Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Heterosexuality

2008-08-02T16:38:36Z

Jimmy:

'''Heterosexuality''' involves union between two members of the opposite gender. It is the natural way that human beings and most animals reproduce. Heterosexual attraction is natural; that is, men for women, and women for men.{{fact}}

== Biblical Quotations ==

=== [[Old Testament]] ===

:"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that ''is'' thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17)

:"And if a man '''sell his daughter''' to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another ''wife''; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." (Exodus 21:7-10)

:"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." (Exodus 22:16-17)

:"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that ''is'' a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free." (Leviticus 19:20)

:"If a man find a damsel ''that is'' a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty ''shekels'' of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

=== [[New Testament]] ===
:"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

:"''It is'' good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1)

:"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:8-15)

== Health Effects of Heterosexual Lifestyle ==

=== [[AIDS]] ===

According to studies conducted by the [[United Nations]] and the [[Center for Disease Control and Prevention]], the following conclusions were made. <ref>http://www.aegis.org/factshts/NIAID/2000/niaid2000_fact_sheet_aidsstat.html#1
</ref>

- As of the end of 2000, an estimated 36.1 million people worldwide -- 34.7 million adults and 1.4 million children younger than 15 years -- were living with HIV/AIDS.

- Worldwide, approximately one in every 100 adults aged 15 to 49 is HIV-infected. In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 8.8 percent of all adults in this age group are HIV-infected.

- Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.

- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 800,000 to 900,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-third of whom are unaware of their infection.

- Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex.

== See also ==

*[[Bisexual]]
*[[Homosexuality]]

[[category:biology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Heterosexuality

2008-08-02T16:37:35Z

Jimmy: Time to beef up this article, using the homosexuality article as a guide.

'''Heterosexuality''' involves union between two members of the opposite gender. It is the natural way that human beings and most animals reproduce. Heterosexual attraction is natural; that is, men for women, and women for men.

== Biblical Quotations ==

=== [[Old Testament]] ===

:"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that ''is'' thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17)

:"And if a man '''sell his daughter''' to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another ''wife''; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." (Exodus 21:7-10)

:"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." (Exodus 22:16-17)

:"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that ''is'' a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free." (Leviticus 19:20)

:"If a man find a damsel ''that is'' a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty ''shekels'' of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

=== [[New Testament]] ===
:"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

:"''It is'' good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1)

:"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:8-15)

== Health Effects of Heterosexual Lifestyle ==

=== [[AIDS]] ===

According to studies conducted by the [[United Nations]] and the [[Center for Disease Control and Prevention]], the following conclusions were made. <ref>http://www.aegis.org/factshts/NIAID/2000/niaid2000_fact_sheet_aidsstat.html#1
</ref>

- As of the end of 2000, an estimated 36.1 million people worldwide -- 34.7 million adults and 1.4 million children younger than 15 years -- were living with HIV/AIDS.

- Worldwide, approximately one in every 100 adults aged 15 to 49 is HIV-infected. In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 8.8 percent of all adults in this age group are HIV-infected.

- Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.

- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 800,000 to 900,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-third of whom are unaware of their infection.

- Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex.

== See also ==

*[[Bisexual]]
*[[Homosexuality]]

[[category:biology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Carbon Footprint

2008-07-21T15:34:55Z

Jimmy: References needed for opening paragraph

'''Carbon footprint''' is the alleged measurement of carbon dioxide (C02) from human activities that supposedly have an impact on climate change, notably the burning of [[fossil fuels]] that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Typically, one's so-called carbon footprint is calculated by evaluating the amount of time a person spends traveling in various vehicles, how much electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, etc. they use in their home, what they do, eat, wear, and buy, whether or not they practice environmentalism (e.g. recycling), and what country they live in. This calculation is then used to determine what someone has to do to "offset" their carbon footprint. This almost always involves paying exorbitant amounts of money to companies that supposedly plant trees or build alternate energy producing facilities.{{fact}}

===Human Intervention===

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report for the International Energy Agency (IEA) states that the price for reducing human C02 50% by the year 2050 will cost an estimated $45 trillion dollars or ''1.1 per cent of average annual global GDP''.<ref>[http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2218500/iea-calls-trillion-energy], Businessgreen.com, IEA calls for $45 trillion energy "revolution", June 6, 2008</ref>

Detractors argue that C02 is just a tiny component of the overall mechanisms that causes the climate to change. Human driven C02 is even less a component. <ref>[http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1489], CFP, Medieval Environmentalists’ attack CO2, January21, 2008</ref>

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Carbon Footprint

2008-07-21T15:33:37Z

Jimmy: Put dollar figure into perspective according to the provided reference.

'''Carbon footprint''' is the alleged measurement of carbon dioxide (C02) from human activities that supposedly have an impact on climate change, notably the burning of [[fossil fuels]] that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Typically, one's so-called carbon footprint is calculated by evaluating the amount of time a person spends traveling in various vehicles, how much electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, etc. they use in their home, what they do, eat, wear, and buy, whether or not they practice environmentalism (e.g. recycling), and what country they live in. This calculation is then used to determine what someone has to do to "offset" their carbon footprint. This almost always involves paying exorbitant amounts of money to companies that supposedly plant trees or build alternate energy producing facilities.

===Human Intervention===

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report for the International Energy Agency (IEA) states that the price for reducing human C02 50% by the year 2050 will cost an estimated $45 trillion dollars or ''1.1 per cent of average annual global GDP''.<ref>[http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2218500/iea-calls-trillion-energy], Businessgreen.com, IEA calls for $45 trillion energy "revolution", June 6, 2008</ref>

Detractors argue that C02 is just a tiny component of the overall mechanisms that causes the climate to change. Human driven C02 is even less a component. <ref>[http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1489], CFP, Medieval Environmentalists’ attack CO2, January21, 2008</ref>

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Liberal creep

2008-07-19T01:16:12Z

Jimmy: Added reference and citation tags

'''Liberal creep''' is [[liberal bias]] that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.

Former [[Utah]] state Sen. Bill Wright may have been the first to coin this term in spring 2008 when he "warned of liberal creep — the 'education of [[indoctrinate|indoctrination]]' — in which the media peddle "[[socialism]] and programs. We have been so dumbed-down, so indoctrinated with all this information we’re in a haze; we can’t see through it. We must find out for ourselves."<ref>http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=5450FFC0-14D1-13A2-9FC3560D929110B0</ref>

Examples of '''liberal creep''' include:
*[[Ronald Reagan]] left the [[White House]] with the best approval ratings of any president at the end of his term, yet the [[media]] and history books have since relentlessly tried to downplay and distort his political achievements.
*Reverse to the above example, [[Bill Clinton]] <ref> Clinton left office with a higher approval rating than Reagan. [http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm] </ref> left office with crimes of perjury and adultery yet liberal creep ensures that this is downplayed and distorted.{{fact}}
*Many early scientists such as [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Galileo Galilei]] were heavily influenced by Christianity and would never have made their important discoveries without their faith in the [[Jesus Christ|Lord Almighty]]{{fact}}, yet that faith has since been downplayed in [[liberal]] [[atheistic]] [[public school]] textbooks and [[Wikipedia]].<ref>For example, the Wikipedia entry on Isaac Newton completely omits how he was a fundamentalist who read the Bible daily and derived his inspiration and motivation from it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton]</ref> <ref>Wikipedia has a comprehensive article detailing Newton's religious views that utilizes similar content and references. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

Liberal creep

2008-07-19T01:09:19Z

Jimmy: Added reference

'''Liberal creep''' is [[liberal bias]] that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.

Former [[Utah]] state Sen. Bill Wright may have been the first to coin this term in spring 2008 when he "warned of liberal creep — the 'education of [[indoctrinate|indoctrination]]' — in which the media peddle "[[socialism]] and programs. We have been so dumbed-down, so indoctrinated with all this information we’re in a haze; we can’t see through it. We must find out for ourselves."<ref>http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=5450FFC0-14D1-13A2-9FC3560D929110B0</ref>

Examples of '''liberal creep''' include:
*[[Ronald Reagan]] left the [[White House]] with the best approval ratings of any president at the end of his term, yet the [[media]] and history books have since relentlessly tried to downplay and distort his political achievements.
*Reverse to the above example, [[Bill Clinton]] left office with crimes of perjury and adultery yet liberal creep ensures that this is downplayed and distorted.
*Many early scientists such as [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Galileo Galilei]] were heavily influenced by Christianity and would never have made their important discoveries without their faith in the [[Jesus Christ|Lord Almighty]], yet that faith has since been downplayed in [[liberal]] [[atheistic]] [[public school]] textbooks and [[Wikipedia]].<ref>For example, the Wikipedia entry on Isaac Newton completely omits how he was a fundamentalist who read the Bible daily and derived his inspiration and motivation from it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton]</ref> <ref>Wikipedia has a comprehensive article detailing Newton's religious views that utilizes similar content and references. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

User talk:Jimmy

2008-07-17T02:24:47Z

Jimmy:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:52, 19 November 2007 (EST)}}

Take a better look to the the article [[Gettysburg Address]]. There are the words.

"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)

What are you trying to say? The words 'under God' were added after I pointed out the discrepancy between the article and the Breaking News item. Check the history, http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gettysburg_Address&diff=339689&oldid=289268 --Jimmy 19:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

: We have to thank you for your comment. Now the article is better... But in your first comment you did not mention the words "under God". Next time may be you could be more specific. Is that asking to much? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:51, 19 November 2007 (EST)

The main subject of the news item was the phrase "under God". I didn't think repeating the wording of the phrase was all that critical in getting my point across. It seems at least one person, Schlafly, was able to understand what I was talking about. My request to you is to put a little more research into your responses before asking people to "take a better look." Thanks --Jimmy 00:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:We were in the middle of a Contest, but even we were in normal times it is too much work for a Sysop to read every word of every comment. Your comment '''was NOT''' clear enough. Also, I find your reply lack of kindness. Could it change? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:43, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well now, this is going from bad to worse. Your attitude is making me wonder why I even pointed out the error of the Gettysburg article in the first place. I would appreciate it if you would just let this matter drop, because face it, you made a mistake.

The comment I made was short and to the point. The founder of this website understood what I was talking about and thanked me for my efforts. If you have a problem with spending two seconds to read the 20+ words I wrote, then maybe you should reevaluate your way of conducting your role as an editor.

As for my alleged lack of kindness, you are the one that said I should “take a better look” even though you failed to take ten seconds to point, click, and read the history of the Gettysburg article. Doesn’t that sound hypocritical? It is the carelessness on your part that has resulted in this meaningless exchange. Is this what I am to expect from the majority of sysops on this website? I hope not. --Jimmy 19:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

::Your help in this matter has been fine and noticed. It has been grateful for by Andy and by me. There is no doubt about it. We encourage you to keep helping CP. What I can not accept is to see it as a mistake.

::You started writing:

:::''The article on the Gettysburg Address is concise and to the point, yet it does not contain '''the phrase''' attributed to it by the 'Breaking News' section.''

::And the phrase was: ''"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."''

::That phrase '''was''' in the article with the difference that 2 words were not there: '''"under God".'''

::I feel that CP needs a lot of new articles and improve many of old ones. I feel that we do not have enough time for guessing what users want to say. Is that a mistake?

::About "kindness", personally, I am in a city where this is important. But, don't worry, I can survive as far as now. Let see the future!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::The news item in question was entirely about how Lincoln inserted the phrase “under God” in his address. It was obvious to me what I was talking about and it appeared to be obvious to Schlafly what I was talking about. Yet to you for some reason, it was not. Maybe if you had read my entire comment without skipping over part of it you would have understood what I was talking about.

:::It’s ironic how you attach a lot of importance to kindness while at the same time starting your introduction to me with a snarky comment about my post.--Jimmy 20:51, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::: Fine. Schlafly could knew what to do because it was him who wrote the news. But a normal human may not as happens to me. That is why I ask you again to be more specific.

::::: I am sure you can go to the beginning of the page and read how I started: WELCOME, WAS HE FIRST WORD... GO [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimmy&oldid=339685]--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:41, 21 November 2007 (EST)

This was the Breaking news in question: ''On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln inserted "under God" into an already-prepared [[Gettysburg Address]] and declared, "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, '''under God''', shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:52, 22 November 2007 (EST)

==Your editing==
Yes that's right, the editors must provide documentation to back up what they write. The editors must also not be divisive. Since this encyclopedia is in the beginning stages, the editors must work together to build it up properly. Do you follow now? I looked at the majority of your edits which are mostly to the talk pages and you are walking a fine line between being devisive and being outright contemptuous, and it isn't just the talk page on public schools; its others as well, begining with your first edits regarding the Gettysburg Address back in November. Now if you want to make those valid contributions as you said, then you need to learn to work with the rest of us; if there's a lack of source material, then you need to swallow your pride and either respectfully ask the person involved or find it yourself. If you don't want to do any of the above, you know where the door is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank-you for finally admitting what is right. Following the rules and making suggestions for improvement is not being divisive or whining. Don't you get it? I'm the guy that's playing by the rules, making valid contributions, providing references, asking for references from unsupported assertions, etc. I'm doing all this to IMPROVE Conservapedia! What are you doing other than giving me grief for NOT violating any rules and insisting others follow them?

:My very first contribution to this website was to point out an error on the main page and the website founder thanked me for doing so. Yet all that has happened with that bit of helpful information was to be basically treated like crap by Joaquín Martínez.

:Why don't we talk about the majority of my edits, which don't violate the rules by the way.
:- First edit: talk page sugestion, thanked by founder
:- Next four edits: responding to syop that misinterpreted what I wrote and refused to admit his mistake.
:- Next eight edits: contributed to two articles on schools. One edit was on the talk page for clarification
:- Next three edits: quotes with references to the Atheism Quotes article and one talk comment on why my contributions were reverted without explanation.
:- Evolution talk page: trying to improve the content but my contributions are limited because the article is edited and locked by one person.

:See where this is going? I am working with others by making contributions. You are giving me a hard time when I insist that articles have a certain measure of quality and insist that people provide references. I'm working hard enough to provide my own references to the material I write without trying to find references to someone else's assertions that I think are incorrect. I'm treating people with respect, but if their opinions or assertions are lacking supporting documentation I will let them know, just as I have been doing. --Jimmy 17:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
You were warned by an admin above about your editing. Today you removed Aschlafly's edits to the ACLU article while adding your own. This is NOT allowed. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines.
When you return, if you argue with me or another admin or continue editing in a confrontational style, you will receive a permanent block. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)

==No problem, Jimmy==

I calls em like I sees em. You were blocked unfairly. I'm only glad that someone listened. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Thanks and sorry! ==

Your support after my block was much appreciated! I do apologize for getting you blocked, though. :( --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 22:22, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
: Not a problem. No need to apologize for my block, it wasn't your fault. I have the feeling I'll be blocked again shortly. Wish me luck. --Jimmy 00:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Humour ==

I like the humour on your user page. So true my friend, so true
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:23, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks. At times, laughter is the best medicine.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 00:26, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Where laughter fails, whisky will prevail!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Copying from Wikipedia ==

All you did was change or omit a few words. You used many of the same phrasings and almost exactly the same sentence-by-sentence layout.

Your first paragraph:
<blockquote>
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case # 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States federal court against a public school that required teachers to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an explanation of the origins of life. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism and the school's policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Lemon Test.
</blockquote>

From Wikipedia:
<blockquote>
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
</blockquote>

Your second paragraph:
<blockquote>
The plaintiffs, eleven parents of students at the Dover Area School District, sued the school board over a statement in support of Intelligent design that was to be read aloud during science classes when evolution was taught. The parents were represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center.
</blockquote>

Wikipedia:
<blockquote>
Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, near York, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center
</blockquote>

Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Most likely it's [un]intelligent design.

As far as other edits you've made, yes, I have had a problem with some of them when they are obviously meant to undermine the purpose of Conservapedia. I replaced your quotes about atheism to fit the intended purpose of the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:07, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== If you don't like it, leave ==

You're welcome to leave CP if you don't like it. Just a suggestion. You probably will find your edits under heavier scrutiny by myself and others from now on anyway and I doubt you'll enjoy that.

In any case, don't post to my talk page anymore. You and your rhetoric are not welcome there. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:45, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Comments deleted from Jinxmchue's talk page posted here for posterity==

Your reasoning for removing my edit is quite inane in my honest opinion. The only thing I remotely 'copied' from Wikipedia was the format of the article. It is plainly obvious you did not look at all of the references. If you did, then you would have discovered that every word I wrote was paraphrased from the references or written by myself. Replacing my article with the misleading, opinionated, and unreferenced factoids is doing this encyclopedia a disfavor.
Judges Jones never admitted being an activist judge. The reference in the original article was a glaring example of the authors misrepresenting Jones' actions and words. I even provided a reference saying that he denied being an activist judge. My edit even left in the solitary reference from the original article so I could reference the criticism Jones received.

The original article contained five items of fact and opinion and only one, the opinion, was backed up with a reference. Your revision resulted in a violation of the first commandment about everything in articles being 'true and verifiable'. So much for you making Conservapedia a 'reliable resource'.

I made a request for change over two months ago and nobody said a word. I made a change to an article and listed the required references then you come along and base your revision on something that was obviously not thought out. I'd like to think a responsible editor would ask questions instead of making wholesale deletions without any discussion. Since you claim to be the 'rightful leader of Conservapedia', maybe I shouldn't direct my opinions to another administrator and instead just try and reason out this disagreement between the two of us. --Jimmy 20:21, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

As an editor, you are not very impressive. I followed the Conservapedia Manual of Style almost to the letter. The fact that Wikipedia and Conservapedia have similar formats apparently did not cross your mind. My article contained information the WP article did not and vice versa. It also included references that mentioned every fact outlined in the first paragraph, something the WP article did not. Just because an article looks like it may have been copied from WP doesn't mean it has been.

Conservapedia's detractors call this 'trustworthy encyclopedia' Idiotopedia, and you are giving them plenty of ammunition. Your revision resulted in an article that is completely untrue and unverifiable; and in my honest opinion, a very stupid article at that. One of my main goals is to correct these dumb articles so Americans don't look bad. It looks like I am failing. If you insist on making the job of Conservapedia's critics that much easier, go right ahead, you are accomplishing plenty. --Jimmy 19:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

You seem to have a problem with my editing. Instead of removing my Atheism quotes and replacing them with your own, why don't you just add yours? Your opinion of 'better' leaves a bit to be desired I'm afraid. --Jimmy 20:26, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Kitzmiller edit==
I will take a look at it later tonight in the interest of fairness, though I have not been following the article controversy. I'm not promising anything, but I feel that it is only fair that your edit at least be reviewed rather than simply rejected on the basis of who you are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
::I do think that the edits were close enough to Wikipedia's that a reversion was justified, but I find it unfair that Conservapedia claims to treat editors better than Wikipedia but will not provide reasons for reversions upon requests. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:15, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Fair enough, and thanks for your consideration. What is to be done about the article now? The current article is basically a piece of junk that makes Conservapedia look bad. Would it be too much to ask that my edit be restored with changes? Almost anything would be better than what is there now. As far as unfair treatment is concerned, I am quite used to it by now; at least you are a sysop that will discuss the matter. I tried to engage DeanS about the article and Jinxmchue's comments towards me and his only response was to delete my request from his talk page. EdPoor didn't respond to my inquiry about my block over the article either. Thanks again. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 10:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

== NASA ==

Which images do you want? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:Anythng suitable for the article, not very fussy. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:39, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

==Tyrants behind keyboards?==
::The user that you chose to interfere in someone else's business was blocked because he chose to engage in an edit war with an admin involving personal attack. If he brought evidence which supported his claim and engaged in dialogue respectfully, the block would not have happened. And if certain users think they can throw their weight around here; if certain users think they can engage in edit conflicts on a whim; if certain users think they can demand to place whatever they want on this site, they have another thing coming to them. You were removed for three days for interfering in what was never your business as well as the above. If anyone is trying to play tyrant, it is you. You came to Conservapedia with an agenda to interfere with the conservatism on this site; you came here to push your own liberalism. It's stopping now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== RE ==

If you take a look at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] you will no doubt notice that a {{fact}} template makes something have much less force and seem untrue. If you wish to find a source, find a source and make this a better place. Don't make it seem untrue. The Clinton comment is incorrect as Clinton was not president when the data was given. --[[User:TrueValues|TrueValues]] 20:36, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I am well aware of the Wikipedia bias article. I am also well aware of the commandments of this encyclopedia that state every claim must be referenced. I am also well aware of the guidelines that state citation tags can be used for unreferenced claims. The question is why are you making such a fuss over matters that can be readily remedied by providing a reference --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Ed Poor blocked me for a week because I refused to knuckle under and believe a lie that was posted at the ''Liberal Creep'' page. The following item was deleted from the talk page in question and is posted here for posterity. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:24, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly: You stated Wikipedia was in error because they didn't mention Newton's fundamentalism, yet they used the exact same words and reference that the Conservapedia article used. Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, '''"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." John H. Tiner. Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher, Mott Media, ISBN 0-91513406-3.''' Care to explain this discrepancy? If Wikipedia is concealing Newton's motivation, then why is this line attributed to him? "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." It is contained in the ''"Isaac Newton's religious views"'' article.

::Ed: My error? Where? All I did was make a perfectly reasonable request for citations and look at all the flack I am getting. Mr. Schlafly makes an error yet you have nothing to say to him. I am contributing to this encyclopedia by researching and writing, look at my contributions page. Please stop making unfounded accusations. If the people contributing to this article would actually provide valid references, I would be able to spend a lot more time making quality contributions to the NASA article instead of trying to get people to provide the references they should have researched to begin with.--Jimmy 21:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Hurricane Katrina

2008-07-17T02:14:46Z

Jimmy:

'''Hurricane Katrina''' was one of the strongest storms to impact the coast of the [[United States]] during the last 100 years. With sustained winds during landfall of 125 mph (110 kts) (a strong category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale) and minimum central pressure the third lowest on record at landfall (920 mb), Katrina caused widespread devastation along the central Gulf Coast states of the U.S., with the cities of [[New Orleans]], [[Louisiana]], [[Mobile]], [[Alabama]], and Gulfport, [[Mississippi]] bearing the brunt of Katrina's force, which cost the lives of 1,836 people and caused $81.2 billion in damage. Attached to the disaster was widespread criticism about how federal and state officials responded to it.

==The hurricane==
Hurricane Katrina developed initially as a tropical depression (TD #12 of the season) in the southeastern [[Bahamas]] on August 23rd. This tropical depression strengthened into Tropical Storm Katrina the next day. It then moved slowly along a northwesterly then westerly track through the Bahamas, increasing in strength during this time. A few hours before landfall in south Florida at around 6.30 EDT on August 25th, Katrina strengthened to become a category 1 (windspeeds of 75mph or greater) hurricane. Landfall occurred between Hallandale Beach and North [[Miami]] Beach, [[Florida]], with windspeeds of approximately 80 mph (70 kts). Gusts of above 90 mph (78 kts) were measured as Katrina came ashore. As the storm moved southwest across the tip of the Florida peninsula, Katrina's winds decreased slightly before regaining hurricane strength in the Gulf of Mexico. Given that Katrina spent only seven hours over land, its strength was not significantly diminished and it quickly re-intensified shortly after moving over the warm waters of the Gulf.

Katrina moved almost due westward after entering the Gulf of Mexico. A mid-level ridge centered over Texas weakened and moved westward allowing Katrina to gradually turn to the northwest and then north into the weakness in the ridging over the days that followed. Atmospheric and sea-surface conditions (an upper level anticyclone over the Gulf and warm SSTs) were conducive to cyclone's rapid intensification, which lead to Katrina attaining 'major hurricane' status on the afternoon of the 26th.

Continuing to strengthen and move northwards during the next 48 hours, Katrina reached maximum windspeeds on the morning of Sunday August 28th of over 170 mph (150 kts, category 5), and its minimum central pressure dropped that afternoon to 902 mb - the 4th lowest on record for an Atlantic storm. Although Katrina, at its peak strength was comparable to Camille's intensity, it was a significantly larger storm and impacted a broader area of the Gulf coast.

Although tropical cyclones of category 5 strength are rarely sustained for long durations (due to internal dynamics), Katrina remained a strong category 4 strength hurricane despite the entrainment of dryer air and an opening of the eyewall to the south and southwest before landfall on the morning of the 29th. Landfalling windspeeds at Grand Isle, Louisiana were approximately 125 mph (110 kts) (strong category 3 intensity) with a central pressure of 920mb - the 3rd lowest on record for a landfalling Atlantic storm in the US. Rainfall amounts for Louisiana and along the Gulf are described below along with other impacts of the storms.

==Rain, wind, and storm surge==
===Eastern Florida===
During its initial landfall in southern Florida, Katrina generated over 5 inches of rainfall across a large area of southeastern Florida. An analysis by NOAA's Climate Prediction Center shows that parts of the region received heavy rainfall, over 15 inches in some locations, which caused localized flooding.

Winds at landfall north of Miami were 80 mph (category 1 strength), leading to some damage and extensive power outages.

===Gulf Coast===
Rainfall from Katrina's outer bands began affecting the Gulf coast well before landfall. As Katrina came ashore on August 29th, rainfall exceeded rates of 1 inch/hour across a large area of the coast. NOAA's Climate Reference Network Station in Newton, MS (60 miles east of Jackson, Mississippi) measured rainfall rates of over an inch an hour for 3 consecutive hours, with rates of over 0.5 in/hr for 5 hours during August 29th. Precipitation analysis from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center show that rainfall accumulations exceeded 8-10 inches along much of the hurricane's path and to the east of the track.

Windspeeds over 140 mph were recorded at landfall in southeastern Louisiana while winds gusted to over 100 mph in New Orleans, just west of the eye. As the [[hurricane]] made its second landfall on the Mississippi/Louisiana border, windspeeds were approximately 110 kts (125 mph). Gusts of over 80mph were recorded in Mobile and 90 mph in Biloxi, Mississippi.

The central pressure at landfall was 920 mb, which ranked 3rd lowest on record for U.S.-landfalling storms behind Camille (August 17, 1969, 909 mb) and the Labor Day hurricane that struck the Florida Keys on September 2, 1935 (892 mb). Hurricane Andrew in 1992 dropped to fourth, as its central pressure was 922 mb at landfall. Katrina also reached a minimum central pressure of 902 mb at its peak, ranking 4th lowest on record for all Atlantic basin hurricanes.

===Inland===
As the storm moved inland and weakened to a tropical storm on the 29th, rainfall became the primary impact. Rainfall amounts exceeded 2-4 inches across a large area from the Gulf coast to the Ohio Valley. As a result, flood watches and warnings were common across these regions. Rain bands from Katrina also produced tornadoes causing further damage in areas such as Georgia.

==Impacts==
===Loss of Life===
From the Gulf states (principally Louisiana and Mississippi), the loss of life is estimated to be 1,836 people. It is clearly one of the most devastating natural disasters in recent US history. From Katrina's first landfall in Florida, while it was at category one strength, initial estimates suggest 11 deaths resulted.
===Flooding===
The loss of life and property damage was worsened by breaks in the levees that separate New Orleans from surrounding lakes. At least 80% of New Orleans was under flood water on August 31st, largely as a result of levee failures from Lake Pontchartrain. The combination of strong winds, heavy rainfall and storm surge led to breaks in the earthen levee after the storm passed, leaving some parts of New Orleans under 20 feet of water. Storm surge from Mobile Bay led to inundation of Mobile, Alabama causing imposition of a dusk-to-dawn curfew for the City. Large portions of Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi were underwater as a result of a 20 to 30+ foot storm surge which flooded the cities.
===Oil industry===
A major economic impact for the nation was the disruption to the [[oil]] industry from Katrina. Preliminary estimates from the Mineral Management Service suggest that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico was reduced by 1.4 million barrels per day (or 95 % of the daily Gulf of Mexico production) as a result of the hurricane. [[Gasoline]] had reached a record high price-per-gallon as of Monday August 30th with concerns over refinery capacity apparently driving the increase.

In addition, the hurricane caused 44 oil spills in Southeast Louisiana, totaling approximately 7 million gallons.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/ 44 oil spills found in southeast Louisiana]</ref> The vast majority of oil spilled was from on-shore industrial plants and above ground storage depots plus other facilities. Damage to pipelines and oil platforms was very significant. 45 oil platforms were destroyed and 54 pipelines were damaged (10" or larger). <ref> http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm </ref> 70 oil spills (one barrel or larger) totaling over 11,000 gallons of crude oil and other refined products were reported. 211 minor pollution incidents were also reported. Minor pollution incidents are categorized as incidents involving less than 500 barrels of oil that do not reach the coast line. <ref> http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/581/44814183_MMS_Katrina_Rita_PL_Final%20Report%20Rev1.pdf</ref>

===Power outages===
Over 1.7 million people lost power as a result of the storm in the Gulf states, with power companies estimating that it would take more than several weeks to restore power to some locations. Drinking water was also unavailable in New Orleans due to a broken water main that serves the city. Power was lost to 1.3 million customers in southeastern Florida from the initial landfall on August 24th.
===Travel===
Both of New Orleans' airports were flooded and closed on August 30th and bridges of Interstate 10 leading east out of the city were destroyed. Most of the coastal highways along the Gulf were impassable in places and most minor roads near the shore were still underwater or covered in debris as of August 30th. Katrina also disrupted travel as it headed inland, with more than 2 inches of rain falling across a large area from the coast to parts of Ohio during the 48 hours after Katrina made landfall.

==Links==
*[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/tech-report-200501z.pdf NOAA report, in .pdf format]

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/katrina.html]}}

[[category:United States History]]
[[Category:Natural Disasters]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Hurricane Katrina

2008-07-17T02:13:39Z

Jimmy: Added reference list

'''Hurricane Katrina''' was one of the strongest storms to impact the coast of the [[United States]] during the last 100 years. With sustained winds during landfall of 125 mph (110 kts) (a strong category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale) and minimum central pressure the third lowest on record at landfall (920 mb), Katrina caused widespread devastation along the central Gulf Coast states of the U.S., with the cities of [[New Orleans]], [[Louisiana]], [[Mobile]], [[Alabama]], and Gulfport, [[Mississippi]] bearing the brunt of Katrina's force, which cost the lives of 1,836 people and caused $81.2 billion in damage. Attached to the disaster was widespread criticism about how federal and state officials responded to it.

==The hurricane==
Hurricane Katrina developed initially as a tropical depression (TD #12 of the season) in the southeastern [[Bahamas]] on August 23rd. This tropical depression strengthened into Tropical Storm Katrina the next day. It then moved slowly along a northwesterly then westerly track through the Bahamas, increasing in strength during this time. A few hours before landfall in south Florida at around 6.30 EDT on August 25th, Katrina strengthened to become a category 1 (windspeeds of 75mph or greater) hurricane. Landfall occurred between Hallandale Beach and North [[Miami]] Beach, [[Florida]], with windspeeds of approximately 80 mph (70 kts). Gusts of above 90 mph (78 kts) were measured as Katrina came ashore. As the storm moved southwest across the tip of the Florida peninsula, Katrina's winds decreased slightly before regaining hurricane strength in the Gulf of Mexico. Given that Katrina spent only seven hours over land, its strength was not significantly diminished and it quickly re-intensified shortly after moving over the warm waters of the Gulf.

Katrina moved almost due westward after entering the Gulf of Mexico. A mid-level ridge centered over Texas weakened and moved westward allowing Katrina to gradually turn to the northwest and then north into the weakness in the ridging over the days that followed. Atmospheric and sea-surface conditions (an upper level anticyclone over the Gulf and warm SSTs) were conducive to cyclone's rapid intensification, which lead to Katrina attaining 'major hurricane' status on the afternoon of the 26th.

Continuing to strengthen and move northwards during the next 48 hours, Katrina reached maximum windspeeds on the morning of Sunday August 28th of over 170 mph (150 kts, category 5), and its minimum central pressure dropped that afternoon to 902 mb - the 4th lowest on record for an Atlantic storm. Although Katrina, at its peak strength was comparable to Camille's intensity, it was a significantly larger storm and impacted a broader area of the Gulf coast.

Although tropical cyclones of category 5 strength are rarely sustained for long durations (due to internal dynamics), Katrina remained a strong category 4 strength hurricane despite the entrainment of dryer air and an opening of the eyewall to the south and southwest before landfall on the morning of the 29th. Landfalling windspeeds at Grand Isle, Louisiana were approximately 125 mph (110 kts) (strong category 3 intensity) with a central pressure of 920mb - the 3rd lowest on record for a landfalling Atlantic storm in the US. Rainfall amounts for Louisiana and along the Gulf are described below along with other impacts of the storms.

==Rain, wind, and storm surge==
===Eastern Florida===
During its initial landfall in southern Florida, Katrina generated over 5 inches of rainfall across a large area of southeastern Florida. An analysis by NOAA's Climate Prediction Center shows that parts of the region received heavy rainfall, over 15 inches in some locations, which caused localized flooding.

Winds at landfall north of Miami were 80 mph (category 1 strength), leading to some damage and extensive power outages.

===Gulf Coast===
Rainfall from Katrina's outer bands began affecting the Gulf coast well before landfall. As Katrina came ashore on August 29th, rainfall exceeded rates of 1 inch/hour across a large area of the coast. NOAA's Climate Reference Network Station in Newton, MS (60 miles east of Jackson, Mississippi) measured rainfall rates of over an inch an hour for 3 consecutive hours, with rates of over 0.5 in/hr for 5 hours during August 29th. Precipitation analysis from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center show that rainfall accumulations exceeded 8-10 inches along much of the hurricane's path and to the east of the track.

Windspeeds over 140 mph were recorded at landfall in southeastern Louisiana while winds gusted to over 100 mph in New Orleans, just west of the eye. As the [[hurricane]] made its second landfall on the Mississippi/Louisiana border, windspeeds were approximately 110 kts (125 mph). Gusts of over 80mph were recorded in Mobile and 90 mph in Biloxi, Mississippi.

The central pressure at landfall was 920 mb, which ranked 3rd lowest on record for U.S.-landfalling storms behind Camille (August 17, 1969, 909 mb) and the Labor Day hurricane that struck the Florida Keys on September 2, 1935 (892 mb). Hurricane Andrew in 1992 dropped to fourth, as its central pressure was 922 mb at landfall. Katrina also reached a minimum central pressure of 902 mb at its peak, ranking 4th lowest on record for all Atlantic basin hurricanes.

===Inland===
As the storm moved inland and weakened to a tropical storm on the 29th, rainfall became the primary impact. Rainfall amounts exceeded 2-4 inches across a large area from the Gulf coast to the Ohio Valley. As a result, flood watches and warnings were common across these regions. Rain bands from Katrina also produced tornadoes causing further damage in areas such as Georgia.

==Impacts==
===Loss of Life===
From the Gulf states (principally Louisiana and Mississippi), the loss of life is estimated to be 1,836 people. It is clearly one of the most devastating natural disasters in recent US history. From Katrina's first landfall in Florida, while it was at category one strength, initial estimates suggest 11 deaths resulted.
===Flooding===
The loss of life and property damage was worsened by breaks in the levees that separate New Orleans from surrounding lakes. At least 80% of New Orleans was under flood water on August 31st, largely as a result of levee failures from Lake Pontchartrain. The combination of strong winds, heavy rainfall and storm surge led to breaks in the earthen levee after the storm passed, leaving some parts of New Orleans under 20 feet of water. Storm surge from Mobile Bay led to inundation of Mobile, Alabama causing imposition of a dusk-to-dawn curfew for the City. Large portions of Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi were underwater as a result of a 20 to 30+ foot storm surge which flooded the cities.
===Oil industry===
A major economic impact for the nation was the disruption to the [[oil]] industry from Katrina. Preliminary estimates from the Mineral Management Service suggest that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico was reduced by 1.4 million barrels per day (or 95 % of the daily Gulf of Mexico production) as a result of the hurricane. [[Gasoline]] had reached a record high price-per-gallon as of Monday August 30th with concerns over refinery capacity apparently driving the increase.

In addition, the hurricane caused 44 oil spills in Southeast Louisiana, totaling approximately 7 million gallons.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/ 44 oil spills found in southeast Louisiana]</ref> The vast majority of oil spilled was from on-shore industrial plants, above ground storage depots plus other facilities. Damage to pipelines and oil platforms was very significant. 45 oil platforms were destroyed and 54 pipelines were damaged (10" or larger). <ref> http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm </ref> 70 oil spills (one barrel or larger) totaling over 11,000 gallons of crude oil and other refined products were reported. 211 minor pollution incidents were also reported. Minor pollution incidents are categorized as incidents involving less than 500 barrels of oil that do not reach the coast line. <ref> http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/581/44814183_MMS_Katrina_Rita_PL_Final%20Report%20Rev1.pdf</ref>

===Power outages===
Over 1.7 million people lost power as a result of the storm in the Gulf states, with power companies estimating that it would take more than several weeks to restore power to some locations. Drinking water was also unavailable in New Orleans due to a broken water main that serves the city. Power was lost to 1.3 million customers in southeastern Florida from the initial landfall on August 24th.
===Travel===
Both of New Orleans' airports were flooded and closed on August 30th and bridges of Interstate 10 leading east out of the city were destroyed. Most of the coastal highways along the Gulf were impassable in places and most minor roads near the shore were still underwater or covered in debris as of August 30th. Katrina also disrupted travel as it headed inland, with more than 2 inches of rain falling across a large area from the coast to parts of Ohio during the 48 hours after Katrina made landfall.

==Links==
*[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/tech-report-200501z.pdf NOAA report, in .pdf format]

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/katrina.html]}}

[[category:United States History]]
[[Category:Natural Disasters]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Hurricane Katrina

2008-07-17T02:06:02Z

Jimmy: Added information about off-shore oil spills and damage to platforms and pipelines

'''Hurricane Katrina''' was one of the strongest storms to impact the coast of the [[United States]] during the last 100 years. With sustained winds during landfall of 125 mph (110 kts) (a strong category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale) and minimum central pressure the third lowest on record at landfall (920 mb), Katrina caused widespread devastation along the central Gulf Coast states of the U.S., with the cities of [[New Orleans]], [[Louisiana]], [[Mobile]], [[Alabama]], and Gulfport, [[Mississippi]] bearing the brunt of Katrina's force, which cost the lives of 1,836 people and caused $81.2 billion in damage. Attached to the disaster was widespread criticism about how federal and state officials responded to it.

==The hurricane==
Hurricane Katrina developed initially as a tropical depression (TD #12 of the season) in the southeastern [[Bahamas]] on August 23rd. This tropical depression strengthened into Tropical Storm Katrina the next day. It then moved slowly along a northwesterly then westerly track through the Bahamas, increasing in strength during this time. A few hours before landfall in south Florida at around 6.30 EDT on August 25th, Katrina strengthened to become a category 1 (windspeeds of 75mph or greater) hurricane. Landfall occurred between Hallandale Beach and North [[Miami]] Beach, [[Florida]], with windspeeds of approximately 80 mph (70 kts). Gusts of above 90 mph (78 kts) were measured as Katrina came ashore. As the storm moved southwest across the tip of the Florida peninsula, Katrina's winds decreased slightly before regaining hurricane strength in the Gulf of Mexico. Given that Katrina spent only seven hours over land, its strength was not significantly diminished and it quickly re-intensified shortly after moving over the warm waters of the Gulf.

Katrina moved almost due westward after entering the Gulf of Mexico. A mid-level ridge centered over Texas weakened and moved westward allowing Katrina to gradually turn to the northwest and then north into the weakness in the ridging over the days that followed. Atmospheric and sea-surface conditions (an upper level anticyclone over the Gulf and warm SSTs) were conducive to cyclone's rapid intensification, which lead to Katrina attaining 'major hurricane' status on the afternoon of the 26th.

Continuing to strengthen and move northwards during the next 48 hours, Katrina reached maximum windspeeds on the morning of Sunday August 28th of over 170 mph (150 kts, category 5), and its minimum central pressure dropped that afternoon to 902 mb - the 4th lowest on record for an Atlantic storm. Although Katrina, at its peak strength was comparable to Camille's intensity, it was a significantly larger storm and impacted a broader area of the Gulf coast.

Although tropical cyclones of category 5 strength are rarely sustained for long durations (due to internal dynamics), Katrina remained a strong category 4 strength hurricane despite the entrainment of dryer air and an opening of the eyewall to the south and southwest before landfall on the morning of the 29th. Landfalling windspeeds at Grand Isle, Louisiana were approximately 125 mph (110 kts) (strong category 3 intensity) with a central pressure of 920mb - the 3rd lowest on record for a landfalling Atlantic storm in the US. Rainfall amounts for Louisiana and along the Gulf are described below along with other impacts of the storms.

==Rain, wind, and storm surge==
===Eastern Florida===
During its initial landfall in southern Florida, Katrina generated over 5 inches of rainfall across a large area of southeastern Florida. An analysis by NOAA's Climate Prediction Center shows that parts of the region received heavy rainfall, over 15 inches in some locations, which caused localized flooding.

Winds at landfall north of Miami were 80 mph (category 1 strength), leading to some damage and extensive power outages.

===Gulf Coast===
Rainfall from Katrina's outer bands began affecting the Gulf coast well before landfall. As Katrina came ashore on August 29th, rainfall exceeded rates of 1 inch/hour across a large area of the coast. NOAA's Climate Reference Network Station in Newton, MS (60 miles east of Jackson, Mississippi) measured rainfall rates of over an inch an hour for 3 consecutive hours, with rates of over 0.5 in/hr for 5 hours during August 29th. Precipitation analysis from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center show that rainfall accumulations exceeded 8-10 inches along much of the hurricane's path and to the east of the track.

Windspeeds over 140 mph were recorded at landfall in southeastern Louisiana while winds gusted to over 100 mph in New Orleans, just west of the eye. As the [[hurricane]] made its second landfall on the Mississippi/Louisiana border, windspeeds were approximately 110 kts (125 mph). Gusts of over 80mph were recorded in Mobile and 90 mph in Biloxi, Mississippi.

The central pressure at landfall was 920 mb, which ranked 3rd lowest on record for U.S.-landfalling storms behind Camille (August 17, 1969, 909 mb) and the Labor Day hurricane that struck the Florida Keys on September 2, 1935 (892 mb). Hurricane Andrew in 1992 dropped to fourth, as its central pressure was 922 mb at landfall. Katrina also reached a minimum central pressure of 902 mb at its peak, ranking 4th lowest on record for all Atlantic basin hurricanes.

===Inland===
As the storm moved inland and weakened to a tropical storm on the 29th, rainfall became the primary impact. Rainfall amounts exceeded 2-4 inches across a large area from the Gulf coast to the Ohio Valley. As a result, flood watches and warnings were common across these regions. Rain bands from Katrina also produced tornadoes causing further damage in areas such as Georgia.

==Impacts==
===Loss of Life===
From the Gulf states (principally Louisiana and Mississippi), the loss of life is estimated to be 1,836 people. It is clearly one of the most devastating natural disasters in recent US history. From Katrina's first landfall in Florida, while it was at category one strength, initial estimates suggest 11 deaths resulted.
===Flooding===
The loss of life and property damage was worsened by breaks in the levees that separate New Orleans from surrounding lakes. At least 80% of New Orleans was under flood water on August 31st, largely as a result of levee failures from Lake Pontchartrain. The combination of strong winds, heavy rainfall and storm surge led to breaks in the earthen levee after the storm passed, leaving some parts of New Orleans under 20 feet of water. Storm surge from Mobile Bay led to inundation of Mobile, Alabama causing imposition of a dusk-to-dawn curfew for the City. Large portions of Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi were underwater as a result of a 20 to 30+ foot storm surge which flooded the cities.
===Oil industry===
A major economic impact for the nation was the disruption to the [[oil]] industry from Katrina. Preliminary estimates from the Mineral Management Service suggest that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico was reduced by 1.4 million barrels per day (or 95 % of the daily Gulf of Mexico production) as a result of the hurricane. [[Gasoline]] had reached a record high price-per-gallon as of Monday August 30th with concerns over refinery capacity apparently driving the increase.

In addition, the hurricane caused 44 oil spills in Southeast Louisiana, totaling approximately 7 million gallons.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/ 44 oil spills found in southeast Louisiana]</ref> The vast majority of oil spilled was from on-shore industrial plants, above ground storage depots plus other facilities. Damage to pipelines and oil platforms was very significant. 45 oil platforms were destroyed and 54 pipelines were damaged (10" or larger). <ref> http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm </ref> 70 oil spills (one barrel or larger) totaling over 11,000 gallons of crude oil and other refined products were reported. 211 minor pollution incidents were also reported. Minor pollution incidents are categorized as incidents involving less than 500 barrels of oil that do not reach the coast line. <ref> http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/581/44814183_MMS_Katrina_Rita_PL_Final%20Report%20Rev1.pdf</ref>

===Power outages===
Over 1.7 million people lost power as a result of the storm in the Gulf states, with power companies estimating that it would take more than several weeks to restore power to some locations. Drinking water was also unavailable in New Orleans due to a broken water main that serves the city. Power was lost to 1.3 million customers in southeastern Florida from the initial landfall on August 24th.
===Travel===
Both of New Orleans' airports were flooded and closed on August 30th and bridges of Interstate 10 leading east out of the city were destroyed. Most of the coastal highways along the Gulf were impassable in places and most minor roads near the shore were still underwater or covered in debris as of August 30th. Katrina also disrupted travel as it headed inland, with more than 2 inches of rain falling across a large area from the coast to parts of Ohio during the 48 hours after Katrina made landfall.

==Links==
*[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/tech-report-200501z.pdf NOAA report, in .pdf format]

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/katrina.html]}}

[[category:United States History]]
[[Category:Natural Disasters]]

Talk:Liberal creep

2008-07-02T02:14:51Z

Jimmy:

==References==
Any chance the second example could be referenced? The commandments and trustworthiness of this encyclopedia demand a reference for such a sweeping claim.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:34, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

#Be more specific: which claim do you mean?
#Be more respectful: it is not for newcomers such as yourself to issue demands - or to interpret the rules.
#This is a warning - make helpful comments and contributions, or be elsewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:37, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

When he left, Bill Clinton had never been president, therefore that claim is useless. --[[User:TrueValues|TrueValues]] 20:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:Ed: I am talking about all of the unreferenced claims made in the second example. Please accept my apologies if I wasn't being specific enough by asking if the completely unreferenced second example could be referenced. I was being perfectly respectful; please don't read more into my comments than what is actually there. I was not making any demands; I was merely pointing out the commandments demand references for every claim. According to the guidelines, it is entirely permissible and helpful to make requests for references by using the {{fact}} tag. If you are saying the guidelines are in error or there is a problem with my interpretation of them, please let me know. I consider myself an experienced user of this encyclopedia based on the number of edits and length of time posting articles.

:True: I was asking about the second example, any chance it could be referenced? The statement about Reagan doesn't state he had the highest approval ratings prior to the election of George H W Bush. Now if you want to make that claim and provide the reference, I will not object. Yet is will be a distortion of history not to include Clinton's higher rating and this is supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, not a blog that distorts the truth.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:51, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Of course a source could be found for it. But instead of complaining about it and putting a fact tag on it, you should contribute by finding that source, as opposed to taking the liberal view that "someone else will do it". --[[User:TrueValues|TrueValues]] 20:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Very well put. It took only 2-3 minutes to find a citation for the second example and Jimmy could have done likewise, rather than try to use a fact tag to make a (misguided) ideological point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::::True: If you are so certain that the references for the multitude of claims that are made in the second example are true, then way don't you actually provide them since you are the one making the claims? I don't have the time to do research for others, especially research for alleged facts that I think are of a dubious nature. I have enough time trying to reference the claims I make in my own article edits only to have them deleted because they are liberal fluff.

::::Mr. Schlafly: Your assertion about Wikipedia's entry on Newton is utterly false. It is located here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views] All you have to do is click on the link in the main article titled "Isaac Newton's religious views". Could this reference please be dropped for the sake of accuracy? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:Not "utterly false" - the most you could '''possibly''' say is that our criticism of Wikipedia is overstated. But I just read their Isaac Newton and "religious views" articles.

:The former summarizes the latter by branding Newton a heretic, rather than calling him a fundamentalist. Moreover it conceals Newton's religious motivation for exploring [[physical science]]. At least they might have added this quote:
:*...he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." [http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html]

:I suggest you stop debating and start doing some research and writing. Pointing out your error here has been largely a waste of time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly: You stated Wikipedia was in error because they didn't mention Newton's fundamentalism, yet they used the exact same words and reference that the Conservapedia article used. '''Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." John H. Tiner. Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher, Mott Media, ISBN 0-91513406-3.''' Care to explain this discrepancy? If Wikipedia is concealing Newton's motivation, then why is this line attributed to him? '''"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."''' It is contained in the "Isaac Newton's religious views" article.

::Ed: My error? Where? All I did was make a perfectly reasonable request for citations and look at all the flack I am getting. Mr. Schlafly makes an error yet you have nothing to say to him. I am contributing to this encyclopedia by researching and writing, look at my contributions page. Please stop making unfounded accusations. If the people contributing to this article would actually provide valid references, I would be able to spend a lot more time making quality contributions to the NASA article instead of trying to get people to provide the references they should have researched to begin with.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

2008-07-02T02:13:07Z

Jimmy: TOPEX/Poseidon

[[Image:Apollo 11 Launch.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Apollo 11 launch. The small cloud midway up the rocket is due to the Low Pressure in that region as the Rocket Passes through Max Q, the maximum dynamic pressure exerted on the rocket in the launch.]]
The '''National Aeronautics and Space Administration''' (NASA) began in 1958. It was created by U.S. legislation for the purpose of creating a government space program for the [[United States]]. This legislation was in response to the [[Soviet Union]]'s the first man-made satellite, [[Sputnik|Sputnik I]]. According to the act NASA was to conduct research on the problems of flight in and out of the atmosphere, with and without human pilots, and to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful exploration of space. NASA is responsible for many satellites including [[Landsat]], which was a series of satellites for the collection of information on natural resources, communication satellites and weather satellites. The [[Project Apollo]] program under NASA led to several landings on the [[Moon]] from 1969-1972. It is also the designer and developer of the [[space shuttle]].

Today NASA has four main mission directorates,
*'''Aeronautics''', the work of developing and proving new flight technologies
*'''Exploration Systems''', creating new capabilities and spacecraft for affordable, sustainable human and robotic exploration.
*'''Science''', explores the Earth, and beyond
*'''Space Operations''', the space shuttle, the International Space Station and flight support.

==NASA Manned Missions==

*'''Project Mercury ''' Initiated in 1958 and completed in 1963, Project Mercury was the United States' first man-in-space program. The objectives of the program, which made six manned flights from 1961 to 1963, were specific: orbit a manned spacecraft around Earth, investigate man's ability to function in space and recover both man and spacecraft safely. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mercury/missions/program-toc.html </ref>

*'''Project Gemini ''' The Gemini Program was a necessary intermediate step between Project Mercury and the Apollo Program and had four objectives: subject astronauts to long duration flights- a requirement for projected later trips to the moon or deeper space; develop effective methods of rendezvous and docking with other orbiting vehicles, and to maneuver the docked vehicles in space; perfect methods of reentry and landing the spacecraft at a pre-selected land-landing point; gain additional information concerning the effects of weightlessness on crew members and to record the physiological reactions of crew members during long duration flights. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gemini/index.html </ref>

*'''Project Apollo ''' On May 25, 1961, President [[John F. Kennedy]] announced the goal of sending astronauts to the moon before the end of the decade. Coming just three weeks after Mercury astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American in space, Kennedy's bold challenge set the nation on a journey unlike any before in human history.

:Eight years of hard work by thousands of Americans came to fruition on July 20, 1969, when [[Apollo 11]] commander [[Neil Armstrong]] stepped out of the lunar module and took "one small step" in the [[Sea of Tranquility]], calling it "a giant leap for mankind."

:Six of the missions -- Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 -- went on to land on the moon, studying soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields and solar wind. Apollos 7 and 9 tested spacecraft in Earth orbit; Apollo 10 orbited the moon as the dress rehearsal for the first landing. An oxygen tank explosion forced [[Apollo 13]] to scrub its landing, but the "can-do" problem solving of the crew and mission control turned the mission into a "successful failure."

:The program also drew inspiration from Apollo 1 astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee, who lost their lives in a fire during a launch pad test in 1967.

:Project Apollo concluded with the Apollo/ Soyuz mission during July1975, part of a series of cooperative space flights between the United States and the Soviet Union (Russia) that continues today. The docking in space of the two spacecraft took place at 2:17 p.m. U.S. Central Daylight Time on 17 July. Two days of joint operations followed. After separation, the Soyuz remained in space for almost two days before landing in the USSR on 21 July. The Apollo spacecraft remained in space for another three days before splashing down near Hawaii on 24 July. The mission was a resounding success for both Americans and Soviets. They achieved their goal of obtaining flight experience for rendezvous and docking of human spacecraft. In addition, they also demonstrated in-flight intervehicular crew transfer, as well as accomplished a series of scientific experiments. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html </ref> <ref> http://history.nasa.gov/30thastp/overview.html </ref>

*'''Skylab''' was America's first space station and orbital science and engineering laboratory. Skylab was launched into Earth orbit by a [[Saturn V]] rocket on May 14, 1973 as part of the Apollo program. Three crews visited the station, with their missions lasting 28, 59 and 84 days. The mission crews performed a plethora of UV astronomy experiments, eight separate solar experiments and detailed X-ray studies of the Sun. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/index.html </ref> The mission crews performed a plethora of UV astronomy experiments, eight separate solar experiments and detailed X-ray studies of the Sun. Skylab served as the greatest solar observatory of its time, a microgravity lab, a medical lab, an Earth-observing facility, and, most importantly, a home away from home for its residents. The program also led to new technologies. Special showers, toilets, sleeping bags, exercise equipment and kitchen facilities were designed to function in microgravity. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/index.html </ref> <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/f_skylab1.html </ref>

*The '''Space Shuttle''' is the world's first reusable spacecraft, and the first spacecraft in history that can carry large satellites both to and from orbit. The Shuttle launches like a rocket, maneuvers in Earth orbit like a spacecraft and lands like an airplane. Each of the three Space Shuttle orbiters now in operation -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour -- is designed to fly at least 100 missions. So far, altogether they have flown a combined total of less than one-fourth of that.

:Columbia was the first Space Shuttle orbiter to be delivered to NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla., in March 1979. Columbia and the STS-107 crew were lost Feb. 1, 2003, during re-entry. The Orbiter Challenger was delivered to KSC in July 1982 and was destroyed in an explosion during ascent in January 1986. Discovery was delivered in November 1983. Atlantis was delivered in April 1985. Endeavour was built as a replacement following the Challenger accident and was delivered to Florida in May 1991. An early Space Shuttle Orbiter, the Enterprise, never flew in space but was used for approach and landing tests at the Dryden Flight Research Center and several launch pad studies in the late 1970s.

:The Shuttle has the most reliable launch record of any rocket now in operation. Since 1981, it has boosted more than 1.36 million kilograms (3 million pounds) of cargo into orbit. More than than 600 crew members have flown on its missions. Although it has been in operation for almost 20 years, the Shuttle has continually evolved and is significantly different today than when it first was launched. NASA has made literally thousands of major and minor modifications to the original design that have made it safer, more reliable and more capable today than ever before.

:In 1992, the U.S. and the new Russian Federation renewed the 1987 space cooperation agreement and issued a "Joint Statement on Cooperation in Space." Subsequent additions to the agreement outline the development of the NASA-Mir program. From February 1994 to June 1998, space shuttles made 11 flights to the Russian space station Mir, and American astronauts spent seven residencies onboard Mir. Space shuttles also conducted crew exchanges and delivered supplies and equipment.<ref> http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_STS.html </ref> <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle-mir/index.html </ref>

*The '''International Space Station''' is a working laboratory orbiting 240 miles (390 kilometers) above the Earth and is home to an international crew. It is the most complex scientific and technological endeavor ever undertaken, involving five space agencies representing 16 nations. Once completed, this new research outpost in space will include contributions from the U.S., Canada, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. As a research outpost, the station is a test bed for future technologies and a research laboratory for new, advanced industrial materials, communications technology, medical research and much more. On-orbit assembly began in 1998 with the launch of Zarya, and today the station provides crewmembers with 15,000 cubic feet of habitable volume – more room than a conventional three-bedroom house – and weighs 404,000 pounds.

:The station now includes the Russian-built Zarya Module and the Zvezda Service Module, which contain the station’s living quarters and life-support systems; the U.S.-built Unity Connecting Module, providing docking ports for several station components; the U.S.-built Destiny Laboratory, which expands the station’s scientific capabilities with experiment compartments that allow nearly continuous scientific research and provide additional life support and robotic capabilities; the U.S.-built Quest Airlock, a doorway to space that supports station-based spacewalks; the Canadian-built Canadarm2, a new-generation robotic arm that gives the station a movable space crane; the Russian-built Pirs docking compartment, which adds additional spacewalking and docking capabilities to the station; and truss segments, which serve as the framework for additional station segments. Japanese and European research laboratories are ready for delivery to expand the station’s research capabilities even more. <ref> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/index.html </ref>

==NASA Unmanned Missions==

*'''Explorer 1''' was the first satellite launched by the United States when it was sent into space on January 31, 1958. Following the launch of the Soviet Union's Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957, the U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency was directed to launch a satellite using its Jupiter C rocket developed under the direction of Dr. Wernher von Braun. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory received the assignment to design, build and operate the artificial satellite that would serve as the rocket's payload. JPL completed this job in less than three months.

:The primary science instrument on Explorer 1 was a cosmic ray detector designed to measure the radiation environment in Earth orbit. Once in space this experiment, provided by Dr. James Van Allen of the University of Iowa, revealed a much lower cosmic ray count than expected. The existence of these radiation belts was confirmed by another U.S. satellite launched two months later, and they became known as the Van Allen Belts in honor of their discoverer. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explorer/explorer-overview.html </ref>

*The '''Pioneer Venus''' Project's main objective was to investigate the solar wind in the Venusian environment, map the planet's surface through a radar imaging system and study the characteristics of the upper atmosphere and ionosphere.

:Pioneer Venus consisted of two spacecraft: the Orbiter and the Multiprobe. The Orbiter carried an assortment of instruments for investigating plasma in upper Venusian atmosphere, observing reflected sunlight from the cloud layers at a variety of wavelengths, in addition to a surface radar mapper, and was launched on the May 20, 1978. It reached orbit around Venus on Dec. 4, 1978. Although originally intended to operate for one Venusian year, most of the Orbiter's instruments were still operating when the spacecraft entered the atmosphere on Oct. 8, 1992.

:The Pioneer Venus Multiprobe, which was launched on Aug. 8, 1978 and reached Venus on Dec. 9, 1978, was made of 5 separate probes: the probe transporter (referred to as the Bus), a large atmospheric entry probe (called Sounder), and three small probes. The Sounder released from the Bus on Nov. 15, 1978. The three smaller probes released on Nov. 19, 1978. The probes sent data to Earth as they descended toward the surface. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/pioneer-venus/index.html </ref>

*The '''Surveyor probes''' (1966 - 1968) were the first U.S. spacecraft to land safely on the Moon. The main objectives of the Surveyors were to obtain close-up images of the lunar surface and to determine if the terrain was safe for manned landings. Each Surveyor was equipped with a television camera. In addition, Surveyors 3 and 7 each carried a soil mechanics surface sampler scoop which dug trenches and was used for soil mechanics tests and Surveyors 5, 6, and 7 had magnets attached to the footpads and an alpha scattering instrument for chemical analysis of the lunar material. <ref> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html </ref>

*'''Galileo''' was launched from the cargo bay of Space Shuttle Atlantis in 1989. The exciting list of discoveries started even before Galileo got a glimpse of Jupiter. As it crossed the asteroid belt in October 1991, Galileo snapped images of Gaspra, returning the first ever close-up image of an asteroid. In 1994 the spacecraft made the only direct observation of a comet impacting a planet-- comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's collision with Jupiter.
:Galileo's descent probe made the first in-place studies of the planet's clouds and winds, and it furthered scientists' understanding of how Jupiter evolved. The probe also made composition measurements designed to assess the degree of evolution of Jupiter compared to the Sun.
:Galileo extensively investigated the geologic diversity of Jupiter's four largest moons: Ganymede, Callisto, Io and Europa. Galileo found that Io's extensive volcanic activity is 100 times greater than that found on Earth. The moon Europa, Galileo unveiled, could be hiding a salty ocean up to 100 kilometers (62 miles) deep underneath its frozen surface containing about twice as much water as all the Earth's oceans. Data also showed Ganymede and Callisto may have a liquid-saltwater layer. The biggest discovery surrounding Ganymede was the presence of a magnetic field. No other moon of any planet is known to have one.
:The prime mission ended six years ago, after two years of orbiting Jupiter. NASA extended the mission three times to continue taking advantage of Galileo's unique capabilities for accomplishing valuable science. <ref> http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/news/release/press030921.html </ref>

*'''TOPEX/Poseidon''', launched in 1992, is a joint venture between CNES and NASA to map ocean surface topography. While a 3-year prime mission was planned, with a 5-year store of expendables, TOPEX/Poseidon has delivered an astonishing 10+ years of data from orbit. It has made the following contributions:

:-Measured sea levels with unprecedented accuracy to better than 5 cm

:-Continuously observed global ocean topography

:-Monitored effects of currents on global climate change and produced the first global views of seasonal changes of currents

:-Monitored large-scale ocean features like Rossby and Kelvin waves and studied such phenomena as El Niño, La Niña, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation

:-Mapped basin-wide current variations and provided global data to validate models of ocean circulation

:-Mapped year-to-year changes in heat stored in the upper ocean

:-Produced the most accurate global maps of tides ever

:-Improved our knowledge of Earth's gravity field <ref>http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/topex.html</ref>

[[Category:Space Exploration]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Talk:Liberal creep

2008-07-02T01:52:59Z

Jimmy:

==References==
Any chance the second example could be referenced? The commandments and trustworthiness of this encyclopedia demand a reference for such a sweeping claim.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:34, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

#Be more specific: which claim do you mean?
#Be more respectful: it is not for newcomers such as yourself to issue demands - or to interpret the rules.
#This is a warning - make helpful comments and contributions, or be elsewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:37, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

When he left, Bill Clinton had never been president, therefore that claim is useless. --[[User:TrueValues|TrueValues]] 20:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:Ed: I am talking about all of the unreferenced claims made in the second example. Please accept my apologies if I wasn't being specific enough by asking if the completely unreferenced second example could be referenced. I was being perfectly respectful; please don't read more into my comments than what is actually there. I was not making any demands; I was merely pointing out the commandments demand references for every claim. According to the guidelines, it is entirely permissible and helpful to make requests for references by using the {{fact}} tag. If you are saying the guidelines are in error or there is a problem with my interpretation of them, please let me know. I consider myself an experienced user of this encyclopedia based on the number of edits and length of time posting articles.

:True: I was asking about the second example, any chance it could be referenced? The statement about Reagan doesn't state he had the highest approval ratings prior to the election of George H W Bush. Now if you want to make that claim and provide the reference, I will not object. Yet is will be a distortion of history not to include Clinton's higher rating and this is supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, not a blog that distorts the truth.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:51, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Of course a source could be found for it. But instead of complaining about it and putting a fact tag on it, you should contribute by finding that source, as opposed to taking the liberal view that "someone else will do it". --[[User:TrueValues|TrueValues]] 20:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Very well put. It took only 2-3 minutes to find a citation for the second example and Jimmy could have done likewise, rather than try to use a fact tag to make a (misguided) ideological point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::::True: If you are so certain that the references for the multitude of claims that are made in the second example are true, then way don't you actually provide them since you are the one making the claims? I don't have the time to do research for others, especially research for alleged facts that I think are of a dubious nature. I have enough time trying to reference the claims I make in my own article edits only to have them deleted because they are liberal fluff.

::::Mr. Schlafly: Your assertion about Wikipedia's entry on Newton is utterly false. It is located here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views] All you have to do is click on the link in the main article titled "Isaac Newton's religious views". Could this reference please be dropped for the sake of accuracy? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:Not "utterly false" - the most you could '''possibly''' say is that our criticism of Wikipedia is overstated. But I just read their Isaac Newton and "religious views" articles.

:The former summarizes the latter by branding Newton a heretic, rather than calling him a fundamentalist. Moreover it conceals Newton's religious motivation for exploring [[physical science]]. At least they might have added this quote:
:*...he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." [http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html]

:I suggest you stop debating and start doing some research and writing. Pointing out your error here has been largely a waste of time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly: You stated Wikipedia was in error because they didn't mention Newton's fundamentalism, yet they used the exact same words and reference that the Conservapedia article used. '''Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." John H. Tiner. Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher, Mott Media, ISBN 0-91513406-3.''' Care to explain this discrepancy? If Wikipedia is concealing Newton's motivation, then why is this line attributed to him? '''"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."''' It is contained in the "Isaac Newton's religious views" article.

::Ed: My error? Where? All I did was make a perfectly reasonable request for citations and look at all the flack I am getting. Mr. Schlafly makes an error yet you have nothing to say to him. I am contributing to this encyclopedia by researching and writing, look at my contributions page. Please stop making unfounded accusations. If the people of this article would actually provide valid references to this article, I would be able to spend a lot more time making quality contributions to the NASA article instead of trying to get people to provide the references they should have researched to begin with.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

2008-07-02T01:29:44Z

Jimmy: Galileo

[[Image:Apollo 11 Launch.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Apollo 11 launch. The small cloud midway up the rocket is due to the Low Pressure in that region as the Rocket Passes through Max Q, the maximum dynamic pressure exerted on the rocket in the launch.]]
The '''National Aeronautics and Space Administration''' (NASA) began in 1958. It was created by U.S. legislation for the purpose of creating a government space program for the [[United States]]. This legislation was in response to the [[Soviet Union]]'s the first man-made satellite, [[Sputnik|Sputnik I]]. According to the act NASA was to conduct research on the problems of flight in and out of the atmosphere, with and without human pilots, and to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful exploration of space. NASA is responsible for many satellites including [[Landsat]], which was a series of satellites for the collection of information on natural resources, communication satellites and weather satellites. The [[Project Apollo]] program under NASA led to several landings on the [[Moon]] from 1969-1972. It is also the designer and developer of the [[space shuttle]].

Today NASA has four main mission directorates,
*'''Aeronautics''', the work of developing and proving new flight technologies
*'''Exploration Systems''', creating new capabilities and spacecraft for affordable, sustainable human and robotic exploration.
*'''Science''', explores the Earth, and beyond
*'''Space Operations''', the space shuttle, the International Space Station and flight support.

==NASA Manned Missions==

*'''Project Mercury ''' Initiated in 1958 and completed in 1963, Project Mercury was the United States' first man-in-space program. The objectives of the program, which made six manned flights from 1961 to 1963, were specific: orbit a manned spacecraft around Earth, investigate man's ability to function in space and recover both man and spacecraft safely. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mercury/missions/program-toc.html </ref>

*'''Project Gemini ''' The Gemini Program was a necessary intermediate step between Project Mercury and the Apollo Program and had four objectives: subject astronauts to long duration flights- a requirement for projected later trips to the moon or deeper space; develop effective methods of rendezvous and docking with other orbiting vehicles, and to maneuver the docked vehicles in space; perfect methods of reentry and landing the spacecraft at a pre-selected land-landing point; gain additional information concerning the effects of weightlessness on crew members and to record the physiological reactions of crew members during long duration flights. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gemini/index.html </ref>

*'''Project Apollo ''' On May 25, 1961, President [[John F. Kennedy]] announced the goal of sending astronauts to the moon before the end of the decade. Coming just three weeks after Mercury astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American in space, Kennedy's bold challenge set the nation on a journey unlike any before in human history.

:Eight years of hard work by thousands of Americans came to fruition on July 20, 1969, when [[Apollo 11]] commander [[Neil Armstrong]] stepped out of the lunar module and took "one small step" in the [[Sea of Tranquility]], calling it "a giant leap for mankind."

:Six of the missions -- Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 -- went on to land on the moon, studying soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields and solar wind. Apollos 7 and 9 tested spacecraft in Earth orbit; Apollo 10 orbited the moon as the dress rehearsal for the first landing. An oxygen tank explosion forced [[Apollo 13]] to scrub its landing, but the "can-do" problem solving of the crew and mission control turned the mission into a "successful failure."

:The program also drew inspiration from Apollo 1 astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee, who lost their lives in a fire during a launch pad test in 1967.

:Project Apollo concluded with the Apollo/ Soyuz mission during July1975, part of a series of cooperative space flights between the United States and the Soviet Union (Russia) that continues today. The docking in space of the two spacecraft took place at 2:17 p.m. U.S. Central Daylight Time on 17 July. Two days of joint operations followed. After separation, the Soyuz remained in space for almost two days before landing in the USSR on 21 July. The Apollo spacecraft remained in space for another three days before splashing down near Hawaii on 24 July. The mission was a resounding success for both Americans and Soviets. They achieved their goal of obtaining flight experience for rendezvous and docking of human spacecraft. In addition, they also demonstrated in-flight intervehicular crew transfer, as well as accomplished a series of scientific experiments. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html </ref> <ref> http://history.nasa.gov/30thastp/overview.html </ref>

*'''Skylab''' was America's first space station and orbital science and engineering laboratory. Skylab was launched into Earth orbit by a [[Saturn V]] rocket on May 14, 1973 as part of the Apollo program. Three crews visited the station, with their missions lasting 28, 59 and 84 days. The mission crews performed a plethora of UV astronomy experiments, eight separate solar experiments and detailed X-ray studies of the Sun. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/index.html </ref> The mission crews performed a plethora of UV astronomy experiments, eight separate solar experiments and detailed X-ray studies of the Sun. Skylab served as the greatest solar observatory of its time, a microgravity lab, a medical lab, an Earth-observing facility, and, most importantly, a home away from home for its residents. The program also led to new technologies. Special showers, toilets, sleeping bags, exercise equipment and kitchen facilities were designed to function in microgravity. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/index.html </ref> <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/f_skylab1.html </ref>

*The '''Space Shuttle''' is the world's first reusable spacecraft, and the first spacecraft in history that can carry large satellites both to and from orbit. The Shuttle launches like a rocket, maneuvers in Earth orbit like a spacecraft and lands like an airplane. Each of the three Space Shuttle orbiters now in operation -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour -- is designed to fly at least 100 missions. So far, altogether they have flown a combined total of less than one-fourth of that.

:Columbia was the first Space Shuttle orbiter to be delivered to NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla., in March 1979. Columbia and the STS-107 crew were lost Feb. 1, 2003, during re-entry. The Orbiter Challenger was delivered to KSC in July 1982 and was destroyed in an explosion during ascent in January 1986. Discovery was delivered in November 1983. Atlantis was delivered in April 1985. Endeavour was built as a replacement following the Challenger accident and was delivered to Florida in May 1991. An early Space Shuttle Orbiter, the Enterprise, never flew in space but was used for approach and landing tests at the Dryden Flight Research Center and several launch pad studies in the late 1970s.

:The Shuttle has the most reliable launch record of any rocket now in operation. Since 1981, it has boosted more than 1.36 million kilograms (3 million pounds) of cargo into orbit. More than than 600 crew members have flown on its missions. Although it has been in operation for almost 20 years, the Shuttle has continually evolved and is significantly different today than when it first was launched. NASA has made literally thousands of major and minor modifications to the original design that have made it safer, more reliable and more capable today than ever before.

:In 1992, the U.S. and the new Russian Federation renewed the 1987 space cooperation agreement and issued a "Joint Statement on Cooperation in Space." Subsequent additions to the agreement outline the development of the NASA-Mir program. From February 1994 to June 1998, space shuttles made 11 flights to the Russian space station Mir, and American astronauts spent seven residencies onboard Mir. Space shuttles also conducted crew exchanges and delivered supplies and equipment.<ref> http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_STS.html </ref> <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle-mir/index.html </ref>

*The '''International Space Station''' is a working laboratory orbiting 240 miles (390 kilometers) above the Earth and is home to an international crew. It is the most complex scientific and technological endeavor ever undertaken, involving five space agencies representing 16 nations. Once completed, this new research outpost in space will include contributions from the U.S., Canada, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. As a research outpost, the station is a test bed for future technologies and a research laboratory for new, advanced industrial materials, communications technology, medical research and much more. On-orbit assembly began in 1998 with the launch of Zarya, and today the station provides crewmembers with 15,000 cubic feet of habitable volume – more room than a conventional three-bedroom house – and weighs 404,000 pounds.

:The station now includes the Russian-built Zarya Module and the Zvezda Service Module, which contain the station’s living quarters and life-support systems; the U.S.-built Unity Connecting Module, providing docking ports for several station components; the U.S.-built Destiny Laboratory, which expands the station’s scientific capabilities with experiment compartments that allow nearly continuous scientific research and provide additional life support and robotic capabilities; the U.S.-built Quest Airlock, a doorway to space that supports station-based spacewalks; the Canadian-built Canadarm2, a new-generation robotic arm that gives the station a movable space crane; the Russian-built Pirs docking compartment, which adds additional spacewalking and docking capabilities to the station; and truss segments, which serve as the framework for additional station segments. Japanese and European research laboratories are ready for delivery to expand the station’s research capabilities even more. <ref> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/index.html </ref>

==NASA Unmanned Missions==

*'''Explorer 1''' was the first satellite launched by the United States when it was sent into space on January 31, 1958. Following the launch of the Soviet Union's Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957, the U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency was directed to launch a satellite using its Jupiter C rocket developed under the direction of Dr. Wernher von Braun. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory received the assignment to design, build and operate the artificial satellite that would serve as the rocket's payload. JPL completed this job in less than three months.

:The primary science instrument on Explorer 1 was a cosmic ray detector designed to measure the radiation environment in Earth orbit. Once in space this experiment, provided by Dr. James Van Allen of the University of Iowa, revealed a much lower cosmic ray count than expected. The existence of these radiation belts was confirmed by another U.S. satellite launched two months later, and they became known as the Van Allen Belts in honor of their discoverer. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explorer/explorer-overview.html </ref>

*The '''Pioneer Venus''' Project's main objective was to investigate the solar wind in the Venusian environment, map the planet's surface through a radar imaging system and study the characteristics of the upper atmosphere and ionosphere.

:Pioneer Venus consisted of two spacecraft: the Orbiter and the Multiprobe. The Orbiter carried an assortment of instruments for investigating plasma in upper Venusian atmosphere, observing reflected sunlight from the cloud layers at a variety of wavelengths, in addition to a surface radar mapper, and was launched on the May 20, 1978. It reached orbit around Venus on Dec. 4, 1978. Although originally intended to operate for one Venusian year, most of the Orbiter's instruments were still operating when the spacecraft entered the atmosphere on Oct. 8, 1992.

:The Pioneer Venus Multiprobe, which was launched on Aug. 8, 1978 and reached Venus on Dec. 9, 1978, was made of 5 separate probes: the probe transporter (referred to as the Bus), a large atmospheric entry probe (called Sounder), and three small probes. The Sounder released from the Bus on Nov. 15, 1978. The three smaller probes released on Nov. 19, 1978. The probes sent data to Earth as they descended toward the surface. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/pioneer-venus/index.html </ref>

*The '''Surveyor probes''' (1966 - 1968) were the first U.S. spacecraft to land safely on the Moon. The main objectives of the Surveyors were to obtain close-up images of the lunar surface and to determine if the terrain was safe for manned landings. Each Surveyor was equipped with a television camera. In addition, Surveyors 3 and 7 each carried a soil mechanics surface sampler scoop which dug trenches and was used for soil mechanics tests and Surveyors 5, 6, and 7 had magnets attached to the footpads and an alpha scattering instrument for chemical analysis of the lunar material. <ref> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html </ref>

*'''Galileo''' was launched from the cargo bay of Space Shuttle Atlantis in 1989. The exciting list of discoveries started even before Galileo got a glimpse of Jupiter. As it crossed the asteroid belt in October 1991, Galileo snapped images of Gaspra, returning the first ever close-up image of an asteroid. In 1994 the spacecraft made the only direct observation of a comet impacting a planet-- comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's collision with Jupiter.
:Galileo's descent probe made the first in-place studies of the planet's clouds and winds, and it furthered scientists' understanding of how Jupiter evolved. The probe also made composition measurements designed to assess the degree of evolution of Jupiter compared to the Sun.
:Galileo extensively investigated the geologic diversity of Jupiter's four largest moons: Ganymede, Callisto, Io and Europa. Galileo found that Io's extensive volcanic activity is 100 times greater than that found on Earth. The moon Europa, Galileo unveiled, could be hiding a salty ocean up to 100 kilometers (62 miles) deep underneath its frozen surface containing about twice as much water as all the Earth's oceans. Data also showed Ganymede and Callisto may have a liquid-saltwater layer. The biggest discovery surrounding Ganymede was the presence of a magnetic field. No other moon of any planet is known to have one.
:The prime mission ended six years ago, after two years of orbiting Jupiter. NASA extended the mission three times to continue taking advantage of Galileo's unique capabilities for accomplishing valuable science. <ref> http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/news/release/press030921.html </ref>

[[Category:Space Exploration]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Talk:Liberal creep

2008-07-02T01:14:22Z

Jimmy:

Talk:Liberal creep

2008-07-02T01:13:24Z

Jimmy:

User talk:Jimmy

2008-07-02T00:55:29Z

Jimmy:

Talk:Liberal creep

2008-07-02T00:51:05Z

Jimmy:

Talk:Liberal creep

2008-07-02T00:34:24Z

Jimmy:

==References==
Any chance the second example could be referenced? The commandments and trustworthiness of this encyclopedia demand a reference for such a sweeping claim.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:34, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

When he left, Bill Clinton had never been president, therefore that claim is useless. --[[User:TrueValues|TrueValues]] 20:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

User talk:TrueValues

2008-07-02T00:32:57Z

Jimmy:

Tell me what the liberal drivel is about winning a MacArthur Fellowship or being elected in the US National Academy of Sciences?
Otherwise please stop removing my entries.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:41, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Please don't remove cited and relevant material. Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:50, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the consideration. --[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:56, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Kangaroo Edits ==

What made you revert my change (485296) in the first place?--[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:20, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

==References==
Sir/Ma'am: Why is it "liberal distortion" to request references that are required by the commandments of this encyclopedia? My citation request at the 'Liberal Creep' article was explicitly permitted by the guidelines so why does the request "make it seem untruthful"? I'm sure that if the assertion is truthful, the person asserting such truthfulness would have no problem providing the reference thus ensuring Conservapedia remains a trustworthy source. Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:32, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal creep

2008-07-02T00:24:24Z

Jimmy: New page: ==References== Any chance the second example could be referenced? The commandments and trustworthiness of this encyclopedia demand a reference for such a sweeping claim.

==References==
Any chance the second example could be referenced? The commandments and trustworthiness of this encyclopedia demand a reference for such a sweeping claim.

Liberal creep

2008-07-02T00:22:34Z

Jimmy: First example is now factually correct and also includes the mandatory reference required for a trustworthy encyclopedia.

'''Liberal creep''' is [[liberal bias]] that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.

Former Utah state Sen. Bill Wright may have been the first to coin this term in spring 2008 when he "warned of liberal creep — the 'education of indoctrination' — in which the media peddle “socialism and programs. We have been so dumbed-down, so indoctrinated with all this information we’re in a haze; we can’t see through it. We must find out for ourselves."<ref>http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=5450FFC0-14D1-13A2-9FC3560D929110B0</ref>

Examples of '''liberal creep''' include:
*[[Ronald Reagan]] left the White House with the best approval ratings of any president at the end of his term with the exception of [[Bill Clinton]], <ref>http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm</ref> yet the media and history books have since relentlessly tried to downplay and distort his political achievements.
*Many early scientists such as [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Galileo Galilei]] were heavily influenced by Christianity and would never have made their important discoveries without their faith in the [[Jesus Christ|Lord Almighty]], yet that faith has since been downplayed in [[liberal]] [[atheistic]] [[public school]] textbooks and [[Wikipedia]].

== References ==

<references/>

Liberal creep

2008-07-02T00:01:43Z

Jimmy: References please

'''Liberal creep''' is [[liberal bias]] that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.

Former Utah state Sen. Bill Wright may have been the first to coin this term in spring 2008 when he "warned of liberal creep — the 'education of indoctrination' — in which the media peddle “socialism and programs. We have been so dumbed-down, so indoctrinated with all this information we’re in a haze; we can’t see through it. We must find out for ourselves."<ref>http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=5450FFC0-14D1-13A2-9FC3560D929110B0</ref>

Examples of '''liberal creep''' include:
*[[Ronald Reagan]] left the [[White House]] with the best approval ratings of any president at the end of his term, yet the [[media]] and history books have since relentlessly tried to downplay and distort his political achievements.{{fact}}
*Many early scientists such as [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Galileo Galilei]] were heavily influenced by Christianity and would never have made their important discoveries without their faith in the [[Jesus Christ|Lord Almighty]], yet that faith has since been downplayed in [[liberal]] [[atheistic]] [[public school]] textbooks and [[Wikipedia]].{{fact}}

== References ==

<references/>

The Sixties

2008-06-24T02:42:18Z

Jimmy:

{{uncited}}

'''The Sixties''' (the '''1960s''') is widely celebrated by [[Leftist]]s and [[Liberal]]s as a decade of progress and freedom. However, it was in reality a decade that saw the origin or the worsening of some of the gravest ills to afflict modern society. Far from being the decade of 'peace and love' it was a period of left-inspired war and terror, including the escalation of the [[Vietnam War]] and the outbreak of the [[Cultural Revolution]]; the 'events' of 1968 in universities across the western world saw a minority rabble of [[Trotskyist]] and [[Maoist]] students try to impose their views on society; and the so-called social revolution of the period saw a massive upsurge in [[sexual immorality]] and the abuse of [[illegal drugs]]. Leftist and other 'trendy' educational theories began their assault upon the education of our children. As history Professor Gerard DeGroot records, "For too long the Sixties has been a sacred zone... Cast aside the rose-tinted spectacles and we see mindless mayhem, shallow commercialism and unbridled cruelty... [While the '60s brought] flowers, music, love and good times... It also brought hatred, murder, greed, dangerous drugs, needless deaths, ethnic cleansing, neo-colonialist exploitation, sound-bite politics, sensationalism, a warped sense of equality, a bizarre notion of freedom, and the end of innocence." Truly, as [[Margaret Thatcher]] noted, "We are reaping what was sown in the sixties... fashionable theories and permissive clap-trap set the scene for a society in which the old virtues of discipline and restraint were denigrated."

==Assault upon religion==
This might be said to be two-pronged. The Sixties saw moves away from revealed to religion amongst young people in favour of a half-baked and quarter-understood mish-mash of eastern mysticism, sexual hedonism and drug abuse of the kind peddled by [[The Beatles]] in their 'Maharishi' phase; [[John Lennon]] of The Beatles went on, in his song ''Imagine'', to celebrate and propagandize a nihilistic and [[Atheism|atheistic]] view of human life. Simultaneously, many Christian priests and ministers themselves undermined Christianity by a variety of means: from watering down the required standards of Christian behaviour in a misguided attempt to seem 'trendy' and 'relevant', completely overlooking the relevance of Faith; to harnessing the Bible to [[Karl Marx]], in the form of the so-called [[Liberation Theology]] which did much to inspire left-wing [[terrorism]] in [[Latin America]].

==The 'Permissive Society': license unbridled==
[[Chastity]], restraint, and human values of decency were mocked by the 'gurus' of permissiveness. Instead, the increasing availability of artificial contraception in the form of contraceptive pills, fueled a wave of promiscuity and the promotion and practice of all forms of perversity. Restrictions on [[pornography]] were eroded or evaded, a seminal event here being the decision of a UK court in 1963 to allow the publication of an unexpurgated version of [[D.H. Lawrence]]'s novel [[Lady Chatterley's Lover]] despite its overt and explicit sexual content. Legal reforms permitted or loosened restrictions on [[homosexuality]], [[divorce]] and [[abortion]], undermining the very fabric of family life. Feminists such as [[Germaine Greer]] launched assaults on traditional male-female relationships, while [[Lesbian separatists]] argued that women (which they spelled ''wimmin'' or ''womyn'') and men should lead entirely seperate lives. The use of foul language and displays of nudity became a commonplace on television in many western nations, with the [[BBC]] in the van.

=='Turn on, tune in, drop out'==

This quotation, by 'counter-culture' guru [[Dr Timothy Leary]], epitomizes the attitude of many 1960s nostalgics towards [[illegal drugs]]. Drugs have been a perennial problem in societies worldwide, but in the 1960s the problem became much worse. This is because drug-taking, which was previously the covert activity of a tiny minority, perceived as immoral as well as illegal by society, suddenly became portrayed as acceptable in the media. Worse, advocates of 'permissiveness' such as Leary openly recommended the use of mind-altering drugs as a means to access a different, supposedly better, reality. Many, if not most, of these advocates had inadequate personalities which prevented them from participating fully in the richness of real life. However, their pernicious effect upon a generation of impressionable young people has been incalculable.

Drug abuse often went hand in hand with [[left wing]] politics, and the 'joint' or 'reefer' became the trademark of the 1960s student leftist plotting world revolution in his bedsit or student dorm.

==Music and Literature==
The Sixties inspired many modern greats in [[music]] and [[literature]] which endure cross generationally, despite misgivings about their personal morality and the message conveyed:

===Music===
*[[The Beatles]]
*[[The Rolling Stones]]
*[[Led Zeppelin]]
*[[The Doors]]
*[[Jimi Hendrix]]
*[[Pink Floyd]]
*[[Jefferson Airplane]]
*[[Janis Joplin]]
*[[Sergeant Barry Sadler]]

===Writers===
*[[Tom Wolfe]]
*[[Hunter S. Thompson]]
*[[Ken Kesey]]
*[[Alan Ginsburg]]
*[[Aldous Huxley]]

==Successes in the Sixties==
The Sixties however did have some good points. The [[Civil Rights Movement]] gained momentum during this period, which saw the end of segregation of the [[African Americans]]. The societal problems caused by the erosion of restraint inspired campaigners such as [[Mary Whitehouse]] to take a stand for decency and Christian standards. Also in 1969 the [[United States]] scored a remarkable triumph on behalf of the [[Free World]] in the [[Space Race]], overcoming a [[Soviet]] lead earlier in the decade, with two members of the courageous crew of [[Apollo 11]] becoming the first two humans to step on to the [[Moon]]

===Significant Events===
*[[Apollo 11]] lands on the [[Moon]]
*[[Cuban Missile Crisis]]
*[[Cultural Revolution]]
*[[Prague Spring]]
*[[Vietnam War]]
*Assassination of [[John F. Kennedy]]
*Assassination of [[Martin Luther King]]

[[Category:History]]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

2008-06-24T01:54:10Z

Jimmy: More Skylab

[[Image:Apollo 11 Launch.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Apollo 11 launch. The small cloud midway up the rocket is due to the Low Pressure in that region as the Rocket Passes through Max Q, the maximum dynamic pressure exerted on the rocket in the launch.]]
The '''National Aeronautics and Space Administration''' (NASA) began in 1958. It was created by U.S. legislation for the purpose of creating a government space program for the [[United States]]. This legislation was in response to the [[Soviet Union]]'s the first man-made satellite, [[Sputnik|Sputnik I]]. According to the act NASA was to conduct research on the problems of flight in and out of the atmosphere, with and without human pilots, and to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful exploration of space. NASA is responsible for many satellites including [[Landsat]], which was a series of satellites for the collection of information on natural resources, communication satellites and weather satellites. The [[Project Apollo]] program under NASA led to several landings on the [[Moon]] from 1969-1972. It is also the designer and developer of the [[space shuttle]].

Today NASA has four main mission directorates,
*'''Aeronautics''', the work of developing and proving new flight technologies
*'''Exploration Systems''', creating new capabilities and spacecraft for affordable, sustainable human and robotic exploration.
*'''Science''', explores the Earth, and beyond
*'''Space Operations''', the space shuttle, the International Space Station and flight support.

==NASA Manned Missions==

*'''Project Mercury ''' Initiated in 1958 and completed in 1963, Project Mercury was the United States' first man-in-space program. The objectives of the program, which made six manned flights from 1961 to 1963, were specific: orbit a manned spacecraft around Earth, investigate man's ability to function in space and recover both man and spacecraft safely. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mercury/missions/program-toc.html </ref>

*'''Project Gemini ''' The Gemini Program was a necessary intermediate step between Project Mercury and the Apollo Program and had four objectives: subject astronauts to long duration flights- a requirement for projected later trips to the moon or deeper space; develop effective methods of rendezvous and docking with other orbiting vehicles, and to maneuver the docked vehicles in space; perfect methods of reentry and landing the spacecraft at a pre-selected land-landing point; gain additional information concerning the effects of weightlessness on crew members and to record the physiological reactions of crew members during long duration flights. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gemini/index.html </ref>

*'''Project Apollo ''' On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of sending astronauts to the moon before the end of the decade. Coming just three weeks after Mercury astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American in space, Kennedy's bold challenge set the nation on a journey unlike any before in human history.

:Eight years of hard work by thousands of Americans came to fruition on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped out of the lunar module and took "one small step" in the Sea of Tranquility, calling it "a giant leap for mankind."

:Six of the missions -- Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 -- went on to land on the moon, studying soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields and solar wind. Apollos 7 and 9 tested spacecraft in Earth orbit; Apollo 10 orbited the moon as the dress rehearsal for the first landing. An oxygen tank explosion forced Apollo 13 to scrub its landing, but the "can-do" problem solving of the crew and mission control turned the mission into a "successful failure."

:The program also drew inspiration from Apollo 1 astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee, who lost their lives in a fire during a launch pad test in 1967.

:Project Apollo concluded with the Apollo/ Soyuz mission during July1975, part of a series of cooperative space flights between the United States and the Soviet Union (Russia) that continues today. The docking in space of the two spacecraft took place at 2:17 p.m. U.S. Central Daylight Time on 17 July. Two days of joint operations followed. After separation, the Soyuz remained in space for almost two days before landing in the USSR on 21 July. The Apollo spacecraft remained in space for another three days before splashing down near Hawaii on 24 July. The mission was a resounding success for both Americans and Soviets. They achieved their goal of obtaining flight experience for rendezvous and docking of human spacecraft. In addition, they also demonstrated in-flight intervehicular crew transfer, as well as accomplished a series of scientific experiments. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html </ref> <ref> http://history.nasa.gov/30thastp/overview.html </ref>

*'''Skylab''' was America's first space station and orbital science and engineering laboratory. Skylab was launched into Earth orbit by a Saturn V rocket on May 14, 1973 as part of the Apollo program. Three crews visited the station, with their missions lasting 28, 59 and 84 days. The mission crews performed a plethora of UV astronomy experiments, eight separate solar experiments and detailed X-ray studies of the Sun. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/index.html </ref> The mission crews performed a plethora of UV astronomy experiments, eight separate solar experiments and detailed X-ray studies of the Sun. Skylab served as the greatest solar observatory of its time, a microgravity lab, a medical lab, an Earth-observing facility, and, most importantly, a home away from home for its residents. The program also led to new technologies. Special showers, toilets, sleeping bags, exercise equipment and kitchen facilities were designed to function in microgravity. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/index.html </ref> <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/f_skylab1.html </ref>

*The '''Space Shuttle''' is the world's first reusable spacecraft, and the first spacecraft in history that can carry large satellites both to and from orbit. The Shuttle launches like a rocket, maneuvers in Earth orbit like a spacecraft and lands like an airplane. Each of the three Space Shuttle orbiters now in operation -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour -- is designed to fly at least 100 missions. So far, altogether they have flown a combined total of less than one-fourth of that.

:Columbia was the first Space Shuttle orbiter to be delivered to NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla., in March 1979. Columbia and the STS-107 crew were lost Feb. 1, 2003, during re-entry. The Orbiter Challenger was delivered to KSC in July 1982 and was destroyed in an explosion during ascent in January 1986. Discovery was delivered in November 1983. Atlantis was delivered in April 1985. Endeavour was built as a replacement following the Challenger accident and was delivered to Florida in May 1991. An early Space Shuttle Orbiter, the Enterprise, never flew in space but was used for approach and landing tests at the Dryden Flight Research Center and several launch pad studies in the late 1970s.

:The Shuttle has the most reliable launch record of any rocket now in operation. Since 1981, it has boosted more than 1.36 million kilograms (3 million pounds) of cargo into orbit. More than than 600 crew members have flown on its missions. Although it has been in operation for almost 20 years, the Shuttle has continually evolved and is significantly different today than when it first was launched. NASA has made literally thousands of major and minor modifications to the original design that have made it safer, more reliable and more capable today than ever before.

:In 1992, the U.S. and the new Russian Federation renewed the 1987 space cooperation agreement and issued a "Joint Statement on Cooperation in Space." Subsequent additions to the agreement outline the development of the NASA-Mir program. From February 1994 to June 1998, space shuttles made 11 flights to the Russian space station Mir, and American astronauts spent seven residencies onboard Mir. Space shuttles also conducted crew exchanges and delivered supplies and equipment.<ref> http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_STS.html </ref> <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle-mir/index.html </ref>

*The '''International Space Station''' is a working laboratory orbiting 240 miles (390 kilometers) above the Earth and is home to an international crew. It is the most complex scientific and technological endeavor ever undertaken, involving five space agencies representing 16 nations. Once completed, this new research outpost in space will include contributions from the U.S., Canada, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. As a research outpost, the station is a test bed for future technologies and a research laboratory for new, advanced industrial materials, communications technology, medical research and much more. On-orbit assembly began in 1998 with the launch of Zarya, and today the station provides crewmembers with 15,000 cubic feet of habitable volume – more room than a conventional three-bedroom house – and weighs 404,000 pounds.

:The station now includes the Russian-built Zarya Module and the Zvezda Service Module, which contain the station’s living quarters and life-support systems; the U.S.-built Unity Connecting Module, providing docking ports for several station components; the U.S.-built Destiny Laboratory, which expands the station’s scientific capabilities with experiment compartments that allow nearly continuous scientific research and provide additional life support and robotic capabilities; the U.S.-built Quest Airlock, a doorway to space that supports station-based spacewalks; the Canadian-built Canadarm2, a new-generation robotic arm that gives the station a movable space crane; the Russian-built Pirs docking compartment, which adds additional spacewalking and docking capabilities to the station; and truss segments, which serve as the framework for additional station segments. Japanese and European research laboratories are ready for delivery to expand the station’s research capabilities even more. <ref> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/index.html </ref>

==NASA Unmanned Missions==

*'''Explorer 1''' was the first satellite launched by the United States when it was sent into space on January 31, 1958. Following the launch of the Soviet Union's Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957, the U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency was directed to launch a satellite using its Jupiter C rocket developed under the direction of Dr. Wernher von Braun. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory received the assignment to design, build and operate the artificial satellite that would serve as the rocket's payload. JPL completed this job in less than three months.

:The primary science instrument on Explorer 1 was a cosmic ray detector designed to measure the radiation environment in Earth orbit. Once in space this experiment, provided by Dr. James Van Allen of the University of Iowa, revealed a much lower cosmic ray count than expected. The existence of these radiation belts was confirmed by another U.S. satellite launched two months later, and they became known as the Van Allen Belts in honor of their discoverer. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explorer/explorer-overview.html </ref>

*The '''Pioneer Venus''' Project's main objective was to investigate the solar wind in the Venusian environment, map the planet's surface through a radar imaging system and study the characteristics of the upper atmosphere and ionosphere.

:Pioneer Venus consisted of two spacecraft: the Orbiter and the Multiprobe. The Orbiter carried an assortment of instruments for investigating plasma in upper Venusian atmosphere, observing reflected sunlight from the cloud layers at a variety of wavelengths, in addition to a surface radar mapper, and was launched on the May 20, 1978. It reached orbit around Venus on Dec. 4, 1978. Although originally intended to operate for one Venusian year, most of the Orbiter's instruments were still operating when the spacecraft entered the atmosphere on Oct. 8, 1992.

:The Pioneer Venus Multiprobe, which was launched on Aug. 8, 1978 and reached Venus on Dec. 9, 1978, was made of 5 separate probes: the probe transporter (referred to as the Bus), a large atmospheric entry probe (called Sounder), and three small probes. The Sounder released from the Bus on Nov. 15, 1978. The three smaller probes released on Nov. 19, 1978. The probes sent data to Earth as they descended toward the surface. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/pioneer-venus/index.html </ref>

*The '''Surveyor probes''' (1966 - 1968) were the first U.S. spacecraft to land safely on the Moon. The main objectives of the Surveyors were to obtain close-up images of the lunar surface and to determine if the terrain was safe for manned landings. Each Surveyor was equipped with a television camera. In addition, Surveyors 3 and 7 each carried a soil mechanics surface sampler scoop which dug trenches and was used for soil mechanics tests and Surveyors 5, 6, and 7 had magnets attached to the footpads and an alpha scattering instrument for chemical analysis of the lunar material. <ref> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html </ref>

[[Category:Space Exploration]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Talk:Public schools in the United States

2008-06-11T04:19:41Z

Jimmy:

Looks like a few people are trying to edit this page at the same time. Between this and my initial screw-up with providing references, I think my edit should be alright. I'll work on some more names later.--Jimmy 14:45, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh my bad. I hate it when people edit conflict me so I always try to wait, but I guess I wated too long. I'm not sure why you undid the formatting though. In general we bullet any lists because it's so much easier to read. I'll chalk it up to an edit conflict and undo it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:12, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== Atheistic Public Schools? ==

Public schools are not atheistic institutions. Just because they obey the constitution and don't promote prayer, it doesn't make them atheistic. In addition, they don't promote atheism at all, they merely don't promote religion. If no one minds, I'll remove the first section from the article.--[[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 19:17, 7 December 2007 (EST)

I agree completely. Saying that because public schools do not preach christianity means that they are "atheistic" is ridiculous. Aren't conservatives the ones who say parents should educate their children about morals, not the government? Schools should teach math, science, history, writing, art, and foreign language and leave the rest for people to decide on their own. ''That'' is limited government. --[[User:Mars2035|Mars2035]] 21:21, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::My high school had agnostic students--thought they were atheist--with many Christian/Catholic teachers. +_+ always tired [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 14:03, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Religion is censored from [[public schools]]: there is no classroom prayer, no religious symbols, no emphasize on moral right and wrong, etc. Sure, students may be agnostic or religious, but they better not try to say a group prayer during class time or they risk being punished. That's an atheistic culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Mr Schlafly: It is one thing to assert something and another to actually provide a reference. Is there any chance you could provide a valid reference that states American public schools are atheistic? In my daughter's school, students are allowed to pray during class hours, moral values are taught and emphasized during civics and other classes, and she has never seen anyone punished for praying. The atheist tag you are placing on this article wouldn't be constantly challenged if you could provide a solid reference. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 16:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: There is no classroom prayer in any [[public school]] in the [[United States]]. Does that really need a reference? No morals are taught either and no religious symbols are displayed. The [[Ten Commandments]] cannot be found either. References could be supplied for these obvious facts; indeed, you could add them yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::Mr. Schlafly: Please reference my last comment. There is obviously prayer allowed and morals taught at my daughter's PUBLIC SCHOOL which is in AMERICA so you are wrong about asserting, without evidence, that prayer in public schools is prohibited in America. And yes, your assertion needs a reference because it flies in the face of every statement issued by the Clinton and Bush administrations concerning prayer in public schools. This is even mentioned in the article. I even posted other evidence concerning the opinions of many civil liberties groups and their support of the constitutional right of students to pray in public school but you declared that edit was 'liberal' and deleted it. Now if you want to insist that both Clinton and Bush are completely wrong and the advice they got from their legal advisors is completely without merit, please post a valid reference that disputes the opinions of our country's leaders and legal experts. I don't have the slightest clue where I would find a reference that supports what you are claiming or I would gladly assist. Please provide the reference to your assertion so we can all lay this matter to rest. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:50, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

This article states that public schools are "atheistic," and atheism is defined by this encyclopedia as the denial of the existence of God. I don't mean to get overly technical here, but it seems illogical that a broadly defined institution such as American public schools could be said to deny the existence of God, unless there has been some statement (or a rash of statements) that I am not aware of (and is not cited) on behalf of public schools specifically denying that God exists. The thrust of this article seems to be not that public schools are atheistic but that they are Godless institutions, lacking in the moral fundamentals of religion and defining themselves as expressly secular. Therefore, I am changing "atheistic" to "Godless" in the header. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:43, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: Public schools are not "secular", which means reflective of society as a whole. Rather, they are deliberately exclusive of faith, morality and religion. "Godless" is a pejorative term, and atheistic is better because it encompasses atheistic ideologies like evolution that are taught in schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::I suppose you're right, although "secular" is often used to mean "exclusive of religion." Yes, "Godless" is a pejorative, but so is "atheistic," as least as it is defined in this encyclopedia. I also contest that evolution is an (exclusively) atheistic ideology, as many scientists who believe in evolution are theists. Finally, do you have any citations to support the fact that public schools specifically deny the existence of God, or are you using "atheistic" more as a catch-all to describe the godless mindset in general (and, if so, I'd like a better definition of the term). [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 13:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::: There may or may not be theistic evolutionists, but evolution is predominantly an atheistic ideology. Ditto for other things taught in public school, such as materialism. Schools are not merely "godless", as they exclude teaching of "right" and "wrong". The term "secular" is misused to mean "exclusive of religion." That is not its actual meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:42, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Sorry, just one more point here, regarding the definition of "secular:" according to dictionary.com, which may not be the best source, the first 3 definitions specifically mean "non-religious" and there is no definition given for "reflective of a society as a whole." [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 14:13, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I just checked Merriam-Webster and ''none'' of the definitions mean "non-religious." [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:02, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: As usual, I hate to differ with you, but 'I' just checked Merriam-Webster, and the first two definitions say "non-religious." [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:01, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: My cite doesn't. One of the definitions does say not ''specifically'' religious, as in denominational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Not to beat a dead horse, BUT the definition I'm seeing on Merriam-Webster.com says this: "1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>" thus clearly defining secular as equivalent to nonreligious or nonspiritual. The next definition gets at more of the nondenominational meaning, but I don't see how you can say that this does not mean nonreligious. Furthermore, a search on Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus defines "secular" to mean "not involving religion or religious matters <that's an issue for the secular authorities, not the church>". On the other hand, I have not seen a single dictionary support your definition of secular as "reflective of society as a whole." [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 23:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I think "non-religious" is a better term.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 13:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: "Non-religious" does not capture the hostility, such as the affirmative censorship of prayer. A group may be non-religious and still allow, and even welcome, an occasional prayer. But an atheistic culture censors the occasional group prayer, as public schools do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::I think this is a good point, but what I want to know is why you want to characterize hostility toward religion on the part of public schools (an unsourced pejorative), yet you won't use "godless" on the grounds that it is pejorative. Also, I was hoping for an answer to the other concerns I brought up, and if I may add one more to that: you say that "Schools are not merely godless, as they exclude teaching of right and wrong," but don't you think that being godless inherently suggests the lack of morality, in the same way that atheism does? Again, you need to cite some sources to describe this broader atheistic lifestyle you seem to be describing. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 14:06, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::As I've said before (I think, but I'm too lazy to check), I'd prefer "nontheistic" to "atheistic." Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

There not so much Atheistic as they are anti-Christian. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Uncited Assertions==

I would like to see evidence for the assertion that public schools are atheistic and spoken prayer is forbidden in the classroom. The idea that this should be present without a reference goes against the standards of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 13:56, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:Then go ahead and help find it. If I can find such references within the time it takes you to complain about the lack of them, then you can find them as well and help contribute to the building of this encyclopedia. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::It is my understanding that the person making the claim needs to provide the source documentation. For the record, I do not know of any reputable source that claims the American public school system is atheistic. Nor do I know of any law or court decision that prohibits all spoken prayer in the classroom, hence my request for a citation.

::Just so you know, I am contributing to the building of this encyclopedia. In the time I have taken to voice my objection to the lack of sources, have you come up with your own references?--Jimmy 15:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::Yes I have. I've known for years that school prayer was removed from the schools as a result of an atheistic loudmouth named Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who used her son to force her religious beliefs through the Supreme Court in 1962. The account was also written in the book "Let Us Pray", by William Murray, an evangelical pastor who was O'Hair's tool back then.
:::Whining about lack of references does not build up this encyclopedia; helping out to fill in the missing holes does, and I expect you to do so. You don't know because you never bothered to look; you sat there and expected everyone else to do it for you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:58, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::Prayer has not been removed from public schools and anyone that thinks this is the case is seriously misinformed. O'Hair's lawsuit, ''Murray v. Curlett'', (consolidated with ''Abington Township School District v. Schempp'') declared school sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional. The key words here are 'school sponsored'. Students are allowed to pray as long as it is initiated by them and does not interfere with classes or instruction. Please reference this court ruling and the additional references I included in the article concerning the opinions of the Clinton and Bush administrations position on public school prayer.

::::You are referring to my requests for documentation as 'whining'. Yet all I am trying to do is follow the commandments and guidelines of this encyclopedia. This is Conservapedia, an organization where the article writers must provide documentation for their articles. This is not Wikipedia where everyone is entitled to their own opinion without providing references. What is wrong with insisting that everyone follow the rules and guidelines?

::::I'm sure that you noticed that the vast majority of this article has been written by me. Every word I have written is backed-up by references as required by the commandments. Yet this doesn't seem to satisfy you, why not? I've put a significant amount of time into this article and when someone makes an unreferenced assertion, I would like them to provide the same type of references that I am required to.

::::If you have an addition to this article or a source that can back-up what is already written, then please contribute your efforts. Where this article is concerned, all you have done is complain when someone is trying to make valid contributions. --Jimmy 16:28, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Jimmy, sources are readily available on the internet, or simply ask someone who goes to public school, or teaches there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:36, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::::If the sources are readily available, then they should be listed with the article. A person reading the article shouldn't have to do their own research when the article writer is required to provide a reference.--Jimmy 16:53, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Mandatory / Teacher-lead / Spoken Prayers==

I'm sorry if there was some sort of misunderstanding, but I wasn't aware that all spoken prayer is banned in public schools... would a student making a simple prayer (at a practical time) really be punished for doing so? Perhaps I'm missing another sort of prayer, other than teacher-led, that is also banned? I was just trying to clarify what is actually "forbidden" and where these lines are drawn in most public schools. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:06, 1 January 2008 (EST)

: Yes, it is banned. Surely you know someone who goes to public school, or teaches there???? Anyone, teacher or student, who tries to lead a prayer in school is likely to be disciplined and have that go on his record.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:34, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::I know people that go to and teach at public schools and prayer is allowed many times during the day, even during class time as long as it does not interfere with instruction. Yet the article states: ''''Spoken prayer … are expressly forbidden in public schools classrooms during school hours, and teaching of morality is implicitly disfavored.'''' I would like to see a reference that supports that sentence, it seems to be at odds with what I observe and current legal reasoning.--Jimmy 16:50, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:::Ah, yes, I see what you mean Andy... sorry, I didn't mean to overemphasize who it was leading the prayer. In public schools, essentially any prayer beyond individual, inconspicuous prayer on one's own time is banned or strongly discouraged. Perhaps instead of "spoken prayer"... "group prayer" or "collective prayer" might more accurately denote this situation? I'm not sure, the current term seemed a bit confusing - but that might just be me. Anyway, clarify it if you like, thanks for explaining. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:34, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::Why were my edits reverted? I've been asking for a reference for the school prayer comments at the top of the page for a while and none were provided. The comment about prominent Americans not attending public schools since 1962 was deleted because I felt it was a little odd to have that sentence there when it is obvious that it was not true.--Jimmy 13:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

::::: The list shows that the only prominent Americans were educated before 1962, and there is no disputing the observation about prayer being banned at public schools, along with the Ten Commandments. You can easily find cites for that if that were your goal. Deleting factual information for liberal reasons is allowed at Wikipedia, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:24, 4 January 2008 (EST)

::::::There are two lists of prominent Americans educated in public schools. The second list provides the names of fifteen that were educated after 1962 so why are you insisting that there aren't any prominent Americans educated after 1962? I am disputing your observation concerning public school prayer because according to George W. Bush and the Department of Education, you are wrong, and Bush is far from being a liberal.

::::::I can't find any cites to support your conclusions about public school prayer; that is why I want you to provide them. If they exist, please show me where, according to the commandments it is your responsibility to do so. Since Conservapedia is supposed to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia", I feel that references should be provided for every alleged fact presented in its pages. I don't see how that has a liberal stance, facts are facts.--Jimmy 13:40, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Unjustified Edits ==

Mr. Schlafly:

This is just getting worse. Your reference to the prohibition of the Ten Commandments in public schools is a reference to another Conservapedia article which itself doesn't have a reference. How is that suppose to work? And this reference has nothing to do with the alleged prohibition of spoken prayer or teaching of morality. I'll ask again, can you provide valid references for the following opinions you have made; spoken prayer is prohibited in public schools, school prayer was banned in 1962, and the teaching of morality is disfavored? According to the commandments of this encyclopedia, you are not providing the proper documentation for most of your opinions expressed in this article and yet I get the feeling you wouldn't tolerate unreferenced edits from me.

Changing the heading of the second list of Americans that attended public schools doesn't make sense. Of the fifteen people listed, only three can be considered 'celebrities'. The rest are prominent business men, astronauts, politicians, an aviator and a soldier. Since only 20% of the people listed are celebrities, how does that add up to 'mostly celebrity'?

I get the feeling that I am going to be blocked soon. I was warned once before about not insisting on people following the rules of this encyclopedia and that I should be expected to look up the references for other people's opinions even if I didn't think they were valid. I hope I'll be able to make contributions to this website.--Jimmy 20:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:Not quite yet, but I reverted your last edit here. If you feel that schools are teaching morality, reversing the wording of one sentence isn't helping the article.

:Can you write a few sentences on [[Morality in public schools]], please? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::I would like to write a section about morality in public schools, but what good would it do. The second sentence of this article claims, without providing any evidence whatsoever, that student prayer in public schools is prohibited and morality implicitly disfavored. It doesn't matter that I provided plenty of evidence that this assertion is completely without basis. Unless the second sentence is changed to reflect reality, this article will always look goofy. The latest reference that Aschlafly supplied actually shows prayer is allowed at public schools. I quote from the reference, "'''It ended in the spring of 2006 when the Knox County School Board promised in writing to allow students "religious expression" during "discretionary time'''." Far from demonstrating that public schools are forbidding prayer, this reference makes it clear that if students are denied the right to pray during non-instructional times, they always have someone that will fight for them and restore their rights.

::Look at the edits I made earlier that were reverted. Notice how many times 'atheistic' was replaced with 'secular' before it wasn't reverted. A list showing a broad coalition of civil liberties groups supporting public school prayer was removed for being 'liberal'. I've had no luck removing the 'disclaimer' about prominent Americans being educated in public schools. It still states prayer is banned and no 'prominent Americans' have been educated in public schools even though I have demonstrated otherwise. I've made continuous requests for references to support the opinions expressed in the second sentence of this article only to be ignored and threatened. Will you offer any assurance that what I write will not be summarily dismissed? I'd hate to waste my time.--Jimmy 00:07, 6 January 2008 (EST)

== Reference List ==
Something happened to the reference list after my last edit. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:33, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:*points to #25 and #26* +_+ always tired [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 17:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Drop out rates==
It's worse in some districts. Less than 25% of students in Detroit graduate. That is one big reason why I am working on getting certified to teach in the inner city - the need is so great. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: God bless you for doing that, Dan. If I could hold classroom prayer to start the class with those kids and get rid of the liberal ideology, I could double that graduation rate. But the liberals won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Political Correctness as a Hindering Factor==

It's frequently noted that private schools tend to do better than public schools, and that other countries (India, China, and so forth) are turning out more and better-equipped scientists and engineers than America at present.

I would suggest that there's a common factor: none of those educational environments are guided by the notion that every student has equal ability, and that if we just try really hard, every student can achieve at the same level.

Bluntly: that notion is political correctness, and it's a tremendous handicap for several reasons.

First, it makes it all but impossible to hold students accountable for their own education. Social promotion ensures that students who make no effort continue to be passed on to higher grades. While in school, they face essentially no consequences for lack of effort; the consequences only catch up with them when they get out into the real world and discover that they're woefully unqualified for any job.

Second, the one-size-fits-all approach to education hurts both gifted and non-gifted students in the name of "not labeling." Modern educational theory insists that students at all levels of ability need to be taught in the same classroom at the same time, resulting in a Catch-22. Either the teacher can teach at the level of the lowest students in the class--ensuring that the rest of the class will be bored stiff and receive little useful information--or at a higher level, ensuring that the struggling students will be lost.

This is hand-waved with bland optimism and buzzwords like "differentiated instruction." There's only so much differentiation you can do in forty minutes, though.

''Why'' is it wrong to suggest that working with a group of students who are at roughly the same level will enable lessons to be tailored to that level? Why is it wrong to suggest that students who excel in English, in science, or in mathematics be given the chance to excel and to push beyond the baseline curriculum? ''That'' is how other countries produce better-educated engineers and scientists: they don't try to educate everyone to the same level.

Apologies for the rant, but as a teacher in a public school myself, I'm frequently frustrated by having my hands tied. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Embarrassing References ==
Mr. DeanS: The references for the claim that public schools are atheistic are downright embarrassing. The first reference deals with Kennedy's assertion that public schools are atheistic; no need for him to give any evidence, just blah, blah, blah. The second reference is from WND, that by itself is bad enough, but after taking 30 seconds to read the article, I actually laughed out loud for a few seconds. I don't quite understand, the reference says the school is allowing football players to pray as a group, and this is your evidence that public schools are atheistic? I thought public school students weren't allowed to pray in public schools? That is the completely unsupported claim made by one of the editors of this article. Yet you posted a reference that stated kids are allowed to pray? The third reference actually said students have the right to pray during discretionary time. It stated at the beginning of the article, ''"It ended in the spring of 2006 when the Knox County School Board promised in writing to allow students "religious expression" during "discretionary time."'' And you insist on saying this is a quality reference for your assertion that public schools are atheistic? Please give me a break. You can do much better than that. If your claim can actually be supported that is.

This article is a complete piece of junk because it has so many contradicting claims. Every claim that public schools are atheistic or doesn't teach morals is backed up with lousy references that don't support the claim while the entries I wrote used reliable references. Is there any chance this article can be edited to reflect reality? I realize some people just can't grasp the concept that students in America's secular public schools are allowed to pray, out loud, even during classes, and are allowed to read the Ten Commandments, etc. I know this because this is what happens at every public school my children have attended and this is what our current president even says. Now if you want to claim Bush doesn't know what he is talking about, go right ahead and say he is a clueless fool for insisting that public school students don't have the religious freedoms he claims. But please post intelligent and meaningful references, if they can be found, that way this encyclopedia won't look ignorant. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 00:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-07T18:08:42Z

Jimmy:

This article requires a complete overhaul. Despite the length, it contains numerous untrue statements and opinions masquerading as facts.

- Judge Jones was not an activist judge and he never admitted to such a thing. In his ruling he specifically denied making an activist decision and his so-called admission was simply the straw man arguments and misleading assertions of a disgruntled Casey Luskin.

- The Discovery Institute may claim that Jones "copied verbatim" from the ACLU but that does not make it true. Jones relied heavy upon the ACLU for his findings of fact (which did not comprise a majority of his decision), but this is common throughout many court rulings.

- The reference given to allegedly prove Jones made an activist decision is only one part of a three part series printed in the Montana Law Review. A rebuttal to Luskin's mostly groundless assertions is a part of the series. This was not mentioned at all in the references. It should be mentioned that the Montana Law Review has not taken a stance on the Kitzmiller decision.

This article needs to be seriously revised or deleted. In its current form, it should not be a part of a "trustworthy encyclopedia". --Jimmy 22:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Change==

The current article is unsatisfactory because it is almost completely devoid of references and presents very little in the way of factual information. I propose the following change. If there is not any objection, I'll press on.

:Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Dover Area School District by a group of eleven parents whose children were subject to the requirement that a statement in support of intelligent design (ID) be read aloud by any science class instructor prior the presentation of any material about the theory of evolution. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref>

:Plaintiffs were a group of parents that brought the case on behave of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school boards revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm </ref>

:Defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was placed in effect. The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas More Law Center on a pro bono basis. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 </ref>

:Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and Lemon Tests to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analysis the constitutionality of the ID policy under the Establishment Clause." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref>

:On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref>

:Criticism:
:Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, a conservative Republican appointed by President Bush, was accused of judicial activism. <ref> http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp </ref> Despite the accusations that he admitted to making an activist ruling, he actually preempted his critics by stating; "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp </ref>

:The term cdesign proponentsists was spawned into the American culture due to this case. <ref> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ </ref>''

:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

*Reject. It's still an obvious, barely changed copy from Wikipedia, as I already showed on your talk page. Additionally, multiple uses of the National Center for Science Education as a primary source is simply laughable. You might as well use the KKK as a source for articles about how racism is okay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:22, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:Mr. Jinxmchue: Based on my past experience with your editing and opinions, I will simply discount your initial observation and not take your rejection as the final word. Another word on your skills as an editor, you may take this as an observation. Every paragraph has a reference. The primary references for the first six paragraphs are to the PDF transcript of the official ruling of Judge Jones which is posted at the NCSE. If fact, the NSCE has many documents from the trial, all posted unedited and without editorial comment. So you see, the only primary resource I used from the NCSE concerned their research into creationism and this was the You Tube interview that was posted at the end of the article. Even a cursory reading of the article and references will show just about the entire article is written using the December 20, 2005 ruling. All other references were added to list the law firms involved with the trial. Using the KKK as a means to criticize my references is juvenile, but if you insist on using such ad hominem comments, I can't stop you.

:This being said, I feel that this version is not as good as my previous effort. If anyone would like to add constructive editing or suggestions, that would be nice. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:14, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Jimmy, your version above does not even explain clearly, up front, what the disclaimer said. It has mistakes (behave?) and makes an unjustified reference to the judge as a "conservative". I agree with Jinxmchue that your proposal is unacceptable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:::So if I correct the spelling error, get rid of 'conservative', and add the 'disclaimer' then my article can be posted? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:57, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I would say also find some better, less viciously, viscerally biased sources and, using said sources, write up the article from scratch. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::I'll keep the 'vicious' and 'viscerally' biased source from the Evolution News link because you seem to like it as it is the only reference in the original. Since my re-write was written up from scratch from the court ruling, do I have your 'approval'? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 13:32, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I recently compared the NCSE point of view with that of Wikipedia on ID. Its virtually identical. Writers at Wikipedia assume that NCSE is '''correct''', instead of treating them as one party to a dispute.

If you want to describe liberal POV here, be sure to label it properly. Say, for example, that the NCSE supported X because of Y. Now '''that''' would be helpful! (But saying "X is true" and giving NCSE as a reference is not helpful; don't do it any more, or we'll have to drop you from the project. Not just you, Jimmy, but anyone who writes like that.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:52, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why all the concern about the NCSE? Their POV is only used at the end of my article to explain cdesign proponentsists. I didn't even write that little sentence but it is stuck there because my edit was reverted. All I did was provide the reference to the people that discovered the sloppy editing of the ID text book. The other NCSE references are for the PDF file of the court ruling. Is there any reason why this link[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf] is more valid than this one [http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf]? Come on, they both use the exact same PDF file of the court ruling. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 01:33, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a quick glance, I can't see how it's "still an obvious, barely changed copy from Wikipedia". Could Jimxmchue point out which parts of the Wikipedia article it is a copy of?
:: Ignoring that, and apart from other comments above (including the disclaimer, spelling, etc.), I think the rewrite looks good, with one exception that I'll discuss below. I don't have a problem with including NSCE references that are merely transcripts of the court case, but on the other hand, if they are available elsewhere (i.e. a court site) as you indicate, why not link to the originals instead of copies?
:: The exception is the bit about the judge's alleged activism. The current article says that the judge has admitted to activism. The proposed version implies that accusations of activism are wrong, according to the judge himself. Both claims/implications are incorrect, as far as I can see. That is, the judge did ''not'' admit to activism, but the link which supposedly supports that does appear to make a case for him being activist. To clarify, the link supporting the current claim that he admitted to activism actually says that he "made striking admissions that demonstrate the activist nature of the ''Kitzmiller'' ruling". That is, he did not admit to activism, but he did admit to certain things that indicate activism on is part. The rewrite should reflect the claims that he was activist (but without claiming that he admitted as much) and why. His rebuttal of that can be mentioned, but I note that he explains little if anything about ''why'' it's not activism, with merely a simple denial then deflection onto the other parties.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:52, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Philip: Thanks for your comment. I used the NCSE link because they also have what looks like every transcript of the proceedings available on-line. Even if you don't like their politics or science, they are a handy reference for all the Kitzmiller documents. That being said, I don't mind if the other reference is used. In defense of Judge Jones, his denial of his alleged activism was a part of his verdict which came before the Discovery Institutes charge of activism; therefore he didn't address any specific claim leveled against him. I feel that any further discussion of any alleged activism on his part should be reserved for another article that is linked to this one. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:05, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

==Edit==

Philip: The quote box for the disclaimer looks good, thanks. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 15:53, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

==Questions concerning Aschlafly's edit==

Mr. Schlafly: in my opinion your edit has introduced an unreferenced opinion and removed important facts that contributed to the credibility of this article. Every major edit I made to this article was discussed beforehand and I even made every change you required, yet here you are deleting important facts that give a certain measure of comprehension to the Kitzmiller v Dover lawsuit. I'd like to know why the following changes were made.
*Why was the sentence concerning Tammy Kitzmiller and the ten other parents that were a part of the lawsuit removed?

: Everyone knows that the driving force behind this type of lawsuit is the anti-religion organizations. The parents probably did not pay even a dime for the lawsuit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are of course ignoring that the case is called ''Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District''. Who is Kitzmiller? This I think is fundamental to the article. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*Why was the $2 million sum mentioned prior to the verdict and why was it not mentioned that the payment of fees was reduced to $1 million?

: What makes you think the fees were reduced? The award should be up-front and not hidden.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::Cronological order is important when telling the story so in any sensible prose it should go verdict, award, reduction on appeal. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::: You were informed of this fact before on the Evolution article talk page. Even this anti-ACLU organization says so. [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclus_exploitation_of_the_civil_rights_attorney_fee_act/] I think the award fee should be posted after the judges ruling, this is clearly not hiding information. It's funny that you are the one accusing me hiding information while at the same time removing pertinent facts. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*Why was mention of the lead law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP, removed?

: It's obscure and meaningless. The names of law firms are not relevant to a summary of a decision. Do you know or care who the law firms were in key decisions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: No you removed it because you are trying to make this look like it is all the ACLU doing and not that of the parents and the law firm they hired. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Just as obscure and meaningless as the ACLU and the AU? What about the Thomas Moore Law center? You seem to have a thing for the lawsuits the ACLU is involved in. Your gripes and complaints about them are all over the ACLU article. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*Why was the legal reasoning the judge employed in his verdict removed? Shouldn't his reasoning involving the establishment clause, Lemon Test, other opinions about creationism, and the opinions of other jurists be included?

: The reasoning used is not as important as the outcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::Yes it is. You are the lawyer you should know this. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::The fact that Judge Jones based his verdict on sound judicial precedent and legal reasoning is not important? In my opinion that sounds like a bizarre statement for lawyer to make. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*The idea that the parents sued to "censor any mention of intelligent design in public school" is without merit. If I am wrong I'm sure you could provide the reference that is required by the commandments.

: That's what the suit was about, and the outcome was to censor any mention of intelligent design.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::Still uncited opinon. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Your removal of "liberal fluff" was nothing more that the removal of factual information. It has been said the facts have a liberal bias, even if that is so; it shouldn't be a barrier for adding pertinent information. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your "facts" are "liberal fluff" that obscure the result. You seem unclear about the result yourself!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:You might want to give references to support your "facts." And why should we mention the judge's reasoning if we know he is biased? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::The facts I wrote about were clearly presented in the judge's decision, obviously not 'liberal fluff'. The fact you removed them shows that you are clearly trying to hide something. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::WilliamH you are either you are a parodist or like Andy imagine everything in the world can be divided into liberal/conservative views. Somethings are testable facts and some important ones have been removed to the detriment of this article. Jimmy wrote a much better article then the one there now. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Do you always accuse people of "imagining" things when they point out that things need to be referenced properly or that one shouldn't report statements by biased sources? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 21:01, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Well for a start the plaintiffs in the case were parents, the current article implies if not states that the plaintiffs were the ACLU and AUSCS. The case was not to censor any mention of ID, but instead to stop a statement in favour of it being read out. A sourced statement from the uscourts.gov site has been removed which explained why the Lemon Test and endorsement test should be applied. Can you tell me which of these are biased or not referenced correctly? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:04, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::WilliamH: You're joking, right? Did you even bother to look at the references I posted? Every fact and opinion I wrote or quoted was supported with a reference. Of course the judge had biases, he based his ruling on ''"…the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and Lemon Tests to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the Establishment Clause." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools." '' In other words he wrote his decision based on the rule of law and previous precedent. If you actually read his decision you would know this. If there is a good reason to delete this information from the article I am all ears. If you have any other information that the judge was biased for any other reason, please include it in the article, with a valid reference of course. Conservapedia is supposed to be a resource for teachers and students, yet credible information was deleted on the basis of "liberal fluff". --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:08, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Judge Jones has made various comments outside the courtrooms that put in question his ability to determine in an unbiased way the outcome of this case, some of those quotes can be read here:
:::::::http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-04.html
:::::::http://www.discovery.org/a/3135 and :::::::http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dover_in_review_an_analysis_of_1.html
:::::::http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330
:::::::http://tbayly.wordpress.com/2005/12/20/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/
:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx
::::::Now, if you do have references for your other assertions, then good. In my first comment above I simply suggested you linked to the references in question which I was unaware could be find in the body of the article. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 22:20, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I'm not sure what other assertions you are talking about. As far as I know, everything I wrote or quoted was referenced.
:::::::http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-04.html
:::::::Ms. Schlafly appears to be uninformed about why Judge Jones used the term "breathtaking inanity". He said that in reference to the obvious lies told by some of the defendants. The rest of her comments are in the same vein. Read the depositions and the trial transcripts and you will see the obvious differences between the statements taken under oath.

:::::::http://www.discovery.org/a/3135 and :::::::http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dover_in_review_an_analysis_of_1.html
:::::::These two links are just whining on the part of the Discovery Institute. Many of their statements are in glaring contradiction to the Wedge document and the testimony given by their expert witnesses such as Behe.

:::::::http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330
:::::::The WND article is a joke that shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone that has a rudimentary understanding of how judges write their opinions. It is not un-common for judges to use the findings of fact of the winning party. Does anyone seriously consider that the ACLU is actually complaining about Judge Jones using (plagiarizing) their research? I think they are impressed that the judge would do so.

:::::::http://tbayly.wordpress.com/2005/12/20/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/
:::::::Hmmmmm. I think Judges Jones's preemptive strike against his critics was spot on. He correctly predicted the losing side would vent, and they did.

:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx
:::::::Typical right-wing rant from a person that doesn't like a judicial decision and then decides to label it judicial activism. No need to provide any evidence, just blow a gasket and then think they are providing meaningful commentary. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Jimmy, in addition to William's comments, you should learn the outcome of the case before you write about it and certainly before you criticize others about it. The fee award was $2 million. I'd guess you picked up the $1 million from Wikipedia's biased entry. It's baseless. You also seem unclear about how the ACLU sought, and obtained, censorship of reference to [[intelligent design]] in the classroom. Is that what you applaud?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Mr. Schlafly: Please cut me some slack, I obviously knew what the outcome was; I quoted the judge's decision. I know the fee award was $2 million, I never contested that fact. I did happen to notice the $1 million dollar number quoted at Wikipedia's factually biased Kitzmiller article. I also noticed the reference they used; do you have a problem with it? [http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139] Did you have a problem with the reference I quoted earlier? [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclus_exploitation_of_the_civil_rights_attorney_fee_act/] What about this one? [http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf] And here. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/PA/162_intelligent_design_costs_dov_2_24_2006.asp] It took me only 2 minutes to find all of these references. And yes, I do applaud the judge's decision to remove an idea with virtually no scientific support. Heck, even Prof. Behe can't be bothered to do any 'peer-reviewed' research for ID; he had better things to do according to his sworn testimony during the trial. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 23:07, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Responding to a number of points (before edit conflict with latest post(s):
* The parents/defendants should definitely be mentioned, as should the involvement of groups like the ACLU. I have no trouble believing that it was ''initiated'' by one or more parents, but then I wouldn't put it past the ACLU to seek out a parent willing to bring the action with their support. I don't know exactly what the situation was, but clearly both are relevant factors and both should be mentioned.
* Regarding the parents suing to prevent any mention of ID: This is a reasonable conclusion to draw, given that ID was not to be taught, but merely ''mentioned'', and it was this ''mention'' that they objected to. There may, however, be a better way of bringing up this point.
* Regarding the other points mentioned above that Andy deleted, I think they ''should'' be there, but what I think should happen is that the article is restructured a bit so that the more relevant information (i.e. the stuff that both sides agree should be there) goes higher up in the article and the less relevant stuff (e.g. the name of the law firm) goes lower down or in footnotes. I agree that generally things like this should be chronological, but that doesn't prevent having a summary which mentions, say, the verdict before you get into the (chronological) detail of the case.
If nobody else reinstates some of that stuff first, I’ll do it when I get a chance, although I don’t know when that will be.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks Philip. I am prohibited from making any changes to anything that Mr. Schlafly has written because a certain administrator has forbidden me to do so and has threaten to block me if I ever do it again. I only make additions or minor editing, not deletions; this is one of the reasons some of the articles I have edited look a bit bizarre. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 23:38, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:I'll help take up the flag on this one and make some of those changes.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:23, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Folks, this is an encyclopedia. That means the essential material goes first where the reader can understand it right away. This is not a book, where story telling from beginning to end may be appreciated.

:: This entry should explain to the reader up-front what this case was about, what drove it, and who won what. It doesn't do that now and the list of plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the case obscures what really happened.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:16, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Notice of changes ==

In furtherance of my comments above, the liberal fluff and errors are going to be removed from this entry this morning. Case summaries do not dwell on the identity of law firms and plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the action. See [[Engel v. Vitale]] and [[Stone v. Graham]] if you still don't believe me. Also, the summary insists on repeating a key error about the award despite my repeated corrections of that. I'll wait a bit if someone else would like to correct this first, but if not then I'll fix it yet again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:Mr. Schlafly: If you had all these concerns about the article when I first posted it on the talk page, then why didn't you say so? It sure would have made things a lot easier. If I'd known you were going to butcher this article and then add unreferenced and unsupported factoids that comply with your reality, I wouldn't have wasted my time. Maybe I should just spend my time on the NASA article.

:Who says "Case summaries do not dwell on the identity of law firms and plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the action." Is that a rule that you just created? Why reference Conservapedia articles to demonstrate your point? The Engel v Vitale article starts out with a blatant lie, anybody that knows anything about this case knows it did not deal with banning all prayer from public school classrooms. It contains irrelevant opinions and facts that do not contribute to the article and is missing information that should belong. This is also one of the bizarre articles I was talking about. I added the second line of the article that quoted the judge's ruling and it is completely at odds with the opening line. The Stone v Graham article is, quite frankly, completely worthless as a reference. It is unreferenced and contains such a small amount of information that it is rendered almost useless as an encyclopedic entry. I brought this to your attention months ago when you were 'editing' the changes I made to the 'Public Schools' article.

:What exactly is the key error of the award fee? I'd like you to point it out with full factual references please. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Jimmy, I don't have time to explain the corrections of all your mistakes and take out obviously inappropriate information, like names of law firms and plaintiffs who lacked any financial interest in the case. You seem to be getting biased and/or false information from Wikipedia and importing it here. Please stop that practice.

:: The fee award against the defendants was $2 million. Try harder if you can't figure that out and insist on changing that. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::The award was $2m, but ultimately my understanding is that ACLU and the other organization agreed to accept $1m "to lessen the burden on the district." Probably both facts should be stated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly: A few observations:
::::*It seems that you now have the time to edit all my 'mistakes' and 'obviously inappropriate information'. Seems to me you could have saved a lot of time by pointing out all your concerns before I made the edit.

::::* Based on your reasoning then, Pepper Hamilton should be mentioned because they had a share in the award along with the ACLU and the AU. Do I have your permission to make the appropriate update to this article so we can comply with your rules? By the way, my reference is this. [http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/local/ci_3535139] If I'm not mistaken, I gave you this reference once before, and it didn't come from Wikipedia.

::::*Where exactly is the false information that allegedly came from Wikipedia? Please let me know because I hate to be the purveyor of inaccurate or false information.

::::*I know the initial award fee was $2 million dollars, I have never contested that fact nor did I try and change it. All I ever did was point out that the award fee was reduced. Care to reference your opinion that the award fee was massive? Need to keep the article honest and devoid of unreferenced opinion. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 12:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Jimmy, I'm going to ask you for the last time: open your mind and try harder to understand the fee award. That was a court award and it did not reduce it. There were many defendants and others involved. Got it now?

::::: People who insist on censorship are often wrong themselves, perhaps due to their closed-mindedness. Open your mind and please stop making the same fundamental mistake. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::This is getting ridiculous. I '''NEVER''' contested the fact that the '''COURT''' awarded the $2 million dollar fee. If you would like to see the court order it is here. [http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-22_order_fees_and_damages_award.pdf] All I wanted to point out was the fact that the award was reduced to about $1 million. I '''NEVER''' said the '''COURT''' ordered this reduction. I even listed several references, from different political viewpoints, that said the award was reduced and the school board voted to pay for it. Now where do you get off saying I should open my mind? You are the one that calls facts 'liberal fluff' and makes statements that are inconsistent. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 12:51, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Type of article ==

What type of article is this meant to be?

Andy mentions above that "Case summaries do not dwell on the identity of law firms and plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the action". Well, perhaps not, but then encyclopedias don't usually have "case summaries" either. Now I've got no problem with Conservapedia having case summaries—it's one of our distinctives (along with essays, debates, family-friendliness, etc.). But this particular case was more than a case that was legally significant for lawyers, but an important point in the history of ID. So should this article be merely a "case summary", written from a legal point of view, or more of an encyclopedia article, written from a general public point of view? Or, should there be two separate articles? One being the legalese case summary, and the other being the more general article?

I think at the moment it is trying to be both. A legalese case summary ''would'' mention the actual plaintiffs, and not say much about other parties, such as the ACLU. A more general encyclopedia article would probably emphasise broader aspects, such as the role of the ACLU. The title currently suggests the legalese case summary. So should we try and incorporate both into this article, or make it two separate articles?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

: Philip, this case is a 2-million dollar verdict that completely censored any mention of ID. That needs to come across clearly early in the entry. The money awarded obviously increases the motivation for this ACLU-type case.

: A reader should be able, based on the first 100 or so words, to understand the significance of the outcome of the case. I don't mind fluff later in the entry, but it should not obscure the essence that needs to be on the first page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:# So you seem to be saying that this one article can cover both the legal and the wider social aspects.
:# And you agree that what you call "fluff" that you removed can go in the article after all, but not near the beginning. That's pretty much what I suggested earlier.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:42, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Oh, I'm sorry for not being clearer. I'm fine with the less important stuff, like the names of plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the case or the names of law firms that did some work, appearing later in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Could you put up some sort of framework or headings, so we have an idea of exactly how you want this article presented?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:20, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't care ... as long as the key results are up-front, and not buried below irrelevancies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Actual damages paid ==
$1,000,011
see [http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 here]
--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:38, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
: I'm puzzled by this too. I thought that Andy's objection to this was to making it sound like the decision of the court was altered, which my edit that he removed didn't say. Yet Andy himself included in the article[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kitzmiller_vs._Dover_Area_School_District&diff=prev&oldid=464897] that only 1 million was paid, so just what part is it that is false? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: $1 million was paid ''by the School Board''. The article does not say whether the judgment was waived against other defendants, insurance carriers, attorneys, etc. The judgment for over $2 million was not modified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Okay, I now believe that I understand your point (although I thought that before). However, the link that supported the claim, and which Tim has reposted above, makes it clear that it was the school board/district that should have paid the $2 million figure, and that it was the $2 million figure that was modified to $1 million by agreement between the parties. There was no other $1 million paid or to be paid by other parties. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:11, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The citation criticizes the practice, and saying something is "not unheard of" is [[liberal fluff]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:48, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

:Why was the 'finding of facts' rebuttal removed? The citation does support the claim. The reference does contain a criticism, ''"Those drawn with the insight of a disinterested mind are, however, more helpful to the appellate court.'' Yet in spite of this observation, the court also stated, ''"There was a trial, and after oral argument the judge announced from the bench 3 that judgment would be for appellees and that he would not write an opinion. He told counsel for appellees "Prepare the findings and conclusions and judgment." They obeyed, submitting 130 findings of fact and one conclusion of law, all of which, we are advised, the District Court adopted verbatim. Those findings, though not the product of the workings of the district judge's mind, are formally his; they are not to be rejected out-of-hand, and they will stand if supported by evidence. United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173, 184 -185."'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&page=651#656]
:Despite the claims of the DI, there appears to be very little wrong with a judge using the 'findings of fact' from the winning side. But Judge Jones didn't rely solely upon the ACLU; he also wrote his decision based on precedent, the First Amendment, the Lemon Test, etc. In other words, the DI's accusation is without merit and their claims should be challenged in the article, that is, if we want the article to reflect the facts. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:26, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

: I've never understood what was wrong with the judge quoting from the ACLU submission (other than their POV being wrong). The reference in the article doesn't cite a source so that I can read for myself what the DI say is wrong with this. Do we know a source for this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:42, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: We disclose the criticism and let readers decide. By the way, something does not have to be "right" or "wrong" in order to be informative in other ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure where a source could be found, the Discovery Institute just declared that Jones copied from the ACLU and somehow this was wrong. Now if we are allowed to 'disclose the criticism and let readers decide', then why was the rebuttal removed in the first place? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 10:22, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Are you asking where the source is for the Discovery Institute's analysis? I don't think anyone disputes its analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: Yes, I'm asking for the source of the DI's criticism of the judge's use of the ACLU material. I'm not disputing that they said that. I'm wanting to see exactly what it was they said, to see if I can understand what's wrong with it. As for your comment about it not having to be right or wring, if there's nothing wrong with it, it's not a valid criticism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: OK, later this morning I'll take a look on the internet. But no one has disputed the accuracy of DI's criticism, and I'm surprised that anyone is questioning it here. As to being "right" or "wrong", the source of a writing or description is informative regardless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:39, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No one? I can find at least [http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/11/luskin_flogs_the_judicial_acti.php one]. Should I look for more? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: We were talking about the DI's criticism of the judge using the ACLU submission in his judgement (or whatever), not their criticism of the judge being an activist. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:07, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Ah, right. This whole thing is bit hard for me to follow. How about [http://brightline.typepad.com/law_evolution_science_and/2006/12/judge_jones_laz.html this?] [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:19, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::An excellent opinion piece Wandering. I propose that we use 'Rule 52' [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule52.htm] in the article to reference the 'findings of fact' rebuttal. The National Center for Science Education is an excellent source for material that refutes much of what the Discovery Institute and other creationists have to say about ID. Mr. Schlafly even used them as a source for a few of the edits he made. The best resource for this article in rebutting the claims of the DI is the trial transcripts, also posted at the NCSE. Two of the DI's big guns did not fare well during the trial. Judges Jones even quoted and criticized their testimony in his decision.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: The link itself has a link to [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/study_shows_federal_judged_cop.html what I was after]. And it seems from my partial reading that their criticism is not as simple as "he copied, and he shouldn't", as implied by the comment in the article. I'll have to check it out more tomorrow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Incorrect Statement ==
Mr. Schlafly: The statement you added, ''"(in fact, the statement never was read to students)",'' is not true according to the December 20 ruling. While the teachers refused to read the disclaimer, the transcript of the ruling contains this reference, "''It is important to initially note that as a result of the teachers’ refusal to read the disclaimer, school administrators were forced to make special appearances in the science classrooms to deliver it''." In the interests of accuracy, I propose this sentence be removed or replaced to reflect the fact that the school administrators read the disclaimer to the students. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 12:04, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is there any evidence of the statement actually being read, or of students actually hearing it? There was a full, $2+ million trial. Surely if the statement were actually read, there would be testimony about its alleged terrible effects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::I thought that because Judge Jones's ruling said the administrators were forced to read the disclaimer because of the teacher's refusal to do so would suffice. I'm sure there was testimony to this effect in the trial transcript but I sure don't feel like looking through thousands of pages to confirm what should be obvious. The disclaimer was read to the students based of the judge's ruling; that should be enough to delete your claim that it was never read to the students. If you want to make the case that there were or were not 'terrible effects', that is entirely a different matter. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 13:27, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It's unclear to me whether the administrators planned to read the statement, or whether they actually did. If they actually did, I would expect there to be more evidence of it, including Who, When, Where, etc.

::: For now, I've clarified the phrase to say it was not read by teachers. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:36, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::The original plan was for the teachers to read the disclaimer prior to science classes when evolution was taught. They refused to do so and they released a public letter. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/PA/304_dover_teachers_refuse_to_read__1_7_2005.asp] I do not know the name of the administrator or when this person read the disclaimer. I don't think we need to get that in depth. I added to your statement by saying an administrator read the disclaimer. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 13:58, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Don't add your implausible claim that one unnamed administrator read the disclaimer to all the students until you have proof for it. I had to revert your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:02, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::How can my claim be implausible if I referenced the judge's ruling? Why did you revert the reference to the DI amicus brief? Shouldn't that remain? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 14:08, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-07T17:58:59Z

Jimmy:

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-07T17:48:29Z

Jimmy: Added reference for DI amicus brief

<div style="float:right; width:50%"><center>'''The text of the statement'''<ref name="Memo">[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Memorandum Opinion] 20th December, 2005.</ref></center>{{QuoteBox|The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.}}</div>

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]].

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/530239/2006-02-22_stipulation</ref> The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688.pdf</ref> and completely excluded ("stricken in its entirety") an [[amicus brief]] submitted by the Discovery Institute which included information from Drs. [[Stephen Meyer]] and [[William Dembski]].<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-10_amicus_briefs/2005-10-17_DI_Kitzmiller_1st_amicus_brief.pdf</ref> The court's final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref> Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref> A final judgment and dismissal with prejudice was entered on December 19, 2006 in which the school board in question was prohibited from taking any action that would "prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the school district."<ref> http://www.cobbk12.org/news/2006/20061219_EvolutionCase.htm</ref>
== Criticism==
Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]] by the [[Discovery Institute]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/]}}

The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute, has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.<ref name="Activ" />

Judge Jones gave many public statements and speeches after his ruling. In the conclusion of his ruling, he answered his expected critics by stating, "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>

== Details of the case ==

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

=== Plaintiffs ===

The plaintiffs were a group of eleven parents that brought the case on behalf of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school board's revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm</ref>

=== Defendants ===
The defendants were the Dover Area School District and the Dover Area School District Board of Directors. The Board presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was to be implemented (in fact, the statement never was read to students by teachers but instead it was read by an administrator prior to science lessons). The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis.<ref name="Memo" /><ref name="NYD">http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139</ref>

=== Endorsement and Lemon Tests ===

Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and [[Lemon Test]]s to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the [[Establishment Clause]]." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref name="Memo" />

=== Verdict ===

On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones held that "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref name="Memo" />

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Intelligent design and creationism]]
* [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

[[category:United States Law]][[category:Judicial activism]][[category:Intelligent Design]]

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-07T17:43:13Z

Jimmy:

<div style="float:right; width:50%"><center>'''The text of the statement'''<ref name="Memo">[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Memorandum Opinion] 20th December, 2005.</ref></center>{{QuoteBox|The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.}}</div>

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]].

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/530239/2006-02-22_stipulation</ref> The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688.pdf</ref> and completely excluded ("stricken in its entirety") an [[amicus brief]] submitted by the Discovery Institute which included information from Drs. [[Stephen Meyer]] and [[William Dembski]]. The court's final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref> Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref> A final judgment and dismissal with prejudice was entered on December 19, 2006 in which the school board in question was prohibited from taking any action that would "prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the school district."<ref> http://www.cobbk12.org/news/2006/20061219_EvolutionCase.htm</ref>
== Criticism==
Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]] by the [[Discovery Institute]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/]}}

The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute, has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.<ref name="Activ" />

Judge Jones gave many public statements and speeches after his ruling. In the conclusion of his ruling, he answered his expected critics by stating, "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>

== Details of the case ==

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

=== Plaintiffs ===

The plaintiffs were a group of eleven parents that brought the case on behalf of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school board's revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm</ref>

=== Defendants ===
The defendants were the Dover Area School District and the Dover Area School District Board of Directors. The Board presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was to be implemented (in fact, the statement never was read to students by teachers but instead it was read by an administrator prior to science lessons). The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis.<ref name="Memo" /><ref name="NYD">http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139</ref>

=== Endorsement and Lemon Tests ===

Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and [[Lemon Test]]s to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the [[Establishment Clause]]." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref name="Memo" />

=== Verdict ===

On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones held that "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref name="Memo" />

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Intelligent design and creationism]]
* [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

[[category:United States Law]][[category:Judicial activism]][[category:Intelligent Design]]

Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-07T17:27:36Z

Jimmy:

Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-07T16:04:35Z

Jimmy:

Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-07T15:34:09Z

Jimmy:

Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-07T14:22:39Z

Jimmy:

Liberal fluff

2008-06-07T04:04:29Z

Jimmy:

'''Liberal fluff''' consists of statements that have no [[logic]]al or factual value of significance, but have the effect of diluting or distracting from the point at issue.{{fact}}

Liberal fluff is diametrically opposed to '''Conservative fluff'''; statements with unreferenced factoids that are completely devoid of relevant value and is used by a person that is obsessed with existing evils. <ref> http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Bierce/DevilsDictionary/A-E.html </ref>

==References==
<references/>

Liberal fluff

2008-06-07T03:33:57Z

Jimmy: Add reference list

'''Liberal fluff''' consists of statements that have no [[logic]]al or factual value of significance, but have the effect of diluting or distracting from the point at issue.

Liberal fluff is diametrically opposed to '''Conservative fluff'''; statements with unreferenced factoids that are completely devoid of relevant value and is used by a person that is obsessed with existing evils. <ref> http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Bierce/DevilsDictionary/A-E.html </ref>

==References==
<references/>

Liberal fluff

2008-06-07T03:32:35Z

Jimmy: Addition with reference

Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-07T02:26:47Z

Jimmy:

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-07T01:56:43Z

Jimmy: Added final result of Selman v Cobb County. Appeal was dismissed with prejudice and school board could not interfere with the teaching of evolution.

<div style="float:right; width:50%"><center>'''The text of the statement'''<ref name="Memo">[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Memorandum Opinion] 20th December, 2005.</ref></center>{{QuoteBox|The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.}}</div>

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]]. The defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students.

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-22_stipulation.pdf</ref> The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-03-10_order_denying_Rutherford_intervention.pdf</ref> and its final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref> Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref> A final judgment and dismissal with prejudice was entered on December 19, 2006 in which the school board in question was prohibited from taking any action that would "prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the school district." <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/selman/2006-12-19_Sticker_Agreement.pdf </ref>
== Criticism==
Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]] by the [[Discovery Institute]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/]}}

The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute, has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.<ref name="Activ" />

Judge Jones gave many public statements and speeches after his ruling. In the conclusion of his ruling, he answered his expected critics by stating, "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>

== Details of the case ==

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

=== Plaintiffs ===

The plaintiffs were a group of eleven parents that brought the case on behalf of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school board's revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm</ref>

=== Defendants ===
The defendants were the Dover Area School District and the Dover Area School District Board of Directors. The Board presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was to be implemented (in fact, the statement never was read to students). The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis.<ref name="Memo" /><ref name="NYD">http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139</ref>

=== Endorsement and Lemon Tests ===

Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and [[Lemon Test]]s to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the [[Establishment Clause]]." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref name="Memo" />

=== Verdict ===

On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones held that "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref name="Memo" />

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Intelligent design and creationism]]
* [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

[[category:United States Law]][[category:Judicial activism]][[category:Intelligent Design]]

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-06T18:21:49Z

Jimmy:

<div style="float:right; width:50%"><center>'''The text of the statement'''<ref name="Memo">[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Memorandum Opinion] 20th December, 2005.</ref></center>{{QuoteBox|The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.}}</div>

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]]. The defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students.

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-22_stipulation.pdf</ref> The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-03-10_order_denying_Rutherford_intervention.pdf</ref> and its final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref> Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref>
== Criticism==
Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>
{{QuoteBox|[[Discovery Institute]]: Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/]}}

The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact, though it is not uncommon for a judge to use the winning side's findings of fact. <ref> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&page=651#656
</ref> Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute, has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.<ref name="Activ" />

Judge Jones gave many public statements and speeches after his ruling. In the conclusion of his ruling, he answered his expected critics by stating, "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>

== Details of the case ==

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

=== Plaintiffs ===

The plaintiffs were a group of eleven parents that brought the case on behalf of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school board's revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm</ref>

=== Defendants ===
The defendants were the Dover Area School District and the Dover Area School District Board of Directors. The Board presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was to be implemented (in fact, the statement never was read to students). The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis.<ref name="Memo" /><ref name="NYD">http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139</ref>

=== Endorsement and Lemon Tests ===

Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and [[Lemon Test]]s to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the [[Establishment Clause]]." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref name="Memo" />

=== Verdict ===

On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones held that "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref name="Memo" />

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Intelligent design and creationism]]
* [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

[[category:United States Law]][[category:Judicial activism]][[category:Intelligent Design]]

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-06T18:17:30Z

Jimmy:

<div style="float:right; width:50%"><center>'''The text of the statement'''<ref name="Memo">[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Memorandum Opinion] 20th December, 2005.</ref></center>{{QuoteBox|The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.}}</div>

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]]. The defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students.

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-22_stipulation.pdf</ref> The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-03-10_order_denying_Rutherford_intervention.pdf</ref> and its final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref> Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref>
== Criticism==
Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>
{{QuoteBox|[[Discovery Institute]]: Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/]}}

The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact, though it is not uncommon for a judge to use the winning side's findings of fact. <ref> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&page=651#656
</ref> Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute, has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.<ref name="Activ" />

Judge Jones gave many public statements and speeches after his ruling. On one occasion he stated, "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>

== Details of the case ==

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

=== Plaintiffs ===

The plaintiffs were a group of eleven parents that brought the case on behalf of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school board's revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm</ref>

=== Defendants ===
The defendants were the Dover Area School District and the Dover Area School District Board of Directors. The Board presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was to be implemented (in fact, the statement never was read to students). The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis.<ref name="Memo" /><ref name="NYD">http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139</ref>

=== Endorsement and Lemon Tests ===

Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and [[Lemon Test]]s to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the [[Establishment Clause]]." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref name="Memo" />

=== Verdict ===

On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones held that "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref name="Memo" />

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Intelligent design and creationism]]
* [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

[[category:United States Law]][[category:Judicial activism]][[category:Intelligent Design]]

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-06T18:11:12Z

Jimmy:

<div style="float:right; width:50%"><center>'''The text of the statement'''<ref name="Memo">[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Memorandum Opinion] 20th December, 2005.</ref></center>{{QuoteBox|The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.}}</div>

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]]. The defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students.

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-22_stipulation.pdf</ref> The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-03-10_order_denying_Rutherford_intervention.pdf</ref> and its final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref> Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref>
== Criticism==
Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>
{{QuoteBox|[[Discovery Institute]]: Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/]}}

The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute, has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.<ref name="Activ" />

Judge Jones gave many public statements and speeches after his ruling. On one occasion he stated, "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>

== Details of the case ==

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

=== Plaintiffs ===

The plaintiffs were a group of eleven parents that brought the case on behalf of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school board's revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm</ref>

=== Defendants ===
The defendants were the Dover Area School District and the Dover Area School District Board of Directors. The Board presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was to be implemented (in fact, the statement never was read to students). The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis.<ref name="Memo" /><ref name="NYD">http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139</ref>

=== Endorsement and Lemon Tests ===

Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and [[Lemon Test]]s to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the [[Establishment Clause]]." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref name="Memo" />

=== Verdict ===

On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones held that "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref name="Memo" />

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Intelligent design and creationism]]
* [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

[[category:United States Law]][[category:Judicial activism]][[category:Intelligent Design]]

User talk:Jimmy

2008-06-05T23:39:03Z

Jimmy:

User talk:Learn together

2008-06-02T19:31:02Z

Jimmy:

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

[[User talk:Learn together/1|Archive]]

==Contest==
How about joining us on team one (to be named) in the contest?--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:49, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

:It would be an honor to be on a team where you are captain. Count me in. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Great! We're going to need you--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 10:48, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::The contest begins today( Sep. 28) at noon, please check out our [[Conservapedia:Team Airborne|team page]]. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 08:51, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
== Rocker1973 ==

Can you block this user? He is doing some sort of vandalism that messes up pages badly. Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Larry_Craig&diff=299153&oldid=289755 . http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=299171&oldid=299152 shows how it works. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:50, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for noticing this and for your prompt revisions. He has been removed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:58, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Beat me by 30 seconds! But I did block the IP range of all his proxies. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::I just help sweep the streets my friend; you're the one who comes through and paves it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:01, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Better get a warranty if I do any paving! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:28, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==Contest Points==
Great job raking up points yesterday!! <s>I'm trying to get a accurate tally of yesterdays points for Team Airborne and I'm wondering when you were planning on recording a tally of your points for yesterday. If you want me to help record them for you, i would be happy to help (I'm recording Ed Poor's points right now since he dislikes the recording precess).</s> Keep up the good work!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:01, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've created a page ([[User:Learn together/Contest2]]) to record your points, and have recorded yesterdays on it. Please feel free to update and change as needed.Thanks!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:43, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== Urgent Matter... ==

Please contact me if you are around.... --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Sanford Ransdell Article ==

I wrote the Sanford Ransdell article. I was told that I could bring material that I wrote over to Conservapedia. If that's not the case then I apologize. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 09:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:LearnTogether, yes Dwain is the originator of numerous WP articles, and we'd be happy to have his original, uncensored versions here. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:06, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::::No problem gentlemen. I help to guard the site based on the information on hand. If there's more than I am aware of and you have the situation covered then that's fine. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== [[Alchohol]] ==

It is a very nice article, but it's spelled incorrectly. It's ok, it has to happen to everyone sometime, right? ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:27, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for catching it. I followed the link from the Abby Hoffman article and created it, but didn't catch that it was spelled wrong. I've corrected it in the Hoffman article as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Counting Contest Points==
If you could total your [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Learn_together/Contest2 contest points] for today that would be great (doesn't have to be exact to the .9999)- I have my SAT's on Saturday so I'm kind of running short on time and want to get some editing in tonight. Great job racking up points!! Thanks--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 20:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT) ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Team_Airborne#Point_System here's] a link to the points guide)

:Sure Tash, and thanks for doing this for me as the contest has gone alone. Good luck on your SAT's. I'll need to leave shortly myself, so I won't be able to tabulate it until tomorrow. Hopefully that won't hurt anything. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:09, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Points==
What's with all the red links in your edits for day seven? They don't show having been deleted. :{ --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:23, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm still editing the page Bethany. Hopefully they'll be fixed up soon. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

The contest is over since 12:00 noon. You shouldn't be counting the ones after that. BTW great contest. Really exciting.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:28, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, it was lots of fun. Hope you guys all enjoyed it. ;-) But don't worry Bethany, I'm not counting new ones, I'm just organizing the ones I did. ;-) I dump my day's work, then I move them line by line to where they should be. Sometimes its quicker for me to just retype them, so case errors can pop it. All the red should be gone now for day 7. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I also notice that [[Justice Joseph Story]] is after 12:00.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:35, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:My last edit was after 12:00, but I had earlier ones the same day. I'm only counting the early ones. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Great job man! You pushed us over the victory line...--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 14:58, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Hey, you got your first victory! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

==Bush National Guard==

So was Dan Quayle. The difference is, Quayle actually reported for duty and caught hell, while Bush missed most of his training and didn't catch nearly the flak. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:20, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the Dan Quayle article shows the double standard used against him that was not applied to others, especially those who came directly afterwards. Quayle was filleted for serving in the guard instead of fighting in Vietnam -- then along comes Bill Clinton. After 8 years of Clinton who didn't fight in Vietnam or serve in the National Guard, the bar was set pretty low. Bush at least spending some time in the guard was a step up. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:31, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maestro, you are merely repeating, nazi like, the '''BIG LIE'''. Bush, according to all documentation not presented by Dan Rather, missed nothing much, and was fully flight qualified. It is open to speculation only as to how "officially" sanctioned his doing his flight quals elsewhere was, but I can tell you from personal experience, it was quite normal to do so. And that fact has also been reported nationally, but ignored amongst the hype. Please try to remember the original allegations were not that he wasn't fully trained or qualified, but that his connections allowed him to take that training in other places. Later it was minipulated, spun into his actually not receiving the necessary training. That has been completely, and factually disproved. That is why Rather was <s>fired</s> allowed early retirement. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== My friend ==

Where are you? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:I am here my friend; I have just been very busy. Hope you are doing well and God's blessing to you. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:04, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Contest==
Hello Learn Together - given that in the last contest you were one of the top two contributors - you have been made a captain in the [[Contest3|newest contest]]. The tentative starting date is Friday the 9th, and it runs for 7 days. Pick as many people as you want for your team - however, only the top 7 contributors will actually count (and it's best if you keep your team number to bellow 10 to ensure equality). If you are unable or unwilling to be the captain - please get back to me as soon as possible so we can inform the next candidate. Thanks so much - and good luck!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:40, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you Iduan, I am flattered you have chosen me as captain for the next team contest. Unfortunately, I am very busy at this time and I feel I would not be able to do the position justice for Conservapedia or those who would join my team. In fact it was only dumb luck that I happened to sign on today and look. Really, Tash put in the most effort in the last contest even with his SAT test coming up at that time, including helping to tabulate our scores. May I recommend, especially after his strong showing in the last contest as captain to bring our team to a razor thin victory margin, that you see if Tash would be willing to take up the gauntlet.

:Again, thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:10, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:: Nice to have you IN. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:55, 9 November 2007 (EST)

:::I can't let TK down. ;-) I'll do the best I can for you guys. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:58, 9 November 2007 (EST)

::::Ready? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:26, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:::::Where is the list of your points? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:15, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::::::I haven't tabulated it yet my friend. Don't worry, they won't be going anywhere. ;-)

Congratulations, great work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

==Contest2==
Hey Learn together! I'm so glad you could participate in the contest - even if you couldn't be a captain (and I'm even more glad that you're on my team!) So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks (and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest: We must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]00:02, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Team Name: <big>'''Supply Siders'''</big> --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Team page: [[Conservapedia:Team Supply Siders]] --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:02, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Nice assist==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=A_Beautiful_Mind&curid=51139&diff=332837&oldid=332785&rcid=359995] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Ed, I just couldn't resist ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Dewey==

Why is Dewey blocked? [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]]

:He's highlighting all "goat" entries. That's a tonuge-in-cheek move that a site whose goal is to vandalize CP takes pride in. The last edit to Vitamin C had goat highlighted in about 10 different places. Think of it as a calling card to say "gotcha". Look through his edit history before being blocked and you'll see what I'm talking about. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== [[Panzerschreck]] ==

Check out the first two paragraphs of this article: direct WP copy/paste. I was going to recommend it for deletion, but since you edited it (and since the rest seems OK) I didn't want to screw you out of a couple contest points. Now instead you have an opportunity to gain some points :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you. The information appears to be a factual straight forward description, at least in the first paragraph. It all seems to be pertinent. Even if it matches WP, I don't view it the same as copying large quantities. I changed the second paragraph, where more individual style could be seen. BTW, if you really find an article that's unsalvageable, don't hesitate to have it deleted. The contest is to make CP better, so losing a couple of points to delete something that doesn't belong is no skin off my back. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::Actually I was on the fence about deleting, but I didn't want to step on any toes. Competition's fierce! :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Thanks for cleaning up my edits ==

I think I've got it now, I appreciate the help.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:Yes, you've really got down the categories, the default sort, and the name form with the edits you're doing. Good job! Some of us will bold the name as well. With the entries that you have, I'm doing some form cleanup too. That's strictly up to the individual. Here is an example [[Philip_Pendleton_Barbour]]. Please note what I do is not a requirement or even expected. I just personally think it looks better that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Jellyfish ==

Thanks for the recategorizations. However, I think that jellyfish should probably be recategorized, because the second sentence of the article says that they aren't actually fish. I'm not sure what the best category is, because I haven't looked at how the animal articles are really organized, but I thought I'd see if you had any suggestions. Thanks! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:Unfortunately, not really. Perhaps a category for "Sea Creatures" might be appropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:17, 14 November 2007 (EST)

*Invertebrates?

:I was hoping for something that would get all the water creatures in one place to make it easy for our viewers. I'm sure we'll think up something. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:34, 14 November 2007 (EST)

==Points==
Could you possibly record your points since November 12, 12:00 in the afternoon? If you could that would be great! --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:24, 14 November 2007 (EST)

???--[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:31, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:I'll see what I can do. It takes me a bit longer than you guys since in the past I've displayed each individual article under the scoring categories. I'm really not looking forward to that. ;-0 [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:37, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::OK! Sorry if I was annoying...I just want to know what I'm up against! ;P --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:40, 14 November 2007 (EST)

==KGB==
Very good question, and not without several problems. We actually ran into this in WP also, and they have not satisfactorily resolved it, either.

For our purposes here, the basic division is between Case Officer and an agent. Speaking broadly, the Case Officer is the intelligence professional who is usually a citizen of the same nation that the Intelligence organization is subordinate to. An "Agent," in most cases would be a witting contact of the Case Officer. A "Source" can be unwitting, that is to say, intelligence information can be gleened from an unwitting, unsuspecting source, and then passed through an agent to the case officer. Also, a Source can be witting, too. That is to say, perhaps it is just a one-time passing of information, or perhaps under extraordinary ciricmstances a relationship can be formed between a Case Officer or Agent with a witting Source, whose information can be deemed bona fide & trustworthy, but the Source is just unwilling or incapable of forming an Agent-Principal relationship because of risk of exposure, etc.

I hope that doesn't clear it up, huh? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually it does Rob, thank you. It let's me know that there is a differentiation and I should stay away. ;-) I wasn't sure if they were the same thing and you had just started using a different category later. I'm glad you're the one trying to classify them and not me. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:50, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::For the most part, here in CP, the bios in KGB are Soviet citizens who were KGB Case Officers, & the "agents and sources" are mostly US citizens, with a few Brits, Germans, and maybe one or two Japanese right now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:11, 14 November 2007 (EST)

*So my answer, on your talk page, Rob, was incorrect? Or can the individuals in KGB, top category be moved off to individuals? Or do we need a new category created? --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== block and delete needed ==

Just look at the recent changes. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:09, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:That should earn you a few points! [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:10, 16 November 2007 (EST)
::Thanks to your heads up approach Bohdan, we stopped him ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:12, 16 November 2007 (EST)

== removal of copy righted material ==

I have removed a few additions you made as they were cut and pasted of material under copyright.
hope you don't mind.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:21, 18 November 2007 (EST)

:Your removal is unwarranted. The source is cited and not directly copied. I am flattered though that I am being sought out by you guys. Why should TK and Andy get all of the fun? ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== Re-directs..... ==

Please ask before re-directing articles! We prefer to move them, Bill, rather than create double-redirects that need others to fix them later. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:51, 20 November 2007 (EST)

==His Dark Materials==
Hi, I'm a new Conservapedia editor, and I noticed that you recently edited [[His Dark Materials]]. As you can see on my user page, [[User:JK899|JK899]], working on this article is my primary goal on this site. I am extending an offer to you to help me achieve the goals regarding the books on my user page. If you are interested, tell me on my discussion page. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 19:03, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on what will be the site's reaction to the books , and I know the article will probably receive heavy vandalism after I work on it. I want to state the facts of the book that are impossible to refute, like the plot and the definite constrasts with the stated beliefs of the major religions. I personally don't see the books as being anti-Christian (mostly against using blind faith instead of knowledge), but I won't say that anywhere and will definitely include links to arguments of people who say it is anti-Christian.

Concerning editing other articles, I'll make minor edits of course, but no real major changes until after I get Dark Materials finished. This is on account of me having just read the books and the facts being fresh in my mind.

I'll post the plot section today, and hopefully you'll see it and inform me of what changes I should make. Thanks for being so civil. Usually the only theists I encounter online are raving, opionionated jerks. Guess I've been looking in the wrong places. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 16:45, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Hi Learntogether, I understand you recently undid my edits to [[The Golden Compass]]. I'm not really sure why though, since my changes simply improved the flow of the passage and added additional information (such as the comparisons to Paradise Lost and its alternate title in NZ and the UK). Please feel free to discuss it with me further on the talk page. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:16, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Learntogether, I'm acting in good faith here and yet you're persisting in reverting my edits without comment. Please consider Philip's objective assessment and, in the words of Will Wheaton, "don't be a d***". :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:40, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Sometimes there are instances where compromise as you wish it is not possible. We are both aware of Pullman's position and we come at it from opposite perspectives in life -- fair enough. But knowing why he wrote the books he did and what he was trying to get across, this site will not allow any watering down or political correctness to cover that up. Other information such as the different name in other continents is fine, but don't try to rewrite the story. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:: To be honest, I'm not sure you are fully aware of Pullman's position :D While he did say he was "undermining Christianity", he's added that there's more to it than that. If you've ever read his "Republic of Heaven" speech, he talks about how he is anti-religion because of the hierarchies and power politics it creates.
<blockquote>"We're used to the kingdom of heaven; but you can tell from the general thrust of the book that I'm of the devil's party, like Milton. And I think it's time we thought about a republic of heaven instead of the kingdom of heaven. The king is dead. That's to say I believe that the king is dead. I'm an atheist. But we need heaven nonetheless, we need all the things that heaven meant, we need joy, we need a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives, we need a connection with the universe, we need all the things that the kingdom of heaven used to promise us but failed to deliver. And, furthermore, we need it in this world where we do exist-- not elsewhere, because there ain't no elsewhere."</blockquote>
I felt that maybe the nuances of Pullman's position (which is one shared by other atheists, myself included) might be of interest to other Conservapedia readers. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Team ==

Hi there

I am just planing to make a team to update, at the Main Page, the "Article of the month". Could be you, Crocoite and me. I am sure Andy will approve it. Agree? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:39, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:It would be an honor to be teamed up with two such fine contributors my friend. Thank you for your confidence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:: The reply from Mr. Schlafly was this:

''Sounds like a fantastic idea, Joaquin! I'm all for it.''

First thing we have to do is to make a list of featured articles, then select the best ones. We can start now.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Please use:

[[Featured articles]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:11, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Happy new year! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:31, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Any proposal to start? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:40, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:: Good one! Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:53, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Coin collecting==

(slaps own forehad) Darn! I shoulda thoughta [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Coins&rcid=378923 that category] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Response appreciated ==

This is DarkMessiah, it seems i have been banned (for an idealogical reason :P). If you would like to continue our discussion, as i would, you can email or instant message me on changeblade@hotmail.co.uk Please contact an administrator and have them delete this account. [[User:PleaseDeleteTempUser|PleaseDeleteTempUser]] 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

==Genocide==

I think we've come to a relatively good consensus that the Srebrenica massacre should indeed be considered genocide. Do you think we can unblock the article and make the appropriate edits. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:56, 16 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

...for your kind words, but it's not a matter of not feeling appreciated. My cycles of quitting/coming back closely mirror Andy's cycles of posting his douche-baggery about liberalism, public schools, murder, etc... and then going relatively quiet. There's no serious dissent by upper management, so the site as a whole must be seen to support his beliefs. I've finally had to draw the line and say "I will not be associated with this." And now, I must return CP to my firewall's blacklist. :p Thanks again, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks for the heads up ==

I wasn't aware that we didn't do articles for specific dates. It won't happen again. It is a pleasure to contribute to this site.

:No harm done. We look forward to seeing your further contributions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

...for fixing my talk page. People seem to have something against me lately. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:It is the highest form of flattery when you are attacked my friend. It is a sign that you are recognized as a valued editor to Conservapedia. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:15, 20 December 2007 (EST)

==Puellanivis==

I agree that initially his aggression towards new editors was unhelpful, but after having it pointed out he was genuinely contrite; more likely a misunderstanding than actual malice. Though his comment about Andy ''was'' out of line, I don't think he really meant any disrespect towards him; rather, he was trying to make a point about the 90/10 rule. In any case, despite some poor editing and minor infractions, I don't believe he was a troll intent on doing any damage, and a block of infinite time is rather long, no? I think a few days (maybe a week?) and a stern warning will be enough; besides, his edits will be more closely watched afterwards so there's little possibility for trolling. And besides, it'd be ironic for Conservapedia to accidently drive away new editors for doing the same!

Anyway, you have the power here - I just thought I'd throw in my two cents, perhaps save a new editor from his initial mistakes. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:52, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't worry; I don't keep permanent blocks if there is contrition. It will change with time and private email correspondence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Battle of Aegospotami/Delium? ==

Seeing as how [[Battle of Aegospotami]] was started by you, could you maybe check if you really meant to say "The Battle of Delium in 405 B.C." in the opening sentence? I'm no expert in Greece place names or wars, so I don't know if this is intentional or not. If it is, could you maybe make a small addition to the article, explaining why it's known as different things? Thanks :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:That was a mistake. Thank you for noticing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:24, 22 December 2007 (EST)

::Hey, no problem and thanks for clarifying/fixing. Was just cruising around with the Random Page feature and stumbled over it :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:26, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:::You're already helping. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Philosophy categories ==

Yes, I just saw the naming convention guidelines. I will amend the Philosophy category names accordingly. [[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 11:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Hey, thanks for reworking [[Christian Domestic Discipline]]! It's a tricky subject, and I'm glad for the additional input you provided. It's much better now. :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 07:33, 27 December 2007 (EST)
==Contest==
Learn together - if you are interested, as you achieved the second highest number of points in the last contest, you may choose to be a captain for team 2 in the upcoming [[Conservapedia:Contest4|contest]]. Please respond as quickly as possible as to whether you are interested, as the draft will occur Saturday, and if you are not interested we obviously need time to find a replacement. Thanks so much and congratulations!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank you for the considering me for team captain for the next contest, but it seems to me that as the top scorer for the Timberwolves that the honor of team captain should fall to Andy first. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:22, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== New articles? ==

(I apologize for not replying sooner to your comment on my talk page - I had been blocked for a full month for one silly edit after a series of good ones.)

*''You have been creating multiple new articles that already exist, including the last five articles you entered into Conservapedia.''

Erm, those had been ''redirects''. They were on the Wanted Articles list, and I knew they existed. So I made a redirect to them. Unless you meant something different, I'm not sure I see the problem... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest==
Hey, so the draft will not actually finish until Sunday, but the contest will still start tonight at 12a.m., so all that means is some of you will be getting points without knowing what team you're on. Remember to keep track of your points well, at a page like [[User:Learn together/Contest4]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Silly o'clock and I'm making silly errors to match. So I'm going to stretch my legs, sup some coffee and look at the stars for a while :) Will try to add a few more points before I log though. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (EST)

==Double Redirect==

You made a redirect to redirect. Please review [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:DoubleRedirects this list] before claiming points for this. (Can I claim a point for fixing this? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I think you get a point Ed. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:29, 16 January 2008 (EST)
==Your Article==
Hey, I just wanted to let you know I made a fairly big contribution to [[Drunk]] - and given that you started the article so recently, I felt like I should tell you in case there was anything you didn't like about what I did. Great job on creating it, and as far as my contrib goes feel free to revert or delete whatever you feel appropriate--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:Are you kidding? You should get a gold star. That's great! Keep up the good work! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== Thank you ==

For addressing [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Barikada this]. Didn't see that you had done so before I posted a message about it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:You get the credit. It was your bringing up the issue with specific examples that led me to agree a temporary block was warranted. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Oh. I see what happened there. The date/time stamp is different on A's talk page for some reason. I thought my post came after you had blocked Barikada already. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:11, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== MSM Redirect ==

I corrected the Mainstream Media redirect, but the MSM page is locked so it still contains a Double Redirect, I believe. Can this be fixed? Gracias! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:46, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:MSM doesn't appear to be locked. If you do find double redirects that you can't fix, I would advise going to [[User talk:Philip J. Rayment]] and put a note on his talk page. He's actively involved in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Email==
You have some :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (EST)
==Points==
Hey Learn Together - I hate to bring up a question of points - but I saw just now in an edit summary, and then your contest page, that you were giving yourself four points for "extensive" minor edits - but no such rule is dictated in the current contest (my guess is that you might be using a point system from a previous contest), I'm not going to make an official challenge because I assumed this is a minor mistake--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)
:Uh, learn together? I just noticed you were still doing it - again, if you look at the rules there's nothing that says minor edits can be worth 4 points--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:25, 19 January 2008 (EST)

::I use the same standard I have been using for edits that are really not "minor". In the contests sometimes we are tempted to cut corners, and I attempt to keep myself from doing that by giving points for extensive alterations that aren't specifically extra sentences, but are certainly as meaningful for the state of the article as a whole. As you can see, I am an open book when it comes to tabulating my edits and the point values associated, and I would hope that anyone looking at my contributions would see that my scoring versus the alterations done are appropriate and not taking advantage in any way. If at the end it there is a wish to question the scoring used, then we can discuss it further at that time. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:13, 19 January 2008 (EST)

::BTW, good job with your own work and editing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)
:::Ok, I understand your reasoning, although at the same time this is a new rule set, and after the failure of last time we shouldn't really leave anything open to interpretation. Until we invent a "regular edit" (which, btw, I completely agree with you that we should!), I think we should just play it safe and use 2 points for every minor edit, as even beyond the fact that this is a new rule set, everyone else isn't aware that you can do a four point thing - and if you're the only one doing it that kind of gives you an unfair advantage.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:32, 19 January 2008 (EST)
::::There's always a certain amount of individual discretion for scoring. The question becomes is someone trying to game the system or are their edits genuine? I believe the quality of the edits that I scored as 4 points speak for themselves, and, after a quick sampling at least, I don't see anything similar in the minor edit section of the other participants. I do notice many entries by others scored as quality edits that don't match the definition stated for the contest, but that's a judgement call of the individual too. I chose, in most cases, to simply put them as 4 points under the minor edit category. There will always be some differences in interpretation - for instance you give yourself points for bolding alone and many of us will not count that as a minor edit unless other edits accompany it, but as long as we are all trying to be honest and fair it shouldn't matter. I believe difficulties should only be brought up if there is a pattern of scoring that obviously does not match the value of the edits themselves, and I do not believe that pertains to me. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:31, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== ID book ==

[[Intelligent Design (book)]] is the proper name, not [[Intelligent Design (Book)]], as the Manual of Style now says that titles should not be in title case. So the redirect should go the other way. Understand? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 20 January 2008 (EST)

:It sound good, thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:07, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Contest 4 ==

Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:10, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Great Job LT!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:15, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::On behalf of Eagle Team, well done| A splendid effort. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Congratulations from [[Conservapedia:Team Freedom|Freedom]]. Very well done, again!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Well done, impressive! Thanks for all your graft, B. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:27, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you both. You were both great contributors to the contest! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:::What is your secret to win every contest?

:::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:59, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::::Well, having you on my team for most of them helps ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Ban for username needed ==

[[Special:Contributions/PastafarianBeliver|PastafarianBeliver]]. "Pastafarianism" is a flippant non-belief which has the sole purpose of mocking people who back Intelligent Design. (And judging from his comments so far, it doesn't look like he's here to provide anything worthwhile. Just complaints.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:24, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank you for pointing it out, but I have a tendency to be cautious in banning him at this point. Nevertheless, his edits will be watched. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)

::BethanyS banned him already. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 21 January 2008 (EST)

== Barikada ==

It's starting to look like [[User:Barikada]] didn't learn anything from his recent block - e.g. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&curid=53111&diff=379019&oldid=379013 this edit]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:44, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:My last block was for misinterpreting clear instructions, I believe... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::Barkikada, the key is not to see how close you can get to the ledge without falling over. We all have a general understanding of what it means to edit to improve content. Please keep your edits in that direction and the question of blocking you won't come up again. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::Not to sound arrogant, but... I'm ''pretty'' sure most of them are. Normally I'd insert a rant about me falsely believing I'm being persecuted, but you're right. I should focus my edits on less controversial subjects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Vote ==

Click on the link to vote in my poll. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest 5==
Hey Learn Together, as you were a participant in the last contest I'm just giving you the heads up that the [[Conservapedia:Contest5|draft of the point system for contest 5]] has been written, and we're using the talk page as a forum for any notes/complaints that any users may have.

Learn together - I also want to give you the heads up that, assuming your schedule is free (the date for the contest isn't set yet) and assuming you're willing, you'll be the team 1 captain for this contest. Thanks,--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:21, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:Hey Learn together are you still around? If you aren't, and depending on how things go with the contest, we might have to go ask another user to be the captain, but of course if you come back after we've done this you can certainly still join the contest, and I'll wait as long as possible for a response.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::I recommend emailing me directly if there is a time when I'm not on the site much. I can be available. I've written Andy on his talk page. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:22, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hi ==

Nice to see you in action again. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:23, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:And it is always good to hear from you my friend ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Trial Contest ==

Hey {{BASEPAGENAME}}, we've decided to do a quick Contest 5 starting at what will probably be midnight tonight - so sign up as soon as possible! [[Conservapedia:Contest5#Those Interested In Participating Please Put Your Name Here]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== [[Gospel of Thomas]] ==

Please review [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Thomas&diff=391209&oldid=376583 this] edit. I don't know enough to tell if it is vandalism. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:It's not vandalism, but it's not entirely true either. It's got a nice "spin" on it. I'll look at it later and make alterations. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:23, 20 February 2008 (EST)

== Heads of government ==

Head of state and head of government are two different things. The CIA ''World Factbook'' defines chief (head) of state as "the titular leader of the country who represents the state at official and ceremonial functions but may not be involved with the day-to-day activities of the government", while head of government is defined as "the top administrative leader who is designated to manage the day-to-day activities of the government". [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html] In the US these two positions are occupied by the same person, the president. However, in most parliamentary systems the functions of head of state and head of government are separate (e.g., in the UK the monarch is head of state, while the prime minister is head of government).

Thank you for the pointer on subcategories, however.

{{unsigned|Dadsnagem2}}

== Greetings ==

From no where in the middle of a journey, --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:07, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Easton's Bible Dictionary==
Should I not use Easton's Bible Dictionary to create Bible articles?--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's not necessary if there are Bible verses that say the same thing. It can be useful for backing up viewpoints on theological views, but for biographies where the information is contained in the Bible, then it is best to just use the Bible as your reference. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

What does the information in the block say, I think that was a block on accident--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:11, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

The block said I was replacing articles with 404 error server not found yet look at the edits of User:Weqq, I did no such thing--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Luke ==

Thank you so much for you help! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I am always pleased to help where I can my friend. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:52, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thank you Learn Together for your unsolicited support. It really means a lot. Keep up the good work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Deer ==

Why did you revert my edit to [[deer]]? I thought that the deaths caused by deer was interesting and I gave a source to back it up. What was the problem? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:It was an opinion piece you used as a reference. And adding deer to the category "Dangerous Animals" was overkill, especially since the category previously had zero entries. If you wish to include the general gist of the article alerting to deaths on the road due to traffic fatalities then do so, although the specific figures and numbers should have a reputable source before being included. Oh, and of course, this discussion should take place on the deer talk page, not my home page. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Overkill HA! No pun intended, I'm sure. (Sorry to interject humor into this serious discussion but I couldn't let a golden pun like that pass). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:55, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Would this source be better [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5330a1.htm]? It's a government site, and according to it, 200 Americans (at least, I assume that they're Americans) die in accidents involving animals (predominantly deer.) Another animal listed under [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Dangerous_animals] (dangerous animals category), the great white shark, kills a mere 50-70 people ''world-wide'' [http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/education/questions/Attack.html#year], even when combined with all other sharks. Could I redo the entry with the new source and statistics?
:::P.S. Sorry I put this on the wrong page, I wasn't sure where to put it so I guessed. I assume you don't want me to move it now. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a serious site, and, come on. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:28, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

==Sons of Jacob==

Before you change all the categories, are you planning to '''list''' Jacob's 14 sons in the [[Jacob]] article at any point in time? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:00, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:It would be a good idea, except Jacob had 12 sons. ;-) We had a number of imbedded catgories made that would make it difficult for users to simply see who are Biblical Persons. They had to go through the geneaology all the way from Temar, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,... You get the picture. I'm putting them back in Biblical Persons where they were. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:I expanded the article on Jacob (which was rather lacking). I see there's already a link to the Twelve Sons of Jacob in the Jacob article so I didn't specifically put the names of the sons in the Jacob article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Learn Togther,
Good to make your acquaintance! I have tried to interest others to do something on Larry McDonald but so far noo takers. A lot of people are now going to our website being refered from the article in wikipedia on Larry but I would like one in Conservapedia. It seems more pressing as this is the 25th year since the shootdown. Can you do the article?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Satan ==

Satan has been unprotected. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:30, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations, you've been promoted to Sysop! Well deserved indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:Congratulations and welcome aboard! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:01, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

::Congrats, man! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 16:54, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:50, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats, brother. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good job LT! You deserve this promotion, and I'm glad you got it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:35, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

WOW! Thank you very much Andy and all of my friends. I guess when I least expect it is when it happens. ;-) I will try to live up to the honor that you have given me and try to fill the shoes of those who have come before me who I will hopefully be able to emulate. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

: Excellent promotion, congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:26, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::Congratulations! Quite honestly, I didn't think there was any other candidate. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 09:51, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats!! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 10:40, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Please ban Breebree, (vandalism to mobile phones) [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] 15:43, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

HenryS banned him [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] 15:58, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Whoo-hoo! Sorry I missed it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:08, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== TomMoore ==

*14:43, 13 April 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked "TomMoore (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (personal remarks)

Don't wait for him to reply. I'm not quite sure what the "personal remark" was, but from what I gather, I'm in no position to ask, so...

On the topic: You're applying an interesting standard there, am I to suppose that it's also to be applied to articles? --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 06:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Virgin Mary gallery ==

Any contribution? [[Virgin Mary gallery]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why was Todd Haynes deleted from Brown University alumni?==

I added Todd Haynes, the director of Far From Heaven and I'm Not There, to the list of Brown alumni and you deleted it. Why? Haynes has been nominated for an Oscar and -- in Far from Heaven -- directed one of the most highly praised films of the past decade. How on earth can he be described as "not notable"? George Harrison's SON is included, for Pete's sake. I will reinstate Todd with citations as there is no possible reason for him to be excluded. KeithJoseph 21:30, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

== query ==

Fellow admin, please review this block. The user's name is "oh stupid TK" backwards. The users first contribution was entering a dispute with User:TK. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Los_Angeles&diff=425607&oldid=425435]. What do you think? Sock puppet? Unblock? Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:01, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was a good call my friend. We block infinite for names like that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:53, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::I know. I never planned on unblocking. I was surprised the user wasn't banned right away. I only asked because I receiced an email from "Diputsho" asking to be unblocked. Thanks for helping though. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== City/town/county names as article titles ==

In case you don't check the [[Conservapedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#City.2Ftown.2Fcounty_names_as_article_titles.3F|manual of style talk page]] very often, I just wanted to draw your attention to a suggestion I had. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 21:04, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]==

You may want to review your reversion, it seems that FiscalConservative's edit was made in good faith and improved the article. He appears to have used the motivations stated by bin Laden (the mastermind of the attacks), whereas the motivation section in the present article seems to be a parody: "Luckily, the president declared a counter war called the "War on Terrorism" before any holy war started" [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:01, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't want to speak toward the removed portions, as I could see how they could be controversial, but what is there right now definitely looks like parody to me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Am I right in guessing the controversial sections relate to the Sikhs being mistaken for Muslims? If so then this would appear to be acceptable content, as from my understanding there were a number of attacks against innocent Muslims following the attacks, and this should be added if there is to be complete coverage of the aftermath. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:08, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:By putting his edits at the top right under the primary paragraph, he detracts from discussing what actually occurred. He also included a link to an article that states that a Sikh killed several days later 'may' have been the victim of hate crime -- and this is inserted before the section discussing the casualties that occurred from the 9/11. And you call that an improvement? The incredible thing with America is that we are so strong in our desire for freedom for all that even a heinous crime like 9/11 gets barely a ripple in any type of reprisal attacks against those believed to be of similar ethnicities. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:09, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::No one said that in "our desire for freedom for all" we believe reprisal attacks are more important than the actual casualties, I said that they need to be covered in order to provide a complete recount of the aftermath. How about moving the section and expanding it rather than removing it? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:12, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Vietnam War Reversion==

Erm, I don't exactly understand what your apprehensions to my edits with the Vietnam article were, especially given the information in question is improperly placed to begin with. Vietnam's economy showcases significant market elements, and to insinuate that Vietnam is a communist country (without any other reference or acknowledgement of it's free-market development post-war) detracts considerably from the article as is given the disregard among the general public to differentiate between a communist government and it’s economic policies, which in Vietnam’s case are clearly not concurrent. [[User:Willink|Willink]] 3:30, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
==I say Psychiatry, You say Psychology, Let's call the whole thing off==
Psychology as the main category for mental health problems etc is incorrect. In fact, "mental health" should be the main category, with psychology and psychiatry as sub-categories (perhaps even with psychotherapy as an additional sub-category). Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis, not a psychological model; therefore it is appropriately placed within the Psychiatry category. Psychologists are *not* always involved with patients who are diagnosed with schizophrenia, whereas psychiatrists *are*. The other types of psychological endeavour (industrial, educational, etc) should be in the Psychology category (and, correctly, are). The Psychiatric Disorders category should be a sub-category of Psychiatry itself. [[User:HumbleServant|HumbleServant]] 06:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can go ahead and rework them IF you can change all of them appropriately. We don't want to have a category with some entries in one place and some entries in another. Please be aware though that when there is a subcategory, such as Psychiatric Disorders under Psychiatry, that articles in the subcategory are not also placed in the main category. The general idea behind subcategories is to decrease the number of articles in the main category. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:16, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::Thank you, Learn together. I shall work out an appropriate schema for this before changing anything further. May God bless you and be with you. [[User:HumbleServant|HumbleServant]] 17:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sprawl ==

See Orange talk. Ta.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== Can you upload The Scream by Edvard Munch? ==

I got the link![http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg] Can you upload for the [[The Scream]] page? {{unsigned|TagoPagdaluhong}}
:Nevermind, I found it--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 20:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== your edits to [[Orthodox Church]] ==

Hi, I noticed your edits to this article. You may not be aware, but one of your edits removed some sources, as well as the reference list at the end. Cheers! [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 15:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:Can I ask why the article is locked? I don't see that edit warring is going on, nor do I see any efforts by you to discuss your changes. [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 12:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Golden Compass article block ==

Is there any way I can edit the article? Or should I post my proposed changes here for you to make? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:34, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:Put them in the article talk section please for reviews. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:21, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Engrish==
Thanks for filling me in. I'm sorry I put up that article on Engrish. I didn't know it was a slur, despite it being offensive However, now I know better to not write articles like that again!
[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]]

== Featured articles ==

Please see [[Conservapedia talk:Featured articles]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

==Thurgood Marshall==

This is not meant to sound combative, but why did you go through and change every mention of African American or African to Black? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 12:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:The term African American did not exist during the time of discussion. Black would have been recognized then and is still considered to be acceptable today. I did leave the last African American as it discussed Clarence Thomas and by then the term had entered society. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:56, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::I understand your reasoning, but that seems a little strange... are we going to only mention people based on the term society used for them? In that case, we could end up with some rather strong racial slurs posted in articles. Even though we would detect and revert, it seems like opening the door to extra work on our part. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::That's not what he's saying. What is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Nice block ==

Nice block of "Mmmm" last night!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:19, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

==NASA Pictures==
The NASA article needs more pictures, can you upload some? Thanks--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 15:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-02T16:51:09Z

Jimmy:

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-02T16:14:58Z

Jimmy:

<div style="float:right; width:50%"><center>'''The text of the statement'''<ref> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf </ref></center>{{QuoteBox|The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.}}</div>
'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Dover Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]]. The defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was placed in effect.<ref> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf</ref><ref> http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 </ref>

The court completely censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]], and approved an award of $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf</ref> The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement, and entered an order foreclosing any appeal of his final ruling.{{fact}} Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref> http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf </ref>

On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones held that "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf </ref>

== Criticism==
Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President [[George W. Bush]], was accused of [[judicial activism]]. <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html </ref>
{{QuoteBox|[[Discovery Institute]]: Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/]}}
Despite the accusations that he admitted to making an activist ruling, he actually preempted his critics by stating; "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." <ref> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf </ref>
<ref> http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp </ref>

The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this. <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html</ref> Critics of the Discovery Institute have countered that it is not unusual for a judge to use the findings of fact from the side that has proved their case. See UNITED STATES v. EL PASO GAS CO., 376 U.S. 651 (1964) <ref> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&page=651#656
</ref>

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Intelligent design and creationism]]

[[category:United States Law]][[category:Judicial activism]][[category:Intelligent Design]]

Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-02T16:00:12Z

Jimmy:

This article requires a complete overhaul. Despite the length, it contains numerous untrue statements and opinions masquerading as facts.

- Judge Jones was not an activist judge and he never admitted to such a thing. In his ruling he specifically denied making an activist decision and his so-called admission was simply the straw man arguments and misleading assertions of a disgruntled Casey Luskin.

- The Discovery Institute may claim that Jones "copied verbatim" from the ACLU but that does not make it true. Jones relied heavy upon the ACLU for his findings of fact (which did not comprise a majority of his decision), but this is common throughout many court rulings.

- The reference given to allegedly prove Jones made an activist decision is only one part of a three part series printed in the Montana Law Review. A rebuttal to Luskin's mostly groundless assertions is a part of the series. This was not mentioned at all in the references. It should be mentioned that the Montana Law Review has not taken a stance on the Kitzmiller decision.

This article needs to be seriously revised or deleted. In its current form, it should not be a part of a "trustworthy encyclopedia". --Jimmy 22:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Change==

The current article is unsatisfactory because it is almost completely devoid of references and presents very little in the way of factual information. I propose the following change. If there is not any objection, I'll press on.

:Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Dover Area School District by a group of eleven parents whose children were subject to the requirement that a statement in support of intelligent design (ID) be read aloud by any science class instructor prior the presentation of any material about the theory of evolution. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref>

:Plaintiffs were a group of parents that brought the case on behave of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school boards revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm </ref>

:Defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was placed in effect. The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas More Law Center on a pro bono basis. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 </ref>

:Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and Lemon Tests to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analysis the constitutionality of the ID policy under the Establishment Clause." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref>

:On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref>

:Criticism:
:Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, a conservative Republican appointed by President Bush, was accused of judicial activism. <ref> http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp </ref> Despite the accusations that he admitted to making an activist ruling, he actually preempted his critics by stating; "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp </ref>

:The term cdesign proponentsists was spawned into the American culture due to this case. <ref> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ </ref>''

:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

*Reject. It's still an obvious, barely changed copy from Wikipedia, as I already showed on your talk page. Additionally, multiple uses of the National Center for Science Education as a primary source is simply laughable. You might as well use the KKK as a source for articles about how racism is okay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:22, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:Mr. Jinxmchue: Based on my past experience with your editing and opinions, I will simply discount your initial observation and not take your rejection as the final word. Another word on your skills as an editor, you may take this as an observation. Every paragraph has a reference. The primary references for the first six paragraphs are to the PDF transcript of the official ruling of Judge Jones which is posted at the NCSE. If fact, the NSCE has many documents from the trial, all posted unedited and without editorial comment. So you see, the only primary resource I used from the NCSE concerned their research into creationism and this was the You Tube interview that was posted at the end of the article. Even a cursory reading of the article and references will show just about the entire article is written using the December 20, 2005 ruling. All other references were added to list the law firms involved with the trial. Using the KKK as a means to criticize my references is juvenile, but if you insist on using such ad hominem comments, I can't stop you.

:This being said, I feel that this version is not as good as my previous effort. If anyone would like to add constructive editing or suggestions, that would be nice. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:14, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Jimmy, your version above does not even explain clearly, up front, what the disclaimer said. It has mistakes (behave?) and makes an unjustified reference to the judge as a "conservative". I agree with Jinxmchue that your proposal is unacceptable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:::So if I correct the spelling error, get rid of 'conservative', and add the 'disclaimer' then my article can be posted? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:57, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I would say also find some better, less viciously, viscerally biased sources and, using said sources, write up the article from scratch. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::I'll keep the 'vicious' and 'viscerally' biased source from the Evolution News link because you seem to like it as it is the only reference in the original. Since my re-write was written up from scratch from the court ruling, do I have your 'approval'? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 13:32, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I recently compared the NCSE point of view with that of Wikipedia on ID. Its virtually identical. Writers at Wikipedia assume that NCSE is '''correct''', instead of treating them as one party to a dispute.

If you want to describe liberal POV here, be sure to label it properly. Say, for example, that the NCSE supported X because of Y. Now '''that''' would be helpful! (But saying "X is true" and giving NCSE as a reference is not helpful; don't do it any more, or we'll have to drop you from the project. Not just you, Jimmy, but anyone who writes like that.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:52, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why all the concern about the NCSE? Their POV is only used at the end of my article to explain cdesign proponentsists. I didn't even write that little sentence but it is stuck there because my edit was reverted. All I did was provide the reference to the people that discovered the sloppy editing of the ID text book. The other NCSE references are for the PDF file of the court ruling. Is there any reason why this link[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf] is more valid than this one [http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf]? Come on, they both use the exact same PDF file of the court ruling. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 01:33, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a quick glance, I can't see how it's "still an obvious, barely changed copy from Wikipedia". Could Jimxmchue point out which parts of the Wikipedia article it is a copy of?
:: Ignoring that, and apart from other comments above (including the disclaimer, spelling, etc.), I think the rewrite looks good, with one exception that I'll discuss below. I don't have a problem with including NSCE references that are merely transcripts of the court case, but on the other hand, if they are available elsewhere (i.e. a court site) as you indicate, why not link to the originals instead of copies?
:: The exception is the bit about the judge's alleged activism. The current article says that the judge has admitted to activism. The proposed version implies that accusations of activism are wrong, according to the judge himself. Both claims/implications are incorrect, as far as I can see. That is, the judge did ''not'' admit to activism, but the link which supposedly supports that does appear to make a case for him being activist. To clarify, the link supporting the current claim that he admitted to activism actually says that he "made striking admissions that demonstrate the activist nature of the ''Kitzmiller'' ruling". That is, he did not admit to activism, but he did admit to certain things that indicate activism on is part. The rewrite should reflect the claims that he was activist (but without claiming that he admitted as much) and why. His rebuttal of that can be mentioned, but I note that he explains little if anything about ''why'' it's not activism, with merely a simple denial then deflection onto the other parties.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:52, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Philip: Thanks for your comment. I used the NCSE link because they also have what looks like every transcript of the proceedings available on-line. Even if you don't like their politics or science, they are a handy reference for all the Kitzmiller documents. That being said, I don't mind if the other reference is used. In defense of Judge Jones, his denial of his alleged activism was a part of his verdict which came before the Discovery Institutes charge of activism; therefore he didn't address any specific claim leveled against him. I feel that any further discussion of any alleged activism on his part should be reserved for another article that is linked to this one. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:05, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

==Edit==

Philip: The quote box for the disclaimer looks good, thanks. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 15:53, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

==Questions concerning Aschlafly's edit==

Mr. Schlafly: in my opinion your edit has introduced an unreferenced opinion and removed important facts that contributed to the credibility of this article. Every major edit I made to this article was discussed beforehand and I even made every change you required, yet here you are deleting important facts that give a certain measure of comprehension to the Kitzmiller v Dover lawsuit. I'd like to know why the following changes were made.
*Why was the sentence concerning Tammy Kitzmiller and the ten other parents that were a part of the lawsuit removed?

: Everyone knows that the driving force behind this type of lawsuit is the anti-religion organizations. The parents probably did not pay even a dime for the lawsuit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are of course ignoring that the case is called ''Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District''. Who is Kitzmiller? This I think is fundamental to the article. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*Why was the $2 million sum mentioned prior to the verdict and why was it not mentioned that the payment of fees was reduced to $1 million?

: What makes you think the fees were reduced? The award should be up-front and not hidden.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::Cronological order is important when telling the story so in any sensible prose it should go verdict, award, reduction on appeal. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::: You were informed of this fact before on the Evolution article talk page. Even this anti-ACLU organization says so. [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclus_exploitation_of_the_civil_rights_attorney_fee_act/] I think the award fee should be posted after the judges ruling, this is clearly not hiding information. It's funny that you are the one accusing me hiding information while at the same time removing pertinent facts. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*Why was mention of the lead law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP, removed?

: It's obscure and meaningless. The names of law firms are not relevant to a summary of a decision. Do you know or care who the law firms were in key decisions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: No you removed it because you are trying to make this look like it is all the ACLU doing and not that of the parents and the law firm they hired. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Just as obscure and meaningless as the ACLU and the AU? What about the Thomas Moore Law center? You seem to have a thing for the lawsuits the ACLU is involved in. Your gripes and complaints about them are all over the ACLU article. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*Why was the legal reasoning the judge employed in his verdict removed? Shouldn't his reasoning involving the establishment clause, Lemon Test, other opinions about creationism, and the opinions of other jurists be included?

: The reasoning used is not as important as the outcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::Yes it is. You are the lawyer you should know this. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::The fact that Judge Jones based his verdict on sound judicial precedent and legal reasoning is not important? In my opinion that sounds like a bizarre statement for lawyer to make. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*The idea that the parents sued to "censor any mention of intelligent design in public school" is without merit. If I am wrong I'm sure you could provide the reference that is required by the commandments.

: That's what the suit was about, and the outcome was to censor any mention of intelligent design.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::Still uncited opinon. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Your removal of "liberal fluff" was nothing more that the removal of factual information. It has been said the facts have a liberal bias, even if that is so; it shouldn't be a barrier for adding pertinent information. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your "facts" are "liberal fluff" that obscure the result. You seem unclear about the result yourself!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:You might want to give references to support your "facts." And why should we mention the judge's reasoning if we know he is biased? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::The facts I wrote about were clearly presented in the judge's decision, obviously not 'liberal fluff'. The fact you removed them shows that you are clearly trying to hide something. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::WilliamH you are either you are a parodist or like Andy imagine everything in the world can be divided into liberal/conservative views. Somethings are testable facts and some important ones have been removed to the detriment of this article. Jimmy wrote a much better article then the one there now. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Do you always accuse people of "imagining" things when they point out that things need to be referenced properly or that one shouldn't report statements by biased sources? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 21:01, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Well for a start the plaintiffs in the case were parents, the current article implies if not states that the plaintiffs were the ACLU and AUSCS. The case was not to censor any mention of ID, but instead to stop a statement in favour of it being read out. A sourced statement from the uscourts.gov site has been removed which explained why the Lemon Test and endorsement test should be applied. Can you tell me which of these are biased or not referenced correctly? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:04, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::WilliamH: You're joking, right? Did you even bother to look at the references I posted? Every fact and opinion I wrote or quoted was supported with a reference. Of course the judge had biases, he based his ruling on ''"…the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and Lemon Tests to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the Establishment Clause." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools." '' In other words he wrote his decision based on the rule of law and previous precedent. If you actually read his decision you would know this. If there is a good reason to delete this information from the article I am all ears. If you have any other information that the judge was biased for any other reason, please include it in the article, with a valid reference of course. Conservapedia is supposed to be a resource for teachers and students, yet credible information was deleted on the basis of "liberal fluff". --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:08, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Judge Jones has made various comments outside the courtrooms that put in question his ability to determine in an unbiased way the outcome of this case, some of those quotes can be read here:
:::::::http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-04.html
:::::::http://www.discovery.org/a/3135 and :::::::http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dover_in_review_an_analysis_of_1.html
:::::::http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330
:::::::http://tbayly.wordpress.com/2005/12/20/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/
:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx
::::::Now, if you do have references for your other assertions, then good. In my first comment above I simply suggested you linked to the references in question which I was unaware could be find in the body of the article. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 22:20, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I'm not sure what other assertions you are talking about. As far as I know, everything I wrote or quoted was referenced.
:::::::http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-04.html
:::::::Ms. Schlafly appears to be uninformed about why Judge Jones used the term "breathtaking inanity". He said that in reference to the obvious lies told by some of the defendants. The rest of her comments are in the same vein. Read the depositions and the trial transcripts and you will see the obvious differences between the statements taken under oath.

:::::::http://www.discovery.org/a/3135 and :::::::http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dover_in_review_an_analysis_of_1.html
:::::::These two links are just whining on the part of the Discovery Institute. Many of their statements are in glaring contradiction to the Wedge document and the testimony given by their expert witnesses such as Behe.

:::::::http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330
:::::::The WND article is a joke that shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone that has a rudimentary understanding of how judges write their opinions. It is not un-common for judges to use the findings of fact of the winning party. Does anyone seriously consider that the ACLU is actually complaining about Judge Jones using (plagiarizing) their research? I think they are impressed that the judge would do so.

:::::::http://tbayly.wordpress.com/2005/12/20/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/
:::::::Hmmmmm. I think Judges Jones's preemptive strike against his critics was spot on. He correctly predicted the losing side would vent, and they did.

:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx
:::::::Typical right-wing rant from a person that doesn't like a judicial decision and then decides to label it judicial activism. No need to provide any evidence, just blow a gasket and then think they are providing meaningful commentary. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Jimmy, in addition to William's comments, you should learn the outcome of the case before you write about it and certainly before you criticize others about it. The fee award was $2 million. I'd guess you picked up the $1 million from Wikipedia's biased entry. It's baseless. You also seem unclear about how the ACLU sought, and obtained, censorship of reference to [[intelligent design]] in the classroom. Is that what you applaud?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Mr. Schlafly: Please cut me some slack, I obviously knew what the outcome was; I quoted the judge's decision. I know the fee award was $2 million, I never contested that fact. I did happen to notice the $1 million dollar number quoted at Wikipedia's factually biased Kitzmiller article. I also noticed the reference they used; do you have a problem with it? [http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139] Did you have a problem with the reference I quoted earlier? [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclus_exploitation_of_the_civil_rights_attorney_fee_act/] What about this one? [http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf] And here. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/PA/162_intelligent_design_costs_dov_2_24_2006.asp] It took me only 2 minutes to find all of these references. And yes, I do applaud the judge's decision to remove an idea with virtually no scientific support. Heck, even Prof. Behe can't be bothered to do any 'peer-reviewed' research for ID; he had better things to do according to his sworn testimony during the trial. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 23:07, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Responding to a number of points (before edit conflict with latest post(s):
* The parents/defendants should definitely be mentioned, as should the involvement of groups like the ACLU. I have no trouble believing that it was ''initiated'' by one or more parents, but then I wouldn't put it past the ACLU to seek out a parent willing to bring the action with their support. I don't know exactly what the situation was, but clearly both are relevant factors and both should be mentioned.
* Regarding the parents suing to prevent any mention of ID: This is a reasonable conclusion to draw, given that ID was not to be taught, but merely ''mentioned'', and it was this ''mention'' that they objected to. There may, however, be a better way of bringing up this point.
* Regarding the other points mentioned above that Andy deleted, I think they ''should'' be there, but what I think should happen is that the article is restructured a bit so that the more relevant information (i.e. the stuff that both sides agree should be there) goes higher up in the article and the less relevant stuff (e.g. the name of the law firm) goes lower down or in footnotes. I agree that generally things like this should be chronological, but that doesn't prevent having a summary which mentions, say, the verdict before you get into the (chronological) detail of the case.
If nobody else reinstates some of that stuff first, I’ll do it when I get a chance, although I don’t know when that will be.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks Philip. I am prohibited from making any changes to anything that Mr. Schlafly has written because a certain administrator has forbidden me to do so and has threaten to block me if I ever do it again. I only make additions or minor editing, not deletions; this is one of the reasons some of the articles I have edited look a bit bizarre. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 23:38, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:I'll help take up the flag on this one and make some of those changes.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:23, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Folks, this is an encyclopedia. That means the essential material goes first where the reader can understand it right away. This is not a book, where story telling from beginning to end may be appreciated.

:: This entry should explain to the reader up-front what this case was about, what drove it, and who won what. It doesn't do that now and the list of plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the case obscures what really happened.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:16, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Notice of changes ==

In furtherance of my comments above, the liberal fluff and errors are going to be removed from this entry this morning. Case summaries do not dwell on the identity of law firms and plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the action. See [[Engel v. Vitale]] and [[Stone v. Graham]] if you still don't believe me. Also, the summary insists on repeating a key error about the award despite my repeated corrections of that. I'll wait a bit if someone else would like to correct this first, but if not then I'll fix it yet again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:Mr. Schlafly: If you had all these concerns about the article when I first posted it on the talk page, then why didn't you say so? It sure would have made things a lot easier. If I'd known you were going to butcher this article and then add unreferenced and unsupported factoids that comply with your reality, I wouldn't have wasted my time. Maybe I should just spend my time on the NASA article.

:Who says "Case summaries do not dwell on the identity of law firms and plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the action." Is that a rule that you just created? Why reference Conservapedia articles to demonstrate your point? The Engel v Vitale article starts out with a blatant lie, anybody that knows anything about this case knows it did not deal with banning all prayer from public school classrooms. It contains irrelevant opinions and facts that do not contribute to the article and is missing information that should belong. This is also one of the bizarre articles I was talking about. I added the second line of the article that quoted the judge's ruling and it is completely at odds with the opening line. The Stone v Graham article is, quite frankly, completely worthless as a reference. It is unreferenced and contains such a small amount of information that it is rendered almost useless as an encyclopedic entry. I brought this to your attention months ago when you were 'editing' the changes I made to the 'Public Schools' article.

:What exactly is the key error of the award fee? I'd like you to point it out with full factual references please. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Jimmy, I don't have time to explain the corrections of all your mistakes and take out obviously inappropriate information, like names of law firms and plaintiffs who lacked any financial interest in the case. You seem to be getting biased and/or false information from Wikipedia and importing it here. Please stop that practice.

:: The fee award against the defendants was $2 million. Try harder if you can't figure that out and insist on changing that. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::The award was $2m, but ultimately my understanding is that ACLU and the other organization agreed to accept $1m "to lessen the burden on the district." Probably both facts should be stated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly: A few observations:
::::*It seems that you now have the time to edit all my 'mistakes' and 'obviously inappropriate information'. Seems to me you could have saved a lot of time by pointing out all your concerns before I made the edit.

::::* Based on your reasoning then, Pepper Hamilton should be mentioned because they had a share in the award along with the ACLU and the AU. Do I have your permission to make the appropriate update to this article so we can comply with your rules? By the way, my reference is this. [http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/local/ci_3535139] If I'm not mistaken, I gave you this reference once before, and it didn't come from Wikipedia.

::::*Where exactly is the false information that allegedly came from Wikipedia? Please let me know because I hate to be the purveyor of inaccurate or false information.

::::*I know the initial award fee was $2 million dollars, I have never contested that fact nor did I try and change it. All I ever did was point out that the award fee was reduced. Care to reference your opinion that the award fee was massive? Need to keep the article honest and devoid of unreferenced opinion. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 12:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Type of article ==

What type of article is this meant to be?

Andy mentions above that "Case summaries do not dwell on the identity of law firms and plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the action". Well, perhaps not, but then encyclopedias don't usually have "case summaries" either. Now I've got no problem with Conservapedia having case summaries—it's one of our distinctives (along with essays, debates, family-friendliness, etc.). But this particular case was more than a case that was legally significant for lawyers, but an important point in the history of ID. So should this article be merely a "case summary", written from a legal point of view, or more of an encyclopedia article, written from a general public point of view? Or, should there be two separate articles? One being the legalese case summary, and the other being the more general article?

I think at the moment it is trying to be both. A legalese case summary ''would'' mention the actual plaintiffs, and not say much about other parties, such as the ACLU. A more general encyclopedia article would probably emphasise broader aspects, such as the role of the ACLU. The title currently suggests the legalese case summary. So should we try and incorporate both into this article, or make it two separate articles?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

: Philip, this case is a 2-million dollar verdict that completely censored any mention of ID. That needs to come across clearly early in the entry. The money awarded obviously increases the motivation for this ACLU-type case.

: A reader should be able, based on the first 100 or so words, to understand the significance of the outcome of the case. I don't mind fluff later in the entry, but it should not obscure the essence that needs to be on the first page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:# So you seem to be saying that this one article can cover both the legal and the wider social aspects.
:# And you agree that what you call "fluff" that you removed can go in the article after all, but not near the beginning. That's pretty much what I suggested earlier.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:42, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Oh, I'm sorry for not being clearer. I'm fine with the less important stuff, like the names of plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the case or the names of law firms that did some work, appearing later in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

2008-06-02T15:34:44Z

Jimmy:

[[Image:Apollo 11 Launch.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Apollo 11 launch. The small cloud midway up the rocket is due to the Low Pressure in that region as the Rocket Passes through Max Q, the maximum dynamic pressure exerted on the rocket in the launch.]]
The '''National Aeronautics and Space Administration''' (NASA) began in 1958. It was created by U.S. legislation for the purpose of creating a government space program for the [[United States]]. This legislation was in response to the [[Soviet Union]]'s the first man-made satellite, [[Sputnik|Sputnik I]]. According to the act NASA was to conduct research on the problems of flight in and out of the atmosphere, with and without human pilots, and to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful exploration of space. NASA is responsible for many satellites including [[Landsat]], which was a series of satellites for the collection of information on natural resources, communication satellites and weather satellites. The [[Project Apollo]] program under NASA led to several landings on the [[Moon]] from 1969-1972. It is also the designer and developer of the [[space shuttle]].

[[Category:Space Exploration]]

==NASA Manned Missions==

*'''Project Mercury ''' Initiated in 1958 and completed in 1963, Project Mercury was the United States' first man-in-space program. The objectives of the program, which made six manned flights from 1961 to 1963, were specific: orbit a manned spacecraft around Earth, investigate man's ability to function in space and recover both man and spacecraft safely. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mercury/missions/program-toc.html </ref>

*'''Project Gemini ''' The Gemini Program was a necessary intermediate step between Project Mercury and the Apollo Program and had four objectives: subject astronauts to long duration flights- a requirement for projected later trips to the moon or deeper space; develop effective methods of rendezvous and docking with other orbiting vehicles, and to maneuver the docked vehicles in space; perfect methods of reentry and landing the spacecraft at a pre-selected land-landing point; gain additional information concerning the effects of weightlessness on crew members and to record the physiological reactions of crew members during long duration flights. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gemini/index.html </ref>

*'''Project Apollo ''' On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of sending astronauts to the moon before the end of the decade. Coming just three weeks after Mercury astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American in space, Kennedy's bold challenge set the nation on a journey unlike any before in human history.

:Eight years of hard work by thousands of Americans came to fruition on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped out of the lunar module and took "one small step" in the Sea of Tranquility, calling it "a giant leap for mankind."

:Six of the missions -- Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 -- went on to land on the moon, studying soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields and solar wind. Apollos 7 and 9 tested spacecraft in Earth orbit; Apollo 10 orbited the moon as the dress rehearsal for the first landing. An oxygen tank explosion forced Apollo 13 to scrub its landing, but the "can-do" problem solving of the crew and mission control turned the mission into a "successful failure."

:The program also drew inspiration from Apollo 1 astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee, who lost their lives in a fire during a launch pad test in 1967.

:Project Apollo concluded with the Apollo/ Soyuz mission during July1975, part of a series of cooperative space flights between the United States and the Soviet Union (Russia) that continues today. The docking in space of the two spacecraft took place at 2:17 p.m. U.S. Central Daylight Time on 17 July. Two days of joint operations followed. After separation, the Soyuz remained in space for almost two days before landing in the USSR on 21 July. The Apollo spacecraft remained in space for another three days before splashing down near Hawaii on 24 July. The mission was a resounding success for both Americans and Soviets. They achieved their goal of obtaining flight experience for rendezvous and docking of human spacecraft. In addition, they also demonstrated in-flight intervehicular crew transfer, as well as accomplished a series of scientific experiments. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html </ref> <ref> http://history.nasa.gov/30thastp/overview.html </ref>

*'''Skylab''' was America's first space station and orbital science and engineering laboratory. Skylab was launched into Earth orbit by a Saturn V rocket on May 14, 1973 as part of the Apollo program. Three crews visited the station, with their missions lasting 28, 59 and 84 days. The mission crews performed a plethora of UV astronomy experiments, eight separate solar experiments and detailed X-ray studies of the Sun. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/index.html </ref>

*The '''Space Shuttle''' is the world's first reusable spacecraft, and the first spacecraft in history that can carry large satellites both to and from orbit. The Shuttle launches like a rocket, maneuvers in Earth orbit like a spacecraft and lands like an airplane. Each of the three Space Shuttle orbiters now in operation -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour -- is designed to fly at least 100 missions. So far, altogether they have flown a combined total of less than one-fourth of that.

:Columbia was the first Space Shuttle orbiter to be delivered to NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla., in March 1979. Columbia and the STS-107 crew were lost Feb. 1, 2003, during re-entry. The Orbiter Challenger was delivered to KSC in July 1982 and was destroyed in an explosion during ascent in January 1986. Discovery was delivered in November 1983. Atlantis was delivered in April 1985. Endeavour was built as a replacement following the Challenger accident and was delivered to Florida in May 1991. An early Space Shuttle Orbiter, the Enterprise, never flew in space but was used for approach and landing tests at the Dryden Flight Research Center and several launch pad studies in the late 1970s.

:The Shuttle has the most reliable launch record of any rocket now in operation. Since 1981, it has boosted more than 1.36 million kilograms (3 million pounds) of cargo into orbit. More than than 600 crew members have flown on its missions. Although it has been in operation for almost 20 years, the Shuttle has continually evolved and is significantly different today than when it first was launched. NASA has made literally thousands of major and minor modifications to the original design that have made it safer, more reliable and more capable today than ever before.

:In 1992, the U.S. and the new Russian Federation renewed the 1987 space cooperation agreement and issued a "Joint Statement on Cooperation in Space." Subsequent additions to the agreement outline the development of the NASA-Mir program. From February 1994 to June 1998, space shuttles made 11 flights to the Russian space station Mir, and American astronauts spent seven residencies onboard Mir. Space shuttles also conducted crew exchanges and delivered supplies and equipment.<ref> http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_STS.html </ref> <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle-mir/index.html </ref>

*The '''International Space Station''' is a working laboratory orbiting 240 miles (390 kilometers) above the Earth and is home to an international crew. It is the most complex scientific and technological endeavor ever undertaken, involving five space agencies representing 16 nations. Once completed, this new research outpost in space will include contributions from the U.S., Canada, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. As a research outpost, the station is a test bed for future technologies and a research laboratory for new, advanced industrial materials, communications technology, medical research and much more. On-orbit assembly began in 1998 with the launch of Zarya, and today the station provides crewmembers with 15,000 cubic feet of habitable volume – more room than a conventional three-bedroom house – and weighs 404,000 pounds.

:The station now includes the Russian-built Zarya Module and the Zvezda Service Module, which contain the station’s living quarters and life-support systems; the U.S.-built Unity Connecting Module, providing docking ports for several station components; the U.S.-built Destiny Laboratory, which expands the station’s scientific capabilities with experiment compartments that allow nearly continuous scientific research and provide additional life support and robotic capabilities; the U.S.-built Quest Airlock, a doorway to space that supports station-based spacewalks; the Canadian-built Canadarm2, a new-generation robotic arm that gives the station a movable space crane; the Russian-built Pirs docking compartment, which adds additional spacewalking and docking capabilities to the station; and truss segments, which serve as the framework for additional station segments. Japanese and European research laboratories are ready for delivery to expand the station’s research capabilities even more. <ref> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/index.html </ref>

==NASA Unmanned Missions==

*'''Explorer 1''' was the first satellite launched by the United States when it was sent into space on January 31, 1958. Following the launch of the Soviet Union's Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957, the U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency was directed to launch a satellite using its Jupiter C rocket developed under the direction of Dr. Wernher von Braun. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory received the assignment to design, build and operate the artificial satellite that would serve as the rocket's payload. JPL completed this job in less than three months.

:The primary science instrument on Explorer 1 was a cosmic ray detector designed to measure the radiation environment in Earth orbit. Once in space this experiment, provided by Dr. James Van Allen of the University of Iowa, revealed a much lower cosmic ray count than expected. The existence of these radiation belts was confirmed by another U.S. satellite launched two months later, and they became known as the Van Allen Belts in honor of their discoverer. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explorer/explorer-overview.html </ref>

*The '''Pioneer Venus''' Project's main objective was to investigate the solar wind in the Venusian environment, map the planet's surface through a radar imaging system and study the characteristics of the upper atmosphere and ionosphere.

:Pioneer Venus consisted of two spacecraft: the Orbiter and the Multiprobe. The Orbiter carried an assortment of instruments for investigating plasma in upper Venusian atmosphere, observing reflected sunlight from the cloud layers at a variety of wavelengths, in addition to a surface radar mapper, and was launched on the May 20, 1978. It reached orbit around Venus on Dec. 4, 1978. Although originally intended to operate for one Venusian year, most of the Orbiter's instruments were still operating when the spacecraft entered the atmosphere on Oct. 8, 1992.

:The Pioneer Venus Multiprobe, which was launched on Aug. 8, 1978 and reached Venus on Dec. 9, 1978, was made of 5 separate probes: the probe transporter (referred to as the Bus), a large atmospheric entry probe (called Sounder), and three small probes. The Sounder released from the Bus on Nov. 15, 1978. The three smaller probes released on Nov. 19, 1978. The probes sent data to Earth as they descended toward the surface. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/pioneer-venus/index.html </ref>

*The '''Surveyor probes''' (1966 - 1968) were the first U.S. spacecraft to land safely on the Moon. The main objectives of the Surveyors were to obtain close-up images of the lunar surface and to determine if the terrain was safe for manned landings. Each Surveyor was equipped with a television camera. In addition, Surveyors 3 and 7 each carried a soil mechanics surface sampler scoop which dug trenches and was used for soil mechanics tests and Surveyors 5, 6, and 7 had magnets attached to the footpads and an alpha scattering instrument for chemical analysis of the lunar material. <ref> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html </ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

2008-06-02T15:28:27Z

Jimmy:

[[Image:Apollo 11 Launch.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Apollo 11 launch. The small cloud midway up the rocket is due to the Low Pressure in that region as the Rocket Passes through Max Q, the maximum dynamic pressure exerted on the rocket in the launch.]]
The '''National Aeronautics and Space Administration''' (NASA) began in 1958. It was created by U.S. legislation for the purpose of creating a government space program for the [[United States]]. This legislation was in response to the [[Soviet Union]]'s the first man-made satellite, [[Sputnik|Sputnik I]]. According to the act NASA was to conduct research on the problems of flight in and out of the atmosphere, with and without human pilots, and to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful exploration of space. NASA is responsible for many satellites including [[Landsat]], which was a series of satellites for the collection of information on natural resources, communication satellites and weather satellites. The [[Project Apollo]] program under NASA led to several landings on the [[Moon]] from 1969-1972. It is also the designer and developer of the [[space shuttle]].

[[Category:Space Exploration]]

==NASA Manned Missions==

*'''Project Mercury ''' Initiated in 1958 and completed in 1963, Project Mercury was the United States' first man-in-space program. The objectives of the program, which made six manned flights from 1961 to 1963, were specific: orbit a manned spacecraft around Earth, investigate man's ability to function in space and recover both man and spacecraft safely. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mercury/missions/program-toc.html </ref>

*'''Project Gemini ''' The Gemini Program was a necessary intermediate step between Project Mercury and the Apollo Program and had four objectives: subject astronauts to long duration flights- a requirement for projected later trips to the moon or deeper space; develop effective methods of rendezvous and docking with other orbiting vehicles, and to maneuver the docked vehicles in space; perfect methods of reentry and landing the spacecraft at a pre-selected land-landing point; gain additional information concerning the effects of weightlessness on crew members and to record the physiological reactions of crew members during long duration flights. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gemini/index.html </ref>

*'''Project Apollo ''' On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of sending astronauts to the moon before the end of the decade. Coming just three weeks after Mercury astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American in space, Kennedy's bold challenge set the nation on a journey unlike any before in human history.

:Eight years of hard work by thousands of Americans came to fruition on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped out of the lunar module and took "one small step" in the Sea of Tranquility, calling it "a giant leap for mankind."

:Six of the missions -- Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 -- went on to land on the moon, studying soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields and solar wind. Apollos 7 and 9 tested spacecraft in Earth orbit; Apollo 10 orbited the moon as the dress rehearsal for the first landing. An oxygen tank explosion forced Apollo 13 to scrub its landing, but the "can-do" problem solving of the crew and mission control turned the mission into a "successful failure."

:The program also drew inspiration from Apollo 1 astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee, who lost their lives in a fire during a launch pad test in 1967.

:Project Apollo concluded with the Apollo/ Soyuz mission during July1975, part of a series of cooperative space flights between the United States and the Soviet Union (Russia) that continues today. The docking in space of the two spacecraft took place at 2:17 p.m. U.S. Central Daylight Time on 17 July. Two days of joint operations followed. After separation, the Soyuz remained in space for almost two days before landing in the USSR on 21 July. The Apollo spacecraft remained in space for another three days before splashing down near Hawaii on 24 July. The mission was a resounding success for both Americans and Soviets. They achieved their goal of obtaining flight experience for rendezvous and docking of human spacecraft. In addition, they also demonstrated in-flight intervehicular crew transfer, as well as accomplished a series of scientific experiments. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html </ref> <ref> http://history.nasa.gov/30thastp/overview.html </ref>

*'''Skylab''' was America's first space station and orbital science and engineering laboratory. Skylab was launched into Earth orbit by a Saturn V rocket on May 14, 1973 as part of the Apollo program. Three crews visited the station, with their missions lasting 28, 59 and 84 days. The mission crews performed a plethora of UV astronomy experiments, eight separate solar experiments and detailed X-ray studies of the Sun. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/index.html </ref>

*The '''Space Shuttle''' is the world's first reusable spacecraft, and the first spacecraft in history that can carry large satellites both to and from orbit. The Shuttle launches like a rocket, maneuvers in Earth orbit like a spacecraft and lands like an airplane. Each of the three Space Shuttle orbiters now in operation -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour -- is designed to fly at least 100 missions. So far, altogether they have flown a combined total of less than one-fourth of that.

:Columbia was the first Space Shuttle orbiter to be delivered to NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla., in March 1979. Columbia and the STS-107 crew were lost Feb. 1, 2003, during re-entry. The Orbiter Challenger was delivered to KSC in July 1982 and was destroyed in an explosion during ascent in January 1986. Discovery was delivered in November 1983. Atlantis was delivered in April 1985. Endeavour was built as a replacement following the Challenger accident and was delivered to Florida in May 1991. An early Space Shuttle Orbiter, the Enterprise, never flew in space but was used for approach and landing tests at the Dryden Flight Research Center and several launch pad studies in the late 1970s.

:The Shuttle has the most reliable launch record of any rocket now in operation. Since 1981, it has boosted more than 1.36 million kilograms (3 million pounds) of cargo into orbit. More than than 600 crew members have flown on its missions. Although it has been in operation for almost 20 years, the Shuttle has continually evolved and is significantly different today than when it first was launched. NASA has made literally thousands of major and minor modifications to the original design that have made it safer, more reliable and more capable today than ever before.

:In 1992, the U.S. and the new Russian Federation renewed the 1987 space cooperation agreement and issued a "Joint Statement on Cooperation in Space." Subsequent additions to the agreement outline the development of the NASA-Mir program. From February 1994 to June 1998, space shuttles made 11 flights to the Russian space station Mir, and American astronauts spent seven residencies onboard Mir. Space shuttles also conducted crew exchanges and delivered supplies and equipment.<ref> http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_STS.html </ref> <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle-mir/index.html </ref>

*The '''International Space Station''' is a working laboratory orbiting 240 miles (390 kilometers) above the Earth and is home to an international crew. It is the most complex scientific and technological endeavor ever undertaken, involving five space agencies representing 16 nations. Once completed, this new research outpost in space will include contributions from the U.S., Canada, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. As a research outpost, the station is a test bed for future technologies and a research laboratory for new, advanced industrial materials, communications technology, medical research and much more. On-orbit assembly began in 1998 with the launch of Zarya, and today the station provides crewmembers with 15,000 cubic feet of habitable volume – more room than a conventional three-bedroom house – and weighs 404,000 pounds.

:The station now includes the Russian-built Zarya Module and the Zvezda Service Module, which contain the station’s living quarters and life-support systems; the U.S.-built Unity Connecting Module, providing docking ports for several station components; the U.S.-built Destiny Laboratory, which expands the station’s scientific capabilities with experiment compartments that allow nearly continuous scientific research and provide additional life support and robotic capabilities; the U.S.-built Quest Airlock, a doorway to space that supports station-based spacewalks; the Canadian-built Canadarm2, a new-generation robotic arm that gives the station a movable space crane; the Russian-built Pirs docking compartment, which adds additional spacewalking and docking capabilities to the station; and truss segments, which serve as the framework for additional station segments. Japanese and European research laboratories are ready for delivery to expand the station’s research capabilities even more. <ref> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/index.html </ref>

==NASA Unmanned Missions==

*'''Explorer 1''' was the first satellite launched by the United States when it was sent into space on January 31, 1958. Following the launch of the Soviet Union's Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957, the U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency was directed to launch a satellite using its Jupiter C rocket developed under the direction of Dr. Wernher von Braun. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory received the assignment to design, build and operate the artificial satellite that would serve as the rocket's payload. JPL completed this job in less than three months.

:The primary science instrument on Explorer 1 was a cosmic ray detector designed to measure the radiation environment in Earth orbit. Once in space this experiment, provided by Dr. James Van Allen of the University of Iowa, revealed a much lower cosmic ray count than expected. The existence of these radiation belts was confirmed by another U.S. satellite launched two months later, and they became known as the Van Allen Belts in honor of their discoverer. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explorer/explorer-overview.html </ref>

*The '''Pioneer Venus''' Project's main objective was to investigate the solar wind in the Venusian environment, map the planet's surface through a radar imaging system and study the characteristics of the upper atmosphere and ionosphere.

:Pioneer Venus consisted of two spacecraft: the Orbiter and the Multiprobe. The Orbiter carried an assortment of instruments for investigating plasma in upper Venusian atmosphere, observing reflected sunlight from the cloud layers at a variety of wavelengths, in addition to a surface radar mapper, and was launched on the May 20, 1978. It reached orbit around Venus on Dec. 4, 1978. Although originally intended to operate for one Venusian year, most of the Orbiter's instruments were still operating when the spacecraft entered the atmosphere on Oct. 8, 1992.

:The Pioneer Venus Multiprobe, which was launched on Aug. 8, 1978 and reached Venus on Dec. 9, 1978, was made of 5 separate probes: the probe transporter (referred to as the Bus), a large atmospheric entry probe (called Sounder), and three small probes. The Sounder released from the Bus on Nov. 15, 1978. The three smaller probes released on Nov. 19, 1978. The probes sent data to Earth as they descended toward the surface. <ref> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/pioneer-venus/index.html </ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

2008-06-02T15:24:48Z

Jimmy: