Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/Archive 1

message: I did a crude version of the opening statments.  These will need looking at when transcripts become availiable.
In any even, anyone please feel free to expand on what the two lawyers said here.  A more talented writer might want to clean up my language as well. The defense opening statement part especially needs some work.  Most sources seem to give little coverage of that statement include pro-ID sources.  The NCSE podcast linked to as a reference has the most details.  Possibly the defense lawyer failed to capture anyone's imagination for good or for ill.  But that is speculation on my part and does not belong in the article. MichaelSH 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case of any future edit wars: "The School Board in Dover, Pa., however, got it wrong, Meyer said, when it required instruction in intelligent design. (The matter is now in court.) Intelligent design isn't established enough yet for that, Meyer says."   Meyers is part of the Discovery Institute and certainly a big-name ID advocate and certainly not someone biased towards the ACLU's story.  One could also just read the transcripts.  MichaelSH 04:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening statements

message: I have been trying to figure out the best place for wikilinks to expert witnesses like Kenneth R. Miller, Barbara Forrest, etc. I have been thinking about some kind of annotation along with links to their pretrial statements. Thoughts? Jokestress 04:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks to expert witnesses 

message: This was getting unwieldy, so I moved the court materials to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents. Jokestress 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved trial documents 

message: I have already edited Pandas to reflect the source of the donation, but I am wondering how it needs to handled here.  Basically the source of the donated copies of Pandas was Bill Buckingham's church where Buckingham asked for donation .  This comes a very sticky Neutral Point of View issue: Buckingham appears to have committed perjury in his January deposition.  Look at page 17 of the PDF which is page 57-58 of the transcript where he denies all knowledge.  This is not going to be the only claim that Buckingham has now lied under oath .  
:Some more info has come up that casts severe doubt on Buckingham's testimony on day 16.  Buckingham's excuse about his use of the word creationism in the Fox 43 interview was that he ambushed.  The reporter has now directly contradicted Buckingham .  Also since I wrote the above, the above further example of Alan Bonsell came up.  Judge Jones clearly thought that Bonsell lied in his testimony.  By all accounts Jones was fairly mad when he asked Bonsell if he knew during deposition that he was under oath.  MichaelSH 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buckingham

message: The article is getting a bit unweildy again. I propose we remove the separate heading for each witness and just start each paragraph with their name, date of testimony and a summary of their testimony. If we want, we can bold the names, but I don't know if that's necessary. Notable names would have links to their bios anyway, which would stand out. Thoughts? Jokestress 22:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  MichaelSH 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condensing witness info 

message: Could it not be said, though, that Intelligent Design and Darwinian theories of evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts? The Intelligent Designer could have intently launched a process aeons ago that would follow the pattern described by Darwin. BD2412 T 17:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.  In the broadest sense ID does not contradict "Darwinian theories of evolution" in the sense that utterly nothing contradicts ID in the broad sense.  That is why ID is not science: I can think of things that can disprove any "Darwinian theories of evolution" but not ID.  That God is or is not behind evolution is something that science cannot address.  As for the compatability of ID and evolution, well IDist Michael Behe does accept that we share a common ancestor with a chimp.  On the other hand, many strong opponents of intelligent design, Kenneth Miller for example, fully accept the existance of a personal God.  In practice, most ID advocates deny common descent and pretty darn close to all of them (and possibly outright all of them) deny that God set up a universe where life could form naturally and then undergo Darwinian evolution.  The minority of IDists that are not special creationists would (to oversimply) replace the created kinds with the created flagellum and other specially created biochemical machinaries.  In contrast, mainstream science thinks that it has made progress towards the understand the natural evolution of the flagellum.  This is so even for the theists like Miller.  Miller in the trial used the analogy of the 2004 World Series win by Boston.  Maybe the Socks won because God wanted them to .  But that is not science . Science would exclusively examine things like batting averages and other non-supernatural factors .  I might add to Miller's analogy that the ID advocates are basically saying that we can't in anyway understand the course of baseball games using things like batting averages, pitching, morale, the crowd, the officials, etc. but must look at who God wants to win.  Science seems to get along just find using things like mutation, natural selection, recombination, mass-extinction, endosymbiosis, and other factors to understand evolution. Again that does include Miller.  The IDists want to deny that those factors and even any factors yet to be discovered could have done it and go straight to God or designer depending on the audience.  Also, many scientist's object to "Darwinian theories of evolution."  They would drop "Darwinian" since the field has advanced quite a bit since Darwin and since we usually don't  say "Daltonian theories of atoms", etc.  Finally, mainstream scientists don't just object to the supernatural stuff, but rather say that the arguemnts and "facts" of the ID advocates are often outright wrong.  Thus while ID in the broad sense is irreputable, much of what ID advocates say and call "intelligent design" is wrong (and contrary to "Darwian" evolution).MichaelSH 04:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not what is meant by Intelligent Design, certainly not within the context of Kitzmiller, where ID was explicitly offered as an alternative to the theory of evolution.  Notably, the plaintiff's witness Kenneth Miller, a Catholic, subscribes to a view like what you have described. -- 68.6.40.203 04:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent Design and Darwin 

message: PDF. Full 139 page decision of the judge
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism," Judge Jones wrote. "We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," he said. "The writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." 
Jones wrote in his 139-page opinion that "the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom." and "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." 
Some of the quotes from the judge's decision were not 100% accurate compared to the text of the decision available on the web. I corrected them where necessary. I also noted which page in the decision each quote was from, rather than link to newspaper articles about the decision. Also... I am unconvinced that it's important to quote where the judge notes irony in the case. It's NPOV from the judge himself. I wonder if the quote should even be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Quacks Like a Duck 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What the judge said

message: Propose to restate this issue as:
Since this case was not appealed, Jones' ruling has "mandatory authority" (is binding) over public schools in his Middle District of Pennsylvania, and provides persuasive authority elsewhere.
DLH 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where binding vs persuasive

message: I've removed the following two snippets from the background section:
*(most biologists claim that evolution is a factual phenomenon explained by the theory)
*(many biologists claim that the theory of evolution explains biodiversity, not the origins of life; see abiogenesis)
While these may be accurate (and quite disarming) rebuttals to the Defense's arguments, the "punch, counter punch" style in which they were written is a thinly veiled statement of POV. Unless they were points specifically made by the plaintiffs they do not belong here, and if they were they belong in that context. Jasongetsdown 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are in fact points made by the plaintiffs to establish their position -- as agreed to by the court -- that ID isn't science.  Putting them in some other section seems to give the claims of the defendants special status. -- 68.6.40.203 04:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm'ed Statement of POV 

message: The burning of the mural (discussed on the very end of page 107 of the opinion, and the top third of 108) is interesting, but can we add it to the article consistent with NPOV?  -- Pakaran 07:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning of mural 

message: As the school board now in place is not the school board which instituted the policy, should that be noted in the litigants section (ie, Dover School District Board of Directors (2004))?  I'm not familiar with the details here, if it was the people themselves sued, or the board itself (where technically the newly elected board are defendants as well)?  Would be nice to have that answer in the article.
*As I recall the district itself is being held liable, and the directors involved are representative as officers of a governmental entity, so both. If a suit is filed against the state, the governor is at the top of the defence, whether or not he/she voted against it. I believe then, but I'm not sure, that the former representatives are being held for being involved in the infringment of rights, as is the entity of the DSDBD.--Tznkai 14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current vs. Previous School Board 

message: May I humbly suggest that trial proceedings be changed to timeline format so that it looks like, "September 20, 2005: XXXXX testified" rather than "XXXXX testified on September 20, 2005".  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert to timeline format 

message: The "Holding" section of the infobox states:  
:"Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from creationism's religious antecedents."  
We should insert is not science and between "design" and "cannot", thus:
:Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and cannot uncouple itself from creationism's religious antecedents." 
This is a major part of the judge's ruling and should be included.  JHCC  (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Should this really still be here? After all, the court case is settled, the creationists lost, so this case in and of itself is no longer current.  --Xinoph 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Events Tag 

message: I recall seeing an article where the judge either described himself or was described by the author as a "Churchgoing Republican". Can anyone confirm this, and put it in the article if it's worth including? Cheers! bd2412 T 23:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall seeing the same thing, or something similar. I don't think it is worth including in the article though, since all it adds is a "gee whiz" element. -EDM 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In essence that information is in John E. Jones III - Bush appointee, ran for Congress, Lutheran.  But yeah, I know I have seen that somewhere too.  Guettarda 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From USAToday  "Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago}". They probably got the info from an AP report, but I'm too lazy to look for it. BlankVerse 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I find that "gee whiz" elements make articles more fun to read. bd2412 T 18:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say its relevance is minimal, unless you want to add a description of the trial, preferably quoted. Such as "Judge Jones, a churchgoing Republican and 2002 GWB appointee, handled the the court with both humor and seriousness" from the XXXX issue of YYY magazine.--Tznkai 18:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevence is only minimal because the judge is a Christian Republican. If the judge had been a very left wing atheist, it would seem like more relevant information. When I came to wikipedia, this was the piece of information I wanted to know; I don't think it should be removed.Happyharris 15:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're running the danger of spoonfeeding the readers with the information.--Tznkai 15:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that as if it's a bad thing.  The Judge himself notes in his public addresses that he is always, always (always!) identified in press reports as "conservative, Republican, Bush-appointed federal judge..." - that is to say, that the media (and thus most of the public) find it to be a material and necessary piece of information, despite the Judge's own skepticism in that direction.  So if he's a churchgoer, and he decided in favor of separation of church and state in a sense (by enforcing the establishment clause against a local area school district's attempt to foist religion on kids), then keep it in.  Maybe not in this way, but somewhere.Eh Nonymous 11:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Churchgoing Republican" judge? 

message: The judge's summing up (Kitzmiller_342.pdf) gives a very good overview, and provides information on points that people are raising in talk pages. It is my intention to copy the pdf as text into Wikisource, then add headings so that the relevant part can easily be linked from an article or talk page. I understand that U.S. Federal court opinions are public domain. ....dave souza 13:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing, too, because I just inserted a direct quote from the opinion into the "infobox" at the top of the article.  I am wondering though, how exactly does a statute "frolic"?  :)  6SJ7 15:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Statutorily.  JHCC  (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Act-ively. -EDM 17:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pfew! That pun stank. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kitzmiller conclusions as wikisource

message: Can this decision be appealed? Is it likely to be? The article needs information on this. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that, if FTE had succeeded in their efforts to intervene in this case (and thereby becoming co-defendents), they would have been in a position to appeal the decision.  Since they did not, they are not.  Interesting hypothetical possibility, though.  JHCC  (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeals? 

message: I revised the first sentence thus:
The board "required a statement be read to biology classes about intelligent design as an alternative explanation to evolution."
Which was reverted to this:
The board "tried to mandate teachers to read a statement to the students about intelligent design as an alternative 'explanation' to evolution."
Explanation in quotations is fine, but my reason for using the first version:
*it was not read to all students, just to biology classes
*it was not read by teachers (who refused), but by an administrator
*the second sentemce is kind of clunky
I feel the first is more accurate, but I have now been reverted twice. Thoughts? Jokestress 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I took a crack at rewording that sentence. Jokestress's bullet points are in the next paragraph and later in the article, so they don't need to be in the opening. -EDM 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining mandate in first sentence 

message: Here is what the judge actually said:
:"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
I think some people have misread the second sentence.  When I first saw the Holding in the Infobox, it said:
:Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and cannot uncouple itself from creationism's religious antecedents. (italics added)
The placement of the word "creationism's" in the Infobox ignored the meaning of judge's use of the word "its."  He said ID cannot uncouple ITSELF (that is, ID cannot uncouple ID) from ITS (that is, ID's) creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.  So someone, not me, changed it so that after the word "because," it read
:intelligent design is not science and cannot uncouple itself from intelligent design's religious antecedents.
That was correct, although less complete than it could have been, because it left out "creationist, and thus religious".  But then someone came along and reverted it, so it was wrong again.  At that point I put in the judge's exact words:
:intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
For whatever reason, JWSchmidt then came along and changed it back to the wrong version.  I have now put the direct quote back in.  There is no reason to change it again because I have the judge's exact words in there, and those words make clear that "ITS" means intelligent design, and not creationism.  It's all angels dancing on the head of a pin anyway, because the judge is saying that intelligent design = creationism = religious teaching for purposes of public school science education. 6SJ7 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Holding" in Infobox

message: The judge said in the opinion that some of the defense witnesses lied under oath.  One news article said that as the trial judge he can't do anything to them - is this true?  -- Pakaran 20:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  It's with the federal prosecutor who will decide whether or not to bring charges; see http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1135248153247780.xml&coll=1 — Dunc|☺ 20:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, should that be in the article?  It's of course all speculation at this point... -- Pakaran 20:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think at the present it deserves at most a single sentence.  Once (if?) the DA decides to file charges, then it will merit a larger section.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 02:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lying by witnesses 

message: I really, really don't see how the Flying Spaghetti Monster is relevant here, but someone keeps trying to add him as an external link.  RAmen.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 02:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being added, I suppose, because both FSM and this article fall broadly in the realm of Intelligent Design. But FSM has no place in this article. -EDM 02:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FSM doesn't belong here 

message: "He mentioned that board member Alan Bonsell had done his own reading and discovered flaws in evolution such as Piltdown Man."
This reported speech is confusing: it is not clear if evolution itself, or the theory which describes it, is flawed in Bonsell's view; and it is not clear in what respect Piltdown Man constitutes such a flaw. Would the following replacement text concur with transcripts, does anyone know? : " ... and discovered what he believed to be flaws in evolutionary science, such as the Piltdown Man hoax.'
*Just to clear things up, Piltdown Man is a very old hoax.  Unlike Big Foot, it was conclusively outed as such, so you don't have loonies to this day still believing in it.  The relevance of Piltdown Man to today's evolutionary theory is non-existent.  Yet creationists will time and time again trot out Piltdown Man ... their argument boils down to, "Look, here's a hoax in the history of biology ... all of biology could be suspect too!"  --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piltdown Man 

message: The reasons for my edits are as follows:
*14th Amendment - doesn't matter if it's in the decision. It's trivial in this context. The 1st amendment is applicable to the states under the 14th amendment, that is settled law and this decision didn't change, expand, or deal with that issue.
*removed under the jurisdiction of the 3rd Circuit - who cares? Had nothing to do with the decision other than that the decision did analysis under 3rd Circuit gloss of Lemon test, but result wouldn't have been different in any other circuit; decision won't be appealed; 3rd Circuit never mentioned later in article
*2002 appointee of Geo. W. Bush - info is in judge's article which is linked; mentioning it here contributes to the pernicious attitude that a judge's rulings do or should follow predictably from the identity of the president who appoints the judge
*139-page decision - well, that disappeared in the rewrite; put it back if you want though it's in the article later.
-EDM 17:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *14th Ammendment is applied even if not in any new or novel way. Therefore both the 1st and 14th ammendments are applied. Applying only the first doesn't work.
*We can't predict the future, and it effected the decsision greatly. The third circuit is definitivly part of the context surrounding this case. (little green men rule). The descision refrences the 3rd circuit every paragraph that I've read. (its a 139 pages, not nearly done).
*Gives context as to when the judge was appointed. I'm more intrested in the lack of years on the court to a rather significant decision in the Grand Scheme of Things than who appointed him. The who is a matter of providing sufficient context. This was also a compromise with the suggestions littered throughout the talk.
--17:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ... I'm not even sure where to begin, but "you're plain wrong" isn't exactly conductive to the idea that the button "discussion" is supposed to represent.--Tznkai 17:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right and I only wrote that because I was in haste. I'll expand it later. -EDM 17:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At any rate, the paragraph you reverted has one thing, aside from these points (I'm willing to concede 1, 3, and possibly even two), the introductary paragraph really *needs* to flow properly or no information is being gleaned--Tznkai 18:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro discussion of 12-23-05 

message: This is discussed among several other topics in the preceding section, but I decided to break it out as its own topic.  I have put the fact that President G.W. Bush appointed Judge Jones back into the article.  It definitely is relevant not just to an article on the judge, but also to an article on this particular case.  People should know that this is not some "liberal judge" but was one appointed by the current president, who has made statements in support of ID.  Or, stated another way, Wikipedia is not a legal encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia for a general readership and therefore the larger political context of a case is relevant information.  6SJ7 00:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. Dave (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess what. Republicans appoint goddamn liberal activist judges sometimes. Democrats appoint goddamn conservative Neanderthal judges sometimes. Leave this sort of crap to USA Today. Putting it in an encyclopedia fosters the politicization of the judiciary. I'm not going to revert it since so many of you feel it belongs here, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong. -EDM 07:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Far from fostering the politicization of the judiciary, it indicates that at least in this one instance, Law and Science won out over Politics.  Seems relevant to me.  6SJ7 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand my point, 6SJ7. To do as the newspapers and talk radio do, glossing the report of every decided case by identifying the judge by the president who appointed him, fosters the popular misconception that a federal judge is a mirror of the politics of the president who appointed him.  This in turn feeds the belief that the judge should mirror those political positions. In fact, contrary to that popular view, in the vast majority of cases, federal judges get it right. Unlike all the other yahoos in the rest of the government, they decide cases according to the law, not according to politics. That sounds like a pious bromide but it is true. The Kitzmiller case was legally not a difficult one. To have decided it the opposite way, the judge would have had to be unmoored from legal reality. That is why it really adds nothing to this article to say that the judge was a Bush appointee. I'd venture to guess that more than 9 out of 10 appointees of any president would have decided this case the same way. -EDM 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, EDM.  However, since people are going to want the info, it's appropriate to include it.  I've put in the infobox (see my comment below), which is a nice neutral place for it.  JHCC  (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: All of you, Breathe! Even if that is the reasoning stated, it's irrelevant. Is the average passerby going to find it useful to know when and who appointed the judge that heard the case? I would say the average passerby is intrested in the assumed biases.--Tznkai 07:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be our mission to educate the average passerby out of his ignorant assumptions. -EDM 07:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and thus we provide the data they're looking for.--Tznkai 18:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps change to the data of his appointment? How long the judge has been in the position may be relevant depending on the information people are searching for, and the fact that he was a Bush appoinment is implicit in the date. --Davril2020 17:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen some reactions in blogs and so forth decrying this as a case of judicial activism, and implying that this was a liberal ruling. However, as I noted in a post above, the judge in this case is a "churchgoing Republican", which is an important factor in weighing whether this judgment is a deviation from the legal mainstream view. bd2412 T 21:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should be included to provide further context.  I'm not interested in the pathos involved.  The Jade Knight 22:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the "appointed in 2002 by GWB" from the "reaction" paragraph to the infobox.  If someone is looking for this info, it is clearly available, while the editorializing implied by including it with the "churchgoing Republican" is eliminated.  This should tone down the sensationalism a bit.  JHCC  (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Appointment of Judge

message: Was Eugenie Scott a witness?  She was there, but I don't have any information that she was called as a witness.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  She was not. All the witnesses are listed in the article. MichaelSH 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right.  But she was a "consultant for the plantiffs".  Bubba73 (talk), 02:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Eugenie Scott a witness? 

message: I only found out about this important decision on a documentary on BBC2 tonight. Refreshing change from all the stuff we see in Britain that's increasingly giving us the impression the US is now a fundamentalist christian nation. Sanity prevailed this time. --bodnotbod 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably this Horizon programme, and you've been staying up too late. Jolly good show, Dawkins' "yapping terriers of ignorance" seems to be the favourite comment from it, . ....dave souza, talk 15:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hooray!

message: Should that the new school boards' setting with the plantiffs with an agreement that the school district pay $1,000,011 be mentioned in the main article?   This is a non-trivial sum of money for such a small district.  And it has real consequences in that that will be pointed out to other school boards as a possible consequence for trying to teach ID.  MichaelSH 02:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Settlement of the legal fees

message: FM, you (apparently) used the "revert" function to undo some changes I made which you - in your editorial judgment disagreed with. This is against the rules. You are not supposed to use "revert" except for Wikipedia:Simple vandalism. 
Please discuss your changes. Refusing to discuss changes is, as everyone knows you aware of, Not A Good Thing here. Ironic that you keep accusing me of doing something you yourself are guilty of: refusing to discuss. Well, I'm asking for discussion. Will you defend your changes, or do you think you own the page? --Uncle Ed 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying the case was successfully argued is not POV, it is fact. If the case was UNsuccessfully argued, it would have been lost, but it wasn't. While he proabaly shouldn't have used rollback, I endorse his version of the article. It is much easier to have a summary at the beginning so one can know the bare facts before reading the details. pschemp | talk 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, thanks for putting a reason into the Edit Summary. --Uncle Ed 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the personal attack in your section heading here and documented it at your RFC. Using the rollback function is not necessarily an abuse of my position, but your personal attack is an abuse of yours, such as it is. Considering your actions and here (and at the ID article) were unilateral and are disruptive (apparently in bad faith over your pet new policy Wikipedia:Text move being scuttled) rolling it back falls under reverting simple vandalism as far as I'm concerned. When you stop being petty and disruptive you'll find that you and your edits get more respect. FeloniousMonk 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion by FeloniousMonk

message: FeloniousMonk put the following in the article:
The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief. Since it sought an equitable remedy there was no right to a jury trial; the Seventh Amendment did not apply.
This really does not belong in the article.  This is usually the case when someone sues to declare some government policy and/or law unconstitutional.  Wikipedia articles almost never mention this.  Now I realize why FM wants this in the article.  Some creationists have made a false argument that the case should have been tried by a jury citing the Seventh Amendment.  Wikipedia is probably not the best location for such debunking.  Now there is a way it could go in: that would require a section over post-decision controversies which can cover the many ways the creationists have tried to discredit the trial and how those who support the decision say to try refute it.  Now that would make it a long article since the creationists, IMHO, have been petty, desperate, and dishonest in their reactions. (This is talk after all. I would not have the article imply that.)  Frankly, I suspect the best solution is to simply remove the reference unless such a not is to be put the article for all equity cases.  That is almost certainly will not happen. MichaelSH 20:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the argument is made is evidence for it's mentioning here. Which for simplicity's sake is best done up front as a simple statement of two sentences. FeloniousMonk 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I had not known the nonsense the creationists had pulled, I would been on this talk page asking why it was needed. And if two sentences are added every time some creationist made a false claim, the article would get long really quick.  Besides, is debunking NPOV? I am not going to revert this or anything, but it does warrent my expressing some concern. MichaelSH 04:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point and concern. The passage simply states an uncontroversial and uncontested fact and makes a distinction. A fact and distinction that seem necessary considering the discussion and confusion (intentionally sown of course) in various corners over why there wasn't a jury trial. This passage simply states up front why there wasn't. If it happens debunks a certain bit of nonsense, I consider that an unintended consequence. Your point about adding two sentences is a valid one. But if we left out every simple statement of fact that debunked somebody somewhere, we'd have a mighty thin encyclopedia. BTW, thanks for all your contributions to this article in the early days of the trial. FeloniousMonk 05:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Equity case

message: Late in the witnesses, it mentions that one Fuller had the quote dubious honor end of quote of being referred to in the closing arguments by both plaintiffs' and defense lawyers.
As a lawyer, I'd like to call shenanigans.
Do we have a neutral cite to back up that the honor is dubious, rather than not being neutral?  Experts who are non-partisan often have something for everyone.
For that matter, I would assume that Dembski's testimony was at least used, if not used in the closing, by both sides, quite heavily in their briefing.
For that matter, closing arguments in a bench trials are summations, rather than persuasive arguments as in a jury trial.  The judge takes it all back to her or his chambers and goes over the briefing, which runs to hundreds and hundreds of pages.
In completely tangential news, I have a firsthand report of Judge Jones's speech at the Philadelphia Bar Professional Responsibility Committee Meeting, yesterday, here at my blawg.  There's nothing there that needs to be here (or even at his bio page) but it's interesting anyway.
Eh Nonymous 11:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dembski withdrew, his evidence was not considered in the ruling. The 'dubious' bit should go. In fact, that Fuller's testimony was cited by lawyers for both sides in their closing statements is not such a big deal... Does it even warrant mention here? FeloniousMonk 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dubious honor of being" - NPOV 

message: This article should be part of some categories.  It certainly used to.  MichaelSH 17:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there no categories?