Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

message: Read it all about it, Kitzmiller followers!  The “Vise Strategy” Undone.  by Barbara Forrest  And yes, Virginia, that is Dembski's "vise strategy" she's talking about...She even mentions our Wiki lawsuit threatening boy davescot in her article. I wonder how long until he threatens her with a lawsuit...Mr Christopher 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the fact the TMLC made at least two formal attempts to have Forrest excluded from the trial.  I put it at the end of the part where he testimony is in the article.  But I wonder, should those facts be put at the beginning instead? And should we mention the DI's attempt to publicly ridicule her on their website just a few days prior to her scheduled testimony?  To me it is highly noteworthy.  Mr Christopher 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just significantly added to the testimony section for Forrest.  Her's is the most intersting story to me right now.  She's the only expert witness the TMLC tried on two occassions to have excluded, she's the only one the DI tried to publicly humiliate, she and Jones probably get the most propaganda written about them by leading IDists still to this day.  "Jones is a dirty commie because he uncritically listened to Forrest's lies" is the line you hear from prominant ID leaders.  Her story and role in the trial is a fascinating one.  Maybe we can add to some of the other more noteworthy witnesses as well.  This article will likely get a spike in traffic as we approach the Kitzmiller v Dover anniversary.  The DI is already heating things up with their stranger than fiction legal "analysis" of Jones' one year old ruling.  Mr Christopher 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaking of Barbara Forrest

message: Just noticed a piece of gossip here: "Behe's cross-examination is now being used in continuing legal education courses as an example of how to destroy an opposing expert on cross-examination". If true and substantiated by a reliable source, this would be relevant to the article. .. dave souza, talk 09:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example in law schools?

message: Okay from here  I get that she is a parent of a child who was being taught in Dover (right?). But in the listing of Plaintiffs it really doesn't tell the reader who all these plaintiffs were. Were they all parents? Were they part of any organised group together prior to this case? Information regarding who these people were rather than just names would definitely be an improvement to this article IMO.--ZayZayEM 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all eleven were parents - 5 married couples (iirc) plus Tammy Kitzmiller, a single mother.  They were not organised before the case - they all approached the ACLU independently after the school board passed the policy (according to Monkey Girl by Edward Humes).  Guettarda 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't this be included in the article?--ZayZayEM 00:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's your source. I don't see why not. Odd nature 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was Tammy Kitzmiller? 

message: Sounds to me like the biggest hero was the judge.  I saw Humes interviewed on BookTV.  He said that the judge initially refused to allow cameras in the courtroom.  At the conclusion of the case, he said that he wished that he had allowed them, so that the world could see how silly the ID argument is.--W8IMP 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hero? 

message: The article currently says:
: "The school board had been offered the opportunity to rescind its policy, and avoid paying legal fees, immediately after the lawsuit was filed in 2004, but it declined."
This is wrong. The principle of "voluntary cessation" does not allow losing parties to escape payment of legal fees of the prevailing parties. That sentence is a POV statement from the Discovery Institute-affiliated side of the aisle. A notable statement of it was on the American Enterprise Institute site, where Joe Manzari (of American Enterprise Institute) and Seth Cooper (formerly of the Discovery Institute) said that Brian Rehm, one of the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, had a “clear” conflict of interest in being part of the new school board that specifically turned down a proposal to rescind the “intelligent design” policy. The Manzari and Cooper essay had two main problems: it completely ignored the problem of "voluntary cessation", and Brian Rehm was not even in attendance at the meeting that they claimed showed his "clear conflict of interest".
See my essay, The New Antievolution Strategy: Just Make Bizarre Stuff Up. --Wesley R. Elsberry 15:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a discrepancy here. The statement in the York Dispatch is that "Richard Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the parents' attorneys gave the former school board the opportunity to rescind its policy -- and not have to pay legal fees -- right after the lawsuit was filed in 2004, but the board refused.", and that's backed up by a brief statement in the NCSE resource, also dated February 2006. The Panda's Thumb article refers to DI misinformation about a board meeting on December 5, 2005, after the trial and  the election of the new board. Looks to me as though our article's right, but could do with more info re. fees not charged. .. dave souza, talk 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops. I misread the original statement. In the words of Emily Littella, "Never mind." Yes, the 2004 offer, before the lawsuit had gone anywhere and the lawyers had put in minimal time, would have allowed the DASD to escape paying fees, mainly because the actual infringement did not occur until early in 2005. It was the supposed "opportunity" in early December 2005 that was illusory, based on IDC advocate wishful thinking. --Wesley R. Elsberry 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they didn't. HrafnTalkStalk 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Settlement of fees

message: A transcript, including slides, of Kevin Padian's testimony can be found here: http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html. It's quite a read, but a good one, imho. If I had more time I'd make an excerpt to put on the main page. Since I don't, if anyone could do that, we'd all be much appreciated. Jalwikip 11:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Padian's testimony 

message: On November 13, 2007, the science program Nova aired a two-hour episode titled Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial, which explored the background of Kitzmiller v. Dover, how both sides argued for and against ID and the impact on the community of Dover and science in the United States. I'm not sure how it should be included in this article; I will leave that to the editors of this article. TechBear 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Program on Nova - "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial" 

message: At the bottom of the intro it says the 8 board members voting for ID lost thier seats.  Later it says the Id statment was passed by the school board with a vote of 6-3.  Then it says "Three of the school board members in the minority of the vote resigned in protest" which makes it sound like there were more than 3.  Someone please check on the these numbers since they seem to not match each other. RocksInABox 04:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The three protesting members resigned (per the article) and presumably were replaced by pro-creationism members. At the election just after the trial only 8 of the 9 were up for re-election, so only they got kicked out. HrafnTalkStalk 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of board members 

message: Both Judge Jones and Kitzmiller herself received death threats during/after the trial.  Jones was put under round the clock protection of federal marshalls, I believe the FBI was keeping close watch over Kitzmiller.   I recall reading about it and it was talked about in the Nova special. Should this be included in the article?  Jones discusses it in this interview:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec07/evolution_11-13.html
Kitmiller discusses the threatening letters she received here
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id_07.html
Unrelated to the death threats this Jones quote about his verdict is illuminating (from the link above)
"JOHN E. JONES III: I have. And I wrote the opinion in a comprehensive way because I knew that the dispute was possibly going to be replicated someplace else. And what I wanted to do was make the opinion sort of a primer that people could read."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: death threats

message: I'm concerned about the sentence (with regard to Fuller): "His testimony provided a qualified defense of the scientific status of intelligent design, observing that its history can be traced back to Newton and should include such luminaries of modern biology as Linnaeus and Mendel." [Emphasis mine] Although I haven't read the transcript of the proceedings, in the chapter "America as a legal battleground" in his book "Science vs Religion" the connection he draws between IDT and Newton is somewhat different. In that chapter, he argues that religious beliefs have provided the metaphysical impetus that produced Newton's laws, and for this reason IDT should not be discounted from science due to its religious nature. Newton's beliefs in Fuller's discussion seem distinct from IDT, even if they might be sympathetic to one another.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.127.243 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuller testimony

message: Surely this isn't near high importance to law. Something like law would be top importance, something like law in the United States or some other major country would be high. Something like this would be at most 'mid', no? Richard001 (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have thought so either, but generally apply a personal policy of letting members of other wikiprojects assign whatever importance to their project they wish to. YMMV o'course. :) HrafnTalkStalk 06:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance to law

message: Should "intelligent design" be in quotes? Are these scare quotes, or are they used for another purpose? Findright (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Intelligent Design is a proper designation of an ideology. It should be capitalized like other denominational designations. Cush (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not a proper noun, so it should not be capitalised, per normal English usage.  Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of quotes 

message: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then reread my comment left at 6:03. I can't tell who you're debating with this link. SluggoOne (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:POT HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  SluggoOne's view deserves more respect and to summarily dismiss ALL of ID as "fringe crankery" fails WP:NPOV as well as itself being on the fringe of current RSD (Religion Science Dialogue).  RSD recognizes that ID is often challenged as being no more and no less than a political movement, easily acknowledging as with any school of thought some proponents like all of us may err, but as far as scholarly inquiry goes into whatever the ultimate relationship between God and science as found in incredibly well-received books like Divine Action and Modern Science the RSD community's mind is wide open and that certainly includes the Christian Bible.  --Firefly322 (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefly322: Intelligent design has been thoroughly debunked, dismissed and rejected by the scientific community as having no scientific merit whatsoever. Therefore your viewpoint on NPOV ignores WP:DUE. Also your comments about 'RSD' are sufficiently garbled as to be meaningless. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While ID is blatantly fringe crankery and falls under WP:GEVAL as well as WP:PSCI, there's a case for incorporating the statement that Jones is a Republican, appointed by GWB, into the lead section with a citation, rather than simply mentioning it in the infobox. That description could be added to the sentence "It was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005, to November 4, 2005, before Judge John E. Jones III. " . . . dave souza, talk 16:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite happy for it to be moved into the lead. There's one citation for it above, plus several more from the  above. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence that Bush's appointment of Jones should be given WP:DUE weight in this article

message: Precedent? SluggoOne (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:IDHT 

message: Why is there a boxout for ID in this article but no boxout for evolution and its related topics?  Seems designed to direct people towards one side and away from the other.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.77 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 November 2009
:Because the school board was on trial for promoting ID, and it isn't science. . .dave souza, talk 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And because too many boxes clutter an article, and also tend to become difficult to arrange elegantly given current markup limitations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID Boxout 

message: "Citations" link in the top box is a dead link. -Craig Pemberton 05:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: First, the paragraph:
The school board's statement asserting that there are "gaps" in evolution and that it specifically is a theory "not a fact" singled out evolution in a misleading way to imply it is just a hunch without explaining that the same applies to any other scientific theory. The presentation of intelligent design as an alternative "explanation of the origins of life" presented it as though it were a scientific explanation, in contrast to the way that evolution was described. Encouraging students to "keep an open mind" about alternatives without offering an alternative scientific explanation implied an invitation to meditate on a religious view. The school board claimed it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. The board denied intelligent design is "religion in disguise," despite being represented in court by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian not-for-profit law center that uses litigation to promote "the religious freedom of Christians and time-honored family values". Its stated purpose is "...to be the sword and shield for people of faith".
This entire paragraph seems misplaced in the context of the article. As I understand the article, the purpose it to report on the events surrounding the Dover court decision, etc. -- not to argue for or against the statements made by the school district. This is especially true because the paragraph seems to contain many assertion not supported by references. Example: he school board's statement asserting that there are "gaps" in evolution and that it specifically is a theory "not a fact" singled out evolution in a misleading way to imply it is just a hunch without explaining that the same applies to any other scientific theory. If this is to be included, it should contain an external source. 
I'll wait to see what others think about this paragraph for a few days/weeks. If I don't hear back, I'll delete the paragraph. 
155.99.218.202 (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The parapraph summarises notable points pertinent to the trial, it would be good to support it with inline citations. Bit pressed for time just now, will aim to come back on this in the near future. . . dave souza, talk 23:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph Candidate for Deletion 

message: it's been 5 glorious years for science yet the ID community has yet to produce one single ID "experiment" Not one.  They have failed to make a single contribution to the peer reviewed scientific literature.  Not one.  In five years they have failed to produce a single scientific theory.  5 years and not a shred of evidence has been discovered by the ID cult that supports the notion of a "intelligent designer".  Epic and wholesale failure.  Should we include these facts in the article?  shoudln't there be a anniversary mention or something?  I think the reader should know what complete losers the ID crowd is. ps Do you think William Dembski has a moral obligation to refund everyone who was naive enough to have given him money for one of his maths books?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, Dembski teaches theology and presumably should have some expertise on moral obligations. However, if we are to include a statement along the lines you suggest, we'd need a good quality reliable source presenting it with direct reference to the trial. Thanks, dave souza, talk 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a five-year anniversary article here from the local newspaper, the York Sunday News, but unfortunately it's behind a paywall. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A shame, it may have been useful. Maybe there are some other RS retrospectives out there that have something useful to add. I do note, in accordance with the OP, that had the same trial run today, I don't see there'd be any difference. They would still have had to show some science to get their ideas taught as such, and five years later, the result would be the same. Nada. Auntie E. (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: five years later and still zilch from the creationists who prefer the phrase "intelligent design"

message: In the second paragraph, is the title of the book relevant to this article. It looks (to the untrained eye: me) like promotion. I mean "Of Pandas and People" in this sentence: "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of a textbook advocating intelligent design titled Of Pandas and People, tried to join the lawsuit late as a defendant but was denied for multiple reasons". Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Log in to create account (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the central role Of Pandas and People played in the trial, I would say "yes, the title is important". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Good point. Is there a way to make clear in that paragraph what the relevance of the book is? For example changing the sentence to something like "publisher of the intelligent design advocating textbook Dover board had recommended in a press release". In other words, clarify why Foundation for Thought and Ethics tried to join and leave the title in the article. Log in to create account (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually turned up in at least three major points of the case: it is mentioned in the board's statement (that they wanted teachers to read) that precipitated the case; the purchase of the books were at the heart of the judge's accusing two board members of perjury, and drafts of the book provided indelible evidence of the link between creation science and ID (include the infamous 'cdesign proponentsists' missing link). Too much to mention it all in the lead -- but probably meaning that it does deserve a paragraph of its own in the body. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand the relevance of your point to my suggestion immediately above. Log in to create account (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already put a brief mention of the fact that the book played a prominent part in the trial into the lead. But details really belong in the article body. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I understand it a lead should summarize a piece of writing, and as it stands the lead makes it seem like an arbitrary Foundation that wrote an arbitrary book tried to join the party late, but that they were both importantly relevant to the trial. Someone reading it (e.g. me) would immediately wonder what this Foundation and book have to do with the whole thing, and they should be able to know that from the lead (because the lead summarizes the article). You've added more information _that_ the Foundation and book are relevant without any information on _why_ they're relevant. Your addition uses 53 words, the initial sentence used 35 words, and my suggestion uses 33 words. In that context, my suggestion seems quite good, given that it uses two words less than the original and 22 less words than your change but still manages to explain what this Foundation and book have to do with this trial (via the words "that the board recommended") rather than just states that they are relevant, somehow. How about moving "(a book whose prominence within the trial was such that it is sometimes referred to as the 'Dover Panda Trial')" into the article and adjusting the original sentence so that it explains that the Foundation and book are related to the trial because the book was recommended by the board, or was suggested in the press release, or anything at all that explains what the Foundation and book have to do with the trial, in the lead Log in to create account (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of book, second paragraph

message: In the article and the discussion here the false impression that is left is that the debate is over teaching a course on Intelligent Design instead of teaching evolution, or at the least presenting a promotional lecture on I.D as a preface to a biology course. It is more compelling to actually stick with the facts in Dover than to make stuff up. In this case we are talking about 2 sentences in an otherwise unremarkable matter-of-fact introductory statement. Those two sentence admit to the existince of I.D and the existence of a "book in the libarary" that students can go read if they want to see an alternative idea to evolution. A careful read of the details in the Wike article brings this out - but all the verbage wrapped around it speaks to a fictional scenario were I.D was actually a course to be taught. 
At no point does "Admitting in two short sentences to the fact that something exists" constitute teaching an entire course, nor can it be spun as a mind-bending promotional lecture of whatever is said to "exist" even if that alternative includes a "book in the library" that students can go read if they have an interest.
The spin doctoring of the facts has gotten way out of hand thanks primariyt to Judge Jones, the media and the ACLU.
BobRyan777 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your perspective is unsupported by the evidence. The board specifically changed its policy to present ID as an alternative to schoolchildren, not to just "admit to the existince of I.D and the existence of a 'book in the libarary'." Of course, ID doesn't exist as a scientific theory, but as amply shown it does exist as religious apologetics unsuitable for the science classroom. Hence the court case. . dave souza, talk 23:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Eliminating key objective facts from the opening paragraph is only misleaing the reader into imagining that the issue is over an imagine course on I.D. or even an imagined lecture promoting I.D. There is no vote by the school board mandating any changes at all other than the 2 sentences speaking to the existence of I.D. in that 9 sentence introduction. The text of the article itself points this out to the reader using critical thinking. The need to eliminate that key detail from the opening paragraph seems questionalbe at best. If the text of the article had referenced voted changes to curriculum other than the 2 sentence "a book exists" your argument would have substantive support. Your comment above actually appears to argue that the 2 sentence  statement was not the problem but rather some other more  expansive board  vote was  the problem. The article does not support your claim since the only board vote - the only board action cited is the 9 sentence introduction and only the I.D portion at that (i.e. two sentences).  Some may have strong feelings about it being stated to exist only as something "unsuitable for the science classroom" - but we are not talking about feelings we are talking about objective historic fact. It is supposed that your own statement above that admits to the existence of I.D. while properly disparaging it would have been acceptable. In essence you argue that it was failure to disparage the teaching of I.D. that made it so wrong to admit to its existence. However the court ruling does not make the argument that it is ok to admit to the existence of I.D. so long as it is properly disparaged. As it stands in "fact of history" it is only the two sentences admitting to the existence of a book in the library on I.D. in that 9 sentence introduction published November 19, 2004, that is being condemned. The ruling is over the freedom (or not) to admit to the existence of I.D. in a matter-of-fact fashion.  The court argued that a  two sentence statement admitting to the existence of I.D. violates the the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The more we stick with facts and not feelings the more we allow the reader to use their own judgment. (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read your comments several times.  It makes no sense.  ID is not scientific and is not supported by science.  It is a religious dogma best left in church not schools.  That is the essence of the court case.  If you have another point, please bring citations that can verify your thoughts.  And write so that your points are understandable, because right now, it reads like random words.  From what I can tell, you're trying to reinvent the court case.  That's not supported by the facts.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marlin -- Your feeling that ID is not scientific is not being challenged in any of the text I have written. Nor am I in any way deleting any text saying that the court finds I.D. to be religion and not science. I am not arguing for evolution or for I.D. I am simply asking for the minimum level of objectivity that does not seek to mislead the reader by deleting facts from the opening paragraph that are already present in the article itself. I think this is the easy part. Section 3.4 makes it very clear that the court was opposed to I.D. And the Wiki Article shows that I.D is only mentioned in two sentences in that 1 minute introduction to the Biology class. Without those two sentences there is no I.D. in the introduction. Someone has already reverted the text 3 times which tells me that feelings are running pretty high on this one - however I am hoping that an objective approach to the facts will allow the facts already present in the article to be summarized in the opening paragraph. BobRyan777 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

text: @ BobRyan, you appear to have misunderstood the court ruling: I've improved references to the relevant parts which give a clear statement of the board's decisions and activities. While no doubt you have strong feelings about the issues, all statements have to be verified from reliable sources, your inaccurate feelings aren't acceptable as a basis for statements in the article. . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dave -- All the facts I listed in my text are already present in the article itself. My intent was not to add additional facts - merely to summarize the already existing facts in the article so that the casual reader is not mislead. Apparently there are some strong feelings present on this topic such that this objective approach is something of a new idea. I am more than happy to source reference the same quotes the same text that already exists in the wiki article but that seem a bit redundant given that this is just a summation of what the article arleady states. Section 3.4 makes it clear that the only complaint of the court was the board action related to I.D. and the fact that the court does not view I.D. as valid science. The only action that the court ruled for or against was in regard to the topic of I.D. The school board only took action on the topic of I.D. in the two sentences already present in the Wiki text of the article. Again this is just a statement of glaringly obvious facts already present in the text of the article. No rocket science here.  No non-I.D. related school board voted actions are even being considered or banned by the court ruling as is already clear in the Wiki article itself. This is not the hard part. In my opinion some objectivity here would benefit the reader. BobRyan777 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All the facts you're going on about are covered in the lead, unfortunately you seem to have failed to grasp several aspects of the case. Before discussing and agreeing the statement, the board changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design was to be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, with Of Pandas and People to be used as a reference book. In addition to the specific mention of ID, the board's formulation singled out evolution theory for attack, using the old creationist canard "it's only a theory" as part of the teach the controversy ID tactic which was specifically discussed in the ruling. There is of course much more, as shown in the article and in the details of the case. The ruling is explicit about the unconstitutional aspects of the board's actions, and you'd do well to study it more closely. . dave souza, talk 10:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  Dave -- You are correct to agree that the facts I had placed in the opening paragraph (and that you are so focused on hiding from the reader for reasons still innexplicable) are in fact already scattered here and there in the article itself.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text:  1. The two sentences in the November 2005, 9 sentence introduction (the 1 minute intro) is the point where the voted October school board policy was in fact carried out.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text:  2. The biology course itself was unchanged. No requirement at all in the voted action or in the announced change in November 2005 to have the book "Of Pandas and People" given as a text in the class that remained wholy devoted to evolution, nor even to be used as a reference book on evolution.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text:  3. The one million dollar award was given for the 1 minute introduction that went so far as to include two sentences using language of the form "there exists a book in the library" language. The court ruling found that those two sentences were religiously motivated and thus that the Lemon test applied.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text:  4. The fact that the emotions and feelings you have expressed here would characterize "There is a book in the library" as attack langauge - speaks for itself. The fact that you imagine that we are not allowed to admit to science theory any longer else we are "attacking" evolution is also an extreme in emotional reaction that is out of place in a matter-of-fact presentation. I believe that facts-over-feelings will eventually prevail to move this article out of the B-category.BobRyan777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text:  5.In your response above you suggest that there is a board vote on record to make the book "Of Pandas and People" a required text for the 9th grade biology class in 2005. As already stated I prefer the facts-over-feelings approach and would be very happy to have that documented fact listed in the opening paragraph --- but sadly that is not documented historic fact, it is again your appeal to feelings about the future not voted actions on record in the past. I prefer historic fact. Board actions taken and Court findings documented.  BobRyan777 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob, try to be more succinct in your writing.  No one has time to read run on sentences. See WP:TLDR.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marlin, your point that nobody has time to read the one paragraph above pointing to key flaws in Dave's edit warring delete of key facts from the opening paragraph (key facts already present in the article itself, and admitted to by Dave in this talk thread), points to the objective unbaised reader's "need" for having that opening pargraph summarize those facts rather than demanding that readers sift through the article looking for a clear and concise summary. I am not sure if you realized that when you posted that comment. BobRyan777 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text: BobRyan777, do you have a specific suggestion for improving this article? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  My suggestion is that key facts that already admitted to in the article itself (and even admitted to by Dave here on the talk page in defense of his edit warring ) not be deleted from the summary  of the article, since they provide key perspective. I realize that for those who may be emotionally tied to a certain slant on this article, this may seem like a novel or new idea - but I suggest that the unbiased objective reader will appreciate such an objective, just-the-facts, unbiased opening for the article. At the moment we simply wait while the group considers the need to be objective. BobRyan777 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @ BobRyan777, your fringe viewpoint that it was "only a little statement" reminds me of the girl who was "only a little bit pregnant". The statement in the lead accurately and properly summarises the cited sources, and your idea of "an objective, just-the-facts, unbiased opening" plainly gives undue weight to the minority pseudoscientific claims of ID proponentsists. . . dave souza, talk 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective please 

message: Hi guys,
Somewhere along the line the location and date of the trial was omitted at the start of the article. In encyclopedias, it is standard practice to get the "who", "what", "when" and "where" out of the way before delving into deeper detail. I fixed this by moving the information from further down, up to the first paragraph.
InternetMeme (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As you appreciate, your change was reverted as it had the unintended effect of changing the meaning a bit. Having looked at the lead, the opening sentence was rather long, and the fact that this was the first courtroom challenge to ID wasn't sourced. I've added a source and split the sentence so that "testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design" is separated from the (named) school board decision that began the case. The trial dates are already prominent in the infobox immediately to the right of the lead paragraph, so don't think we need to put them higher in the lead itself. Thanks for being WP:BOLD, . . dave souza, talk 07:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location and date at start of introduction. 

message: This has to be wrong.  I don't think there were ANY "botany teachers" at DAHS, and I've never known any US high school that had even one.  I believe that the people who were forced to view the DVD were a subset of the science teachers, including the biology teachers.
The exact teachers who watched the video included:
* Jennifer Miller (senior biology teacher, anatomy & physiology teacher); reference her cross examination (trial transcript day 7 PM page 25 lines 14-23)
* Bryan Rehm (physics teacher); reference his testimony (trial transcript day 2 PM page 47 line 17 to page 48 line 9)
* Bertha Spahr (science department chair, chemistry teacher); reference Rehm testimony above
* Robert Eshbach (biology, environmental science, and ecology teacher); reference Rehm testimony above
* Leslie Prall (biology teacher); reference Rehm testimony above
* Robert Linker (biology teacher); reference Rehm testimony above
and possibly a few others.
I'm going to change it to "science teachers" unless anyone has a better idea.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Landman (talk • contribs) 14:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "science teachers". The target of the school policy/curriculum statement was biology, but that's not the topic. It makes sense for the chair to be involved in what will impact her teachers, but she is not bio. High schools often have combined "science" departments with overlapping specialties. DMacks (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "botany teachers" ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ydr.inyork.com/story/doverbiology/79527/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122105dnnatidesign.780fc9a.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050928211400/http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf to http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001712/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910065140/http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3219280 to http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3219280
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927003206/http://www.dailyorange.com/2.8657/attorney-from-first-national-case-on-intelligent-design-to-speak-to-su-1.1235603 to http://www.dailyorange.com/2.8657/attorney-from-first-national-case-on-intelligent-design-to-speak-to-su-1.1235603
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220053937/http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/jonesbio.htm to http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/jonesbio.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511040224/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html to http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130105132526/http://www.yorkdispatch.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 to http://www.yorkdispatch.com/searchresults/ci_3535139
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051013060737/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm to http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/News/evolution.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001713/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209184221/http://www.edwardhumes.com/p/books.html to http://www.edwardhumes.com/p/books.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203065945/http://www.aei.org/event/1169 to http://www.aei.org/event/1169
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910084145/http://www.pepperlaw.com/webinars/Intelligent%20Design%20of%20High%20Stakes%20Trial%20Win%20Webinar%20Recording.wmv to http://www.pepperlaw.com/webinars/Intelligent%20Design%20of%20High%20Stakes%20Trial%20Win%20Webinar%20Recording.wmv
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified