to revert twice. I also feel strongly that it is not relevant to the story, and constitutes POVioring. I have been looking for a pic, other than the Darwin cartoon, but it takes time. Wikinews is not a place for advocacy. What you wrote above is clearly advocacy not news. - Amgine / ^talk 01:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What I wrote above is not part of the article, so whether it is advocacy or not is simply not relevant. In fact, I haven't contributed to the article at all, but have only restored the deleted material. StuRat 02:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's not get religious!

Let's not get religious on this issue of the FSM! I believe Amgine has a point here. I truely enjoy the FSM, but the focus of this as a news story is on the withholding of copyright, and here FSM only fits in as background. This is why I took the picture out the first time, as it misrepresents the main focus of the article. Also, Amgine's version of the FSM paragraph reflects the FSM portion of the story quite nicely. Is somebody tells me how to "revert" edits, I would be inclined to revert back to Amgine's version. The new title is nice.

StuRat, one possible way to add more FSM content would be to ask some FSM representative (if there is such a thing) to comment specifically on the copyright issue and its implications on FSM. Moreover, one could ask the respective science associations if they are aware of FSM and how their criticism applies to possible changes in the curriculum with respect to FSM. A cople of emails may add some more original reporting to the story. :-) Alternatively one could add an extensice "background" section that details the past dispute and points to possible future disputes. The FSM would naturally come up there. --vonbergm 02:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I would think asking the Kansas board what they think of FSM inclusion in the curriculum would be far more relevant. This has been done, and included in the story. StuRat 02:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Material about the FSM being given prominence in an article which it is not directly related to for the purpose of drawing attention to the silliness of disputing the teaching of evolution constitutes advocating a specific point of view or belief as correct, which is in violation of the WN:NPOV policy. - Amgine / ^talk 02:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You whole argument ASSUMES that this article is not about the teaching of Intentional Design, but solely about NSES copyrights. I don't see how this assumption is justified. StuRat 02:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please check the history of the article]. I believe you'll find yours is the only edit (the page move) which suggested it is not about the NSES decision. - Amgine / ^talk 02:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I never said it was not about the NSES decision, I said it was not SOLELY about the NSES decision. They are not the same thing at all. You are the only one suggesting that it is not about Intelligent Design in any way. StuRat 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not say it was not about Intelligent Design. I said it was not about FSM. - Amgine / ^talk 02:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Your argument was that FSM had no role in the NSES decision, which made the assumption that the article was solely about the NSES decision. Since the article was also about the Kansas board's decisions regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design, and FSM may influence the board's decisions, FSM is highly relevant to the story. StuRat 03:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly dispute the latter element, but at this point we're quibbling and should probably take a break from the article and the discussion to get some breathing room, and a chance to take a fresh look at improving the article. - Amgine / ^talk 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the POV policy, it says that if one POV is shown then the opposite POV should also be included. Here is the opposite POV to the FSM:

"Christian political activists such as Reverend Jerry Johnston of First Family Church in Overland Park Kansas are supporting the effort to shape Kansas science standards according to religious beliefs. Johnston said, "Getting intelligent design into school curricula is the worthiest cause of our time and the key to reversing the country's moral decline." StuRat 03:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The FSM should not be included in this article as more than a background element. It is not relevant to the primary news event, the decision by the NSES to again withhold its copyright from the Kansas School Board standards. - Amgine / ^talk 03:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

consensus

Why is the article still under a tag against the consensus of contributors? Neutralizer 03:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could look at the timeline of the article edits, and the discussions here, and see that there is not currently consensus regarding the article or the very recently applied tag. - Amgine / ^talk 03:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree; the discussion record indicates the tag should not have been put on at all and certainly should not be there now. If you can convince others that the article qualifies as breeching our WN:NPOV guideline then let someone else put the tag back, but you (Amgine) should take it off now. Neutralizer 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Amgine. While I greatly enjoy FSM, it is not appropriate for this story or if it is no where near is prominently displayed --Cspurrier 03:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to weigh in at this point and also declare my support for Amgine's version of the final paragraph. It sounds natrual and provides context for copyright issue, which is the focus of the article. The current version of the final paragraph reads like the beginning of a new article. - Borofkin 03:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, was gone for an hour and what a mess! As I oulined above, I think Amgines last edit is a good compromise. A small reference to FSM is left in the article, the picture is removed. --vonbergm 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I really like the FSM -- it's a whimsical response to a serious problem. Why not create a seperate article (properly sourced) about Pastafarianism and its role in this mess? I think there are probably adequate sources available. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Just read the article and can't really say it's not neutral. There's no answer offered to the problem so the FSM threw in their opinion, too. Seems like everyone got their opinion into this story so maybe it's time to let it set sail... unless you really want to strive for more neutrality and mention some of the other theories that could be taught. I'm not going to object if the spagetti monster angle isn't considered as part of the inteligent design theory or is removed from the story entirely. After all, how does one measure the intelligence of pasta? Karen 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Split into Two

I split this into two articles, one solely on the NSES decisions (this one) and the other on the broader issue of Intelligent Design being taught in the Kansas schools. I removed all material not directly related to the NSES decision from this article. Some extraneous sources may still need to be pruned, however. StuRat 05:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It's typical of newspapers to run mulitple stories on different aspects of one topic, especally in a situation like this. This is one of several reasonable courses of action, in my opinion. Keep up the good work, guys! -- An entertained reader named Karen 05:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't personally see how the FSES copyright decision was so totally unrelated to the attempt to teach Intelligent Design that they couldn't exist in the same article, but, I don't suppose having two articles bothers me much. Only down side is this article is now really boring. Oh well. StuRat 05:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• StuRat, thanks for helping out on the article. I did appreciate your edits, but I do agree with Amgine on the prominance of the FSM. I put your quote back in and the small reference to FSM as done by Amgine. Writing a second article that goes deeper into the background will be a good thing. The ID issue is not likely to go away anytime soon. --vonbergm 06:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Vonbergm, I have removed one para (see diff) as it is covered in the other article... --Chiacomo (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. --vonbergm 06:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to be on record as agreeing with StuRat that the connection (between the FSES copyright decision and the attempt to teach Intelligent Design) is obvious and pronounced. Also, articles blossom with relevant humor and the FSM image is a legitimate sidebar to the story. By including stuff like the FSM image it keeps us separate from the encyclopedias and tight cork crowd. Who among us would more enjoy and be more attracted to reading this article than the previous inclusive one? Neutralizer 12:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutralizer, you have a point that splitting the articles takes away from both. But I disagree about the emphasis on FSM in the previous version. One other (possibly better?) way to resolve this would have been to add a background section which details the history of the controversy (as I suggested above). There FSM would naturally have a lot more space and emphasis. But it seems that this was not an acceptable compromise. --vonbergm 18:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)