Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 6

message: ::I am in agreement with you, Ian. By the way, thanks for posting that article on Howard Ahmanson, Jr, after reading it I looked at the Wikipedia article. Clearly this is one big agenda of this man: Howard Ahmanson, Jr and Johnson is merely his poodle and the DI his toy. The guy is a dangerous nut because he has money and unlike people like Timothy McVeigh who resort to violence because of a lack of money, this guy can buy people. It seems to me that what should be done is to follow the money and group this entire subject around the money and around its reclusive mastermind: Howard Ahmanson, Jr. Forget the terrorist bombers, it is this kind of idiot who worries me because he answers to no one and has the money power to make things happen. Johnson can clearly crank out books by the bucketload if Howard Ahmanson, Jr is footing the bill which helps to explain why Johnson who has no credentials in this field is able to chug-a-lug onwards with the Discovery Institute. Thanks again, I had no idea, no idea at all how this went together. MPLX/MH 17:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - since people said that the "merge poll" was against policy, it follows that correct thing to do (the thing that fits with policy) is to take it to VfD.  That way you get a binding resolution.  Not what I would have done. but it's the logical conclusion based on the opposition that the straw poll engendered.  Guettarda 22:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the poll isn't against policy (see above for discussion).  On the contrary, in fact: "In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll".  This has been a long-running dispute. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The merge poll was clearly not against policy. It happens daily on many other articles on wikipedia. Someone was just being creative in their objections and liberal in the reading of policy. I've yet to read anywhere that polls are proscribed; not favored maybe, but not proscribed. The citation provided that polls were proscribed was neither definitive nor policy, but a guideline. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Please note that VorpalBlade has now reverted the article twice, once more and the 3 revert rule kicks in. He is not reverting identical copy, he is reverting any changes to the article. See history of the article for details. MPLX/MH 04:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I'm new. What is the 3 revert rule and what will it do? Mred64 22:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 Revert Rule

message: I don't see Ungtss's objection to the shortened introduction; it's short, neutral, and factual. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: not surprised.  you don't see my objection to the merge either.  carry on.  Ungtss 15:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you think that it's not short, neutral, or factual? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all three.  but i don't think it's more neutral than the other, shorter is not better, and it is less factual, because it contains fewer facts.  From the perspective of one who thinks this article should remain, shorter is not a valid justification for an edit that removes information.  but such an edit is perfectly consistent with the views of one who wishes the article to disappear entirely.  further, the facts that were selected to remain in the revised intro are designed to emphasize the link with DI ... again ... in an effort to merge the article.  That's all.  I won't fight.  I've realized that it's emotion, not reason, that governs these discussions, and i'm certainly in no position to change anyone's emotions:(.  Ungtss 16:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The massive changes by MPLX are very biased, and render the intro very misleading and POV.  He should seek consensus here on such major revisions, which he has not done.  There is nothing approaching consensus on his version; there was consensus on the previous version.  --VorpalBlade 19:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Mel, if changes to the consensus version are needed, we should discuss them here.  MPLX has shown himself unable to seek consensus or work with others on this page.  Your endorsement of MPLX and his grossly biased version is quite unbecoming.  --VorpalBlade 20:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vorpal -- There have been a number of calls by myself up above for you to comment on the ongoing problems of neutrality in one part of this article. So far, it appears that either 1) you don't have the time to do this or 2) you don't think that such is an issue. Either way, it is problematic for you to continue to insist on a "consensus version" which is actually not much of a consensus right now, all things considered. Like it or not, there are editors here who see a great deal of problems with the way the article looks in the "consensus" version. Simply reverting will not make the problem go away. Joshuaschroeder 20:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Reverting won't make the problem go away, reason won't make the problem go away, compromise won't make the problem go away, votes won't make the problem go away, and research won't make the problem go away.  Why?  Because the problem is bigotry.  Ungtss 20:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: You are overlooking the fact that 81.79.146.106 has made 5 defacto reverts on the 24th - see history - which points to 81.79.146.106 being a sockpuppet! Go ahead and edit the entire bloody mess Μελ Ετητης) (for you to get my support is no small thing!) MPLX/MH 22:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppet reverts

message: :Let the record reflect that the deletion of 120+ lines of text with no discussion on the talk page is an appropriate edit according to Mel Etitis.  And then Mel did some "tidying."  --VorpalBlade 21:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting 120+ lines of text without discussion

message: It seems like that if anyone makes an edit to this page, people who disagree get ready to lynch them. Meanwhile, the proposals don't seem to get too far from what I have seen. Both sides seem willing to compromise, but it seems they claim it eventually leads to POV for the other side. I have seen few constructive changes that have reached a consensus and are considered neutral by either side. Should the page be protected? It may make proposals more effective and move faster. Also, "controversial" edits will be stopped because edits should then be approved by other editors on the talk page. I'm trying not to sound favorable to either side, but I think it may be better this way. However, I can't claim to know all about what happens when a page is protected and I don't know if this article meets any guidelines for protected pages. Mred64 22:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on your evaluation to some extent.  I think massive deletions without discussion are wrong.  Reasonable edits to improve the style or accuracy of the article are great.  If you look at the history, several contributors on both sides worked very hard to come up with a neutral intro.  It can be done; we just need to talk about it and work together.  --VorpalBlade 10:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MPLX wants to merge, Ian wants to delete.  Until we resolve these efforts, I think it will be harder to get people to talk constructively about making this article better.  I look forward to that day, however.  --VorpalBlade 10:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: first, mplx, being under 32k is not an absolute requirement -- it is a guideline.  secondly, your intro is misleading, because other organizations have supported the same policy, in fact, ICR argued for it before DI.  Read the VfD.  Ungtss 14:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  length