nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 57:
Line 57: + + + + +
Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (view source)
Revision as of 11:52, May 27, 2008
, 11:52, May 27, 2008→Proposed Change: I don't see much of a problem.
: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)
: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)