1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 172:
Line 172: − + + + + +
→Ann Coulter is not a source: Do you have any sources to back you up?
::: I'm confused what that sources link has to do with this, Ed. Also, the items sourced to Coulter's book are sourced to another author in this article. So removing the Coulter source wouldn't violate any policy outlined in that link. I'm simply suggesting that if there is an objection to using Coulter as a source, removing her from the article doesn't change the article's substance. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm confused what that sources link has to do with this, Ed. Also, the items sourced to Coulter's book are sourced to another author in this article. So removing the Coulter source wouldn't violate any policy outlined in that link. I'm simply suggesting that if there is an objection to using Coulter as a source, removing her from the article doesn't change the article's substance. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but this article is not just biased, but so wildly inaccurate as to be an embarrassment. It was not "unprecedented" to ask for a guilty verdict. Nor was it a surprise. A guilty verdict was always in the ACLU's game-plan, as they wished to challange the Constitutionality of the law in the higher courts. Nor did Darrow refuse to be examined. He hadn't finished his examination of Bryan when Judge Raulsten decided to disallow all such testimony. All this is well-established, and the cartoonish version of the trial described here only makes Conservapedia look like a propaganda site with no concern for accuracy.
I'm sorry, but this article is not just biased, but so wildly inaccurate as to be an embarrassment. It was not "unprecedented" to ask for a guilty verdict. Nor was it a surprise. A guilty verdict was always in the ACLU's game-plan, as they wished to challenge the Constitutionality of the law in the higher courts. Nor did Darrow refuse to be examined. He hadn't finished his examination of Bryan when Judge Raulsten decided to disallow all such testimony. All this is well-established, and the cartoonish version of the trial described here only makes Conservapedia look like a propaganda site with no concern for accuracy. --Scopesfan
: Do you have any sources to back you up? If something was not unprecedented, where is the precedent?
: The ACLU challenges the constitutionality of laws all the time today, but it never asks for a guilty verdict. Do you have any other example where the ACLU asked for a guilty verdict? Any proof that people in the courtroom were not surprised by Darrow asking for a guilty verdict? Newspaper accounts did say that it was a surprise, and it goes against what the ACLU has done in every other case.
: It is true that the judge ultimately ruled that Bryan's testimony was inadmissible, but only after listening to it. It is reasonable to assume that he would have done the same for Darrow's testimony. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
== More on Gore ==
== More on Gore ==
I removed it again, without realizing there had been a previous discussion. While I certainly loathe Gore, the addition just doesn't belong here. If the boss wants to override me, fine, but other than that, the content simply belongs in a different article. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 20:42, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I removed it again, without realizing there had been a previous discussion. While I certainly loathe Gore, the addition just doesn't belong here. If the boss wants to override me, fine, but other than that, the content simply belongs in a different article. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 20:42, 17 May 2007 (EDT)