|
|
| (74 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | This is so atrociously biased that I need not say more than this.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 16:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
| + | {{Wikiproject Religion}} |
| | + | [[talk:scopes trial/archive index]] |
| | | | |
| − | :Can you cite actual examples of bias or are you making things up?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| + | =Page archived= |
| | + | [[User:JonM|JonM]] 22:46, 30 December 2011 (EST) |
| | | | |
| − | there has in fact been a lot of dialouge left out, quote mining if you will. [[User:Albyiscool|Albyiscool]] 12:02, 21 March
| + | = Uncommondescent?= |
| − | | + | Quoting someone called "Uncommondescent" in the lead certainly doesn't look very encyclopedic. The tricks the lawyers played on each other is not what the trial is notable for anyway. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 04:15, 14 January 2014 (EST) |
| − | :Can you cite actual examples of quote mining or are you making things up?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The transcript conveniently leaves out the parts that appear in favour of Darrow, in an effort to make Bryan seem perfect. He may have been the better in the case, but not to the degree the article makes it seem. For a copy of the transcipt, google "scopes trial transcript." Choose the free one that says excerpts. It pretty much has the entire thing.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 15:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Gore? == | |
| − | It might be nice if there were some explanation for how Gore's loss is relevant here. I'm not necessarily saying it's not, I don't know either way, but the leap from TN views on evolution (which needs a cite) to Gore losing is a big one and it's not clear why that should be here.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | : I deleted it, Asch keeps restoring it :-/ --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::Andy, the Gore line is shockingly irrelevant.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::: It's completely relevant to the aftermath section, it is factual, it is not widely known, and it is undisputed. We report, the reader decides. Do not censor factual material that comply with our rules. This is not Wikipedia, where factual material disliked by liberals is censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::Andy, can you actually show a correlation between Al Gore, evolution and losing the state in 2000? He represented TN in the Congress for close to 16 years. Did something change that you're privy to that validates the sentence being here?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::: How is Al Gore's loss relevant to the Scopes Trial? They DID both take place in Tennessee and relate to overall Tennessee politics. I could link you to good scholarly articles on Tennessee politics so you could paste ''a full treatment of the entirety of Tennessee politics'' in the "aftermath" discussion, if you want.
| |
| − | :::: I have no problem with your statement about Al Gore, it just doesn't belong here. Practice good editing and put it in the [[Al Gore]] article. And I won't bring up the other problems with this article.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::::Yes, I wonder how many voters in Tennessee in 2000 said to themselves before pulling the lever, '''"Wow, I have the chance to help elect a Tennessean to the Presidency...if only he wasn't a Godless Evolutionist!"''' Certianly it belongs on the Tennessee page, the Gore page, the 2000 election page but here?
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::::Then again, the [[User:Aschlafly|Boss]] says it stays so it stays. If though, this is the tip o' the iceberg of "might makes right" then there might be porblems larger than this in [[Conservapedia| Conservapedialand.]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::::If you think this is the tip of iceberg, then [[theory of evolution|you should go here]].-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::::Aschlafly created this website, so we should defer to his judgment on whether Al Gore's loss in Tennessee in 2000 AD is relevant to the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 AD. It is not our place to question the Creator.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 13:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::::::Are we really going to make a comparison between the "Creator" and a Webmaster? The point of a community-driven site is DEMOCRATIC (of the people; nothing about politics) INPUT, and the people have spoken - several times. Seriously, if the only purpose for this site is to trash other groups, nothing will be accomplished here. Facts are facts, and relevant is relevant - conservative and liberal play no part in that. Ignoring fact does not validate fiction. The Gore/2000 comment plays no part here, and some insecurities are being bared by this insistence to include it in this article. Take it to where it is valid information - there are several articles that fit.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Is there a cite==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Is there a citation for the sentence '''"The textbook also featured the fraudulent Piltdown Man."'''?
| |
| − | I believe the only use of Piltdown Man was in an affidavit by an (or two) "expert" witness. Piltdown was only "discovered" in 1912, the Hunter's ''Civic Biology'' text was published in 1914.
| |
| − | :::--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 01:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==End of Trial==
| |
| − | | |
| − | My understanding has always been that the judge considered the whole Darrow/Byran exchange pointless and called it to a halt. So rather than Darrow ducking out, the judge stopped it b/f he could be examined by Bryan.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also, this whole article needs to be re-examined. The bias is overwhelming.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : Your understanding is based on the erroneous liberal spin. In fact, everyone was stunned (including the NY Times) that Darrow reneged on his deal to take the stand.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :So I would assume your understanding is based on the erroneous conservative spin? [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : Everything in the content page is well-supported. There is enormous liberal misinformation about the trial that has misled everyone who fails to look at the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::Andy, with all due respect, I can't agree with you. I've read in multiple places that Raulston cut off Bryan's questioning and didn't allow the cross-exam. He decided the whole sequence wasn't germane to the trial. So Darrow didn't "chicken out" Further, Darrow called for a guilty verdict not to "save his own skin" but so he could appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::Again, my issue isn't with the fawning pro-Bryan tone. It's with the blatant mis-statement of fact. It should be corrected.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::: Here is Darrow asking for a guilty verdict. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm]
| |
| − | :::: I am frank to say, while we think it is wrong, and we ought to have been permitted to put in our evidence, the court felt otherwise, as he had a right to hold. We cannot argue to you gentlemen under the instructions given by the court--we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it. We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence. I guess that is plain enough.
| |
| − | ::: I am not sure that Darrow's motives can be deduced from this. I guess that you are questioning the sentence, "To save his own skin, Darrow handed over his client!" It is certainly very rare to ask for a guilty verdict like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::I agree; it is rare. But if you look at what Darrow says towards the end: "We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence." Darrow is asking for a guilty verdict so he can appeal it. Hardly the act of a "chicken."--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
