300
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 158:
Line 158: + + + + + +
Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (view source)
Revision as of 15:00, June 2, 2008
, 15:00, June 2, 2008no edit summary
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)
: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)
== Type of article ==
== Type of article ==