nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 158:
Line 158: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (view source)
Revision as of 14:48, June 2, 2008
, 14:48, June 2, 2008Type of article
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)
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)
== 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)