300
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 62:
Line 62: + +
Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (view source)
Revision as of 15:05, May 27, 2008
, 15:05, May 27, 2008no edit summary
:: 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.
:: 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)
:: [[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)