Talk:Center for Science and Culture

There are, in fact, third-party sources establishing notability of C. John Collins. In any case, the Center for Science and Culture is not the appropriate topic to merge the article with, even if a merge were appropriate. The subject in question works for Covenant Theological Seminary, not the CSC. I propose to split the article C. John Collins from Center for Science and Culture and develop the article further. Cuicmac (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)— Cuicmac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply

• Covenant Theological Seminary is wholly unreferenced, and the claim that "there are, in fact, third-party sources establishing notability of C. John Collins" is wholly unsubstantiated. I therefore oppose this split proposal. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk ^{(P )} 16:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• It is indeed a problem that Covenant Theological Seminary does not contain references. However, that is not the issue at hand, as I am not proposing a merge between C. John Collins and Covenant Theological Seminary. The fact is that C. John Collins is a published author, and his books are readily available from many different sources (for instance: ). He also receives press for his books (for instance: ). I therefore deem your opposition to the split to have insufficient grounds. Cuicmac (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required, and World Magazine is hardly a reliable source -- nor does their coverage "address the subject directly in detail". Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk ^{(P )} 17:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• World Magazine may not have an appropriately referenced Wikipedia page, but that does not prevent it from being a reliable source. They are wholly independent from C. John Collins. I'm sorry if my proposal is confusing to you. I am not saying that there are reliable sources to support whatever philosophical positions C. John Collins may or may not endorse. What I am saying is that there is sufficiently reliable material on the original Wiki article to support the information present there (e.g., place of occupation). There are many Wikipedia articles that are "works in progress," C. John Collins is just such a one. Merging the article with Center for Science and Culture, which neither employs nor represents C. John Collins, is not the best way of "progressing" in this case. My proposal is to split the article once more and develop it further. Cuicmac (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• World magazine can be classified among "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" and is thus a questionable source, which can only be used to describe itself per WP:ABOUTSELF. What little notoriety Collins appears to have generated has come from his advocacy of intelligent design creationism in association with the Center for Science and Culture (of which he is a Fellow). It therefore seemed appropriate to merge his article here, and it still seems appropriate to do so rather than to compound the problems of the Covenant Theological Seminary article. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk ^{(P )} 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• To make an accusation against a publication such as World Magazine, you will need to provide proof. A religious bent to a publication does not equate to extremism, nor does Wikipedia state as much when describing a questionable source. But please see my previous comment for what I am actually arguing. You misrepresent me when you say I am trying to "compound the problems" of the Covenant Theological Seminary article. I am not proposing anything in regards to that article. I, like yourself, am trying to expand the reliable body of knowledge on Wikipedia. Merging articles that do not have to be merged defeats this purpose. My proposal stands. Cuicmac (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• (i) On talkpages we indent replies to other comments (see WP:Talk page formatting). Please cease and desist removing this indentation. (ii) A search for 'world magazine' and 'wingnut' returned 23,000 hits. That rather demonstrates that its views "are widely acknowledged as extremist". (iii) You have not demonstrated "significant coverage" with or without World Magazine. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk ^{(P )} 18:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• A search for 'New York Times' and 'wingnut' returned 2,360,000 results. If you had looked closely at just the first page of the search results for your Google search, you would have realized that many of the hits do not actually pertain to World Magazine. But again, this is not the issue at hand.The fact that C. John Collins is employed at a recognized institution and has published several books that are widely available to the public is coverage enough to warrant the information that is in the original article. The article neither endorses nor criticizes--nor even addresses--any opinions held either by or about C. John Collins, and only facts are presented. The integrity and usefulness of Wikipedia is upheld by splitting off the article from Center for Science and Culture. Cuicmac (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• "The fact that C. John Collins is employed at a recognized institution and has published several books that are widely available to the public" is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to Wikipedia's criteria for WP:Notability, which I have already cited to you above: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" There are hundreds of thousands of obscure academics who are "employed at a recognized institution and [have] published several books that are widely available to the public" (for that matter, in these days of Amazon, even self-published books are "widely available to the public"), that does not mean that they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk ^{(P )} 18:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• I respectfully submit that C. John Collins does in fact meet the criteria for WP:Notability. None of the sources in the original article were self-published, nor were they unreliable in any way. Nor does it matter that there are hundreds of thousands of "obscure academics"; C. John Collins is not obscure when looked at in context of the authorial audience. His latest publication is currently #96 in the best-seller list on Amazon in his area of expertise. I would also suggest that when there is a choice between expanding the body of reliable knowledge on Wikipedia and decreasing it, expansion is in keeping with Wikipedia's end goal as an Encyclopedia. Furthermore, the article C. John Collins does not meet any of the qualifications for What Wikipedia is not. The proposal stands. Cuicmac (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• (i) You may "respectfully submit" anything you like, but you have not demonstrated that he meets this guideline. (ii) My reference to "self published" was merely a parenthetical explaining that your claim of "widely available to the public" doesn't mean much in the internet age. (iii) Amazon rankings do not imply notability, particularly as the "area of expertise" is often quite narrow. (iv) I would suggest that Wikipedia is not in the business of regurgitating blurbs from affiliated websites (per WP:RESUME & WP:AUTO). (Ω) Your proposal can do cartwheels for all I care -- it remains both unsubstantiated and, to date, unsupported. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk ^{(P )} 19:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• Please keep your tone cordial, as these forums are not meant to foment animosity. Amazon actually has 66,000+ books in its "Theology" section, so the area might not be as narrow as one would think. The WP:RESUME and WP:AUTO stipulations are only relevant when the subject of the Wikipedia article actually created the Wikipedia article; moreover, the C. John Collins article is recognized as a stub and needs expanding. My proposal is perfectly valid and is in the general "Wikipedia spirit," as it were. You and I are really working towards the same goal, since I understand that you are working to preserve the serious and encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.

Perhaps other editors would like to comment. Cuicmac (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

Oppose splitting. There was a clear consensus to merge and no evidence of notability has since been produced to justify reversing that decision.--Charles (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• For evidence of notability, please see the original article C. John Collins and my above remarks. The article needs to be improved, but to do that it must first be split from Center for Science and Culture. Cuicmac (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• The only three sources cited in "the original article C. John Collins" were the Covenant Theological Seminary website (not independent/third-party, and not significant coverage), the Discovery Institute website (not independent/third-party, and not significant coverage), and the ESV Study Bible (not independent/third-party, and not significant coverage). To which you added a World Magazine article on a number of books including one of Collins' (not reliable, and not significant coverage) and a link to Google Books (which merely demonstrates that one of his books exists). This is nothing like "evidence of notability". Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk ^{(P )} 04:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• You have not been able to prove the unreliability of World Magazine. If you looked closely at the original C. John Collins article, you would have noticed that all four of his books are listed on Google Books. If you conduct a Google Books search for "C. John Collins," you will find other publications as well. A careful Google search will verify that several other articles he has authored are available, at least partially, online. The very fact that he was the Old Testament editor for one of the best-selling Bible versions on Amazon also speaks to his notability. As you know, the rules for Wikipedia biographical articles do not specify in what area a person must be recognized in order to be "notable." Again, we are working towards the same end. I, like you, support the encyclopedic ends of Wikipedia. Splitting and expanding this article will work towards this goal. I respect your dedication as an editor. Cuicmac (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• (i) Given it doesn't give substantial coverage it is largely superfluous to prove that it's also unreliable. (ii) Your point that "all four of his books are listed on Google Books" is likewise irrelevant, as the requirement is for independent sources (and regardless, all sorts of stuff turns up on Google Books -- including republications of Wikipedia articles). The same applies to "several other articles he has authored". (iv) WP:BIO requires that "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Nothing you have provided comes close to meeting this criteria. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk ^{(P )} 06:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• I think I've made my points here, and I think I can guess that you will simply repeat your above sentiments in response. I still submit that splitting this article is in keeping with preservation of Wikipedia standards of notability. However, I understand that your time as an editor is valuable, as is mine. Hence I propose to put off this discussion until such time as other "reliable sources" about C. John Collins become readily available (not that we have exhausted the reliable sources at hand, but in any case), at which time the page may be easily expanded once this merge is reverted. Cuicmac (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• You have asserted numerous points, but you have substantiated very little -- and virtually nothing that is relevant to actual notability criteria. You may submit, stand, sit, or whatever you like, but until you are able to convince other editors to form a WP:CONSENSUS supporting your view, you are getting precisely nowhere. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk ^{(P )} 06:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

• If other editors wish to bring other ideas to the discussion, I am happy to interact with them. For now though, further conversation between us is fruitless. You've made your opinions quite clear. Cuicmac (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Reply

Thread retitled from Insufficient relevant citations in article.

I would like to start by saying that I am not a proponent for the mission of Center for Science and Culture. My edits here are not to promote intelligent design or undermine the scientific theory of evolution, nor are they to propose that both viewpoints are valid. My goal here is to keep the scope of the articles within Wikipedia's policy. We are not here to be an argumentative essay. We allow facts to speak for themselves, and those facts ought to be well-placed and well-sourced. There are two areas where this page is lacking in this regard:

First, the header reads as follows: "The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute (DI), an American conservative Christian think tank. The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while trying to cast doubt on the scientific theory of evolution. Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific form of neo-creationism overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community, whereas the theory of evolution is the accepted scientific consensus."

The emphasis in the text is my own. While I agree that every word of the highlighted section is factual, its placement raises concerns in regards to policy. The source accompanying the text is used nowhere else in the article. Furthermore, the quoted text from the source is "99.9% of scientists accept evolution..." The sourcing is inadequate to include the text in the header for two reasons: one, nowhere in the article is any reference to the Center for Science and Culture made, therefore the quote is not relevant critique of the organization. It is, in this context, a random assertion about evolution that is better suited on the pages for evolution and intelligent design.

The second issue is that the sourcing itself is poorly done. The full quote is "'Overall, the nation has a big problem,' said Alters. 'Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory,' he reported." This is a laughably terrible source for the claim being made, especially when there are much better ones that support the exact claim and numbers.

Proposal 1: We should not include this specific text in the header of this article. We should, instead, include relevant critiques of the organization, specifically addressing the organization.

There is a section under the Criticism subheading that presents arguments in a bulletpoint format. I find this entire section poorly formatted and overly argumentative (it is the experts job to be, not ours). It cites a general notion of criticism and critics, without citing them. In fact, three of the four bulletpoints (Teach the Controversy, Santorum Amendment, and Wedge strategy and the Discovery Institute agenda) cite no criticism whatsoever. The only citation present in any of these is the work of Stephen Meyer and John Campbell, fellows for the Center. This is absolutely inadequate for a section that is intended to be covering criticism, not originating it. We are an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. This being said, the final bulletpoint contains great citations (with the exception of another Wiki page), but text that does not adequately describe what the sources say.

Proposal 2: We completely remove the bulletpoint format, including the text of the first three bulletpoints. We replace the text of the fourth bulletpoint with clearer citations of the criticisms found in the sources, including who made the criticism and what the criticism specifically is.

Courtesy ping to @MjolnirPants, who requested this discussion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

The source accompanying the text is used nowhere else in the article. Furthermore, the quoted text from the source is "99.9% of scientists accept evolution..." The source you mentioned is used to support the claim that ID is pseudoscience. It doesn't need to mention the CSC to be useful for that.

This is a laughably terrible source for the claim being made, especially when there are much better ones that support the exact claim and numbers. Then change the source to a better one. But remember that WP:PARITY exists before complaining too much about the quality of sources debunking pseudoscience.

Proposal 1: We should not include this specific text in the header of this article. We should, instead, include relevant critiques of the organization, specifically addressing the organization. So you think the lead should not mention the whole reason the CSC exists and should instead consist of criticisms of the org? That's certainly... An opinion... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

You don't need to make the claim that ID is pseudoscience. That claim is in the very first sentence of the article for intelligent design, which is linked in the header. Per WP:NOR, "In order to show that what is stated in an article or section, reliable sources must be cited. These sources should be directly related to the topic of the article. They should also directly support the information as it is presented." In this case, the topic of the article is the Center for Science and Culture. There's no direct relation between the source and the Center for Science and Culture. Additionally, "Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

Wikipedia is not for advocacy. Even if a stance is commmonly supported or factually correct, if it's not directly relevant to the subject article, it should not be there, also as per the aforementioned NOR policy. There is definitely a way to be critical of CSC on the grounds that their methodology (as is the norm for pseudosciences) is flawed, and you won't even need to source that claim in the header if it's adequately covered and sourced in the article. ChimaFan12 (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Because it's not for advocacy, WP has WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:YESPOV, WP:PARITY. It should be clear when claims are misleading and clear when it is pseudoscientific. I can see that more inline citations are needed, though. The lead is supposed to summarize the body and the pseudoscience mention is only in the lead. ~2025-32692-02 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

The issue isn't that there's any sort of rebuttal on the page. It's that, on an article with thorough arguments from experts against the organization directly, what's being presented in the header is something compeltely unrelated to it, better suited as an introduction to ID. I haven't tried to reinstate my edit, because I find it would be better to come to a solution about what should replace it before trying to implement it. I think we are all in agreement that the solution is not an outright removal of the notion that the Center's work and messaging are pseudoscientific. It's just not appropriate to introduce a source specifically for the header to make a claim that does not come from anywhere in the article.

Perhaps instead, we could remove the existing text that we're discussing here. We could either start a third paragraph, or include at the end of the second additional text that highlights that, through the initiatives described in paragraph two, they are attempting to manufacture controversy where one does not exist, as this source (which does not mention directly but indeed does reference fellows and members of the Center) describes. Additionally, this source highlights that the beliefs of the Center (again, a means of incorporating ID criticism via criticism of the Center) are not scientific, but rather religious beliefs disguised as "purported science". I believe that the shorter way to describe this, true to the word's definition, is pseudoscientific.

Rather than saying "intelligent design is pseudoscientific" in a random place, quoting a random, unrelated source, we should say that critics, including scientific organizations, describe the Center's ideology (ID) and tactics as pseudoscientific, dangerous (the second source has a lot of language along these lines) or manufacturing controversy. Can we agree on a method along these lines, and make sure the body text contains clear references to these? ChimaFan12 (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Even if a stance is commmonly supported or factually correct, if it's not directly relevant to the subject article, So you're contending that ID is 'not directly relevant' to the CSC? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I've laid out a resolution to what my issue is in my response to ~2025-32692-02, and they've identified what it is, based on their comment. I'm sure that if you read it, you'll find it satisfactory. Please read my proposed resolution. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I don't. Try harder. Or give up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

You don't agree that a citation to a source that is already on the page, and directly criticizes the Center's initiatives as dangerous pseudoscience, both in the body and in the header, is a more satisfactory and relevant option than introducing an unrelated source that is not used anywhere in the body, has no criticisms of the organization, and does not completely cite the sentiment that is being quoted? ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Reverting the recent changes to headings on this talk page is uncalled for. Nobody owns the contents of this page, and whether the citations are "insufficient" is a matter of opinion. I propose restoring my earlier heading "Citations in lead section" as more compliant with WP:TALKHEADPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

That would be inadequate. The conversation is an open conversation concerning multiple parts of the article. I would support something more along the lines of "Request to amend citations for pseudoscience claims and criticism". In any case, this is a needless distraction, and you should not be editing other discussions on this page from two decades ago. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

There's no need to be so verbose. All that's needed is a brief heading that indicates the topic of discussion, something like "Pseudoscience claims, criticism". Discussion of source material and citations is a basic part of consensus-building and probably not worth mentioning in a heading. Obviously we are going to need reliable source citations for any controversial claims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

At this stage, you're micromanaging a header. If you're concerned it's not neutral, I would be willing to change the language to what I proposed. I am not in favor of going beyond that when this is all a needless exercise. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

If this is all a needless exercise, then you can be the first to WP:DROPTHESTICK. If you don't like my more condensed heading, how about "Citations for pseudoscience claims and criticism"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm willing to drop the discussion. Clearly, we're not arriving at a consensus to change it further. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

The consensus was that the article was fine until you deleted sourced content. It should be restored, there was no good reason to delete it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

+1 ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Okay, now I'm confused. I haven't removed any sourced content that has not been restored, and my proposal is to alter the content to use sources present in the article instead of a removal. The message you're replying to is strictly focused on the title of this thread and whether it should be changed. My proposal (and the discussion this thread was actually intended for) is described further here. To repeat, I am not suggesting removing the claim that ID is pseudoscience. I am proposing focusing that part of the header on criticism of the organization, highlighting that critics call the organization's methods and ideology dangerous and pseudoscientific, and using sources that are already in the article that are more relevant to those claims. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

The redirect Günter Bechly has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 17 §Günter Bechly until a consensus is reached. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC) Reply