Talk:D. James Kennedy/Archive 1

message: Now, I understand why that quote could be very interesting to people, but it seems to me that the way it is used here is painting Kennedy as some sort of militant guy, when that quote is really quite metaphorical. Many sites that i've seen that attack Kennedy seem to enjoy using that particular quote against him, to support they paint him as some crazy radical. Does that quote really benefit this article? Couldn't more context be included with it if it has to be there?Homestarmy 18:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: That Quote

message: I don't know everything about Wikipedia policy, is that link that's been added valid, or is it only valid if the article mentions information from it, which it currently does not? It looks to me like just spam trying to attack people for making money, that doesn't seem like a useful link. Homestarmy 22:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart thing

message: User:CaliEd has split this up into pro- and anti-Kennedy. Is there precedent for this in Wikipedia? I've never seen it before. Aplomado talk 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's uncommon, but not unheard of, Mother Teresa has sort of the same thing going on. Many of the external links here may end up getting weeded out if their not notable though. Homestarmy 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The subject is listed on Template:Dominionism as an advocate of Dominionism, so I have added the template. Tom Harrison Talk 12:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he needs to be removed from the list. I think the Dominionism template should be renamed to Christian Reconstructionism, and purged accordingly. --LC 17:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny, you were making an infinite loop with your comment at Template talk:Dominionism (). --LC 16:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; whether or not the sources support listing him on the template is the question. I think much of that question is best addressed on his bio talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well again sources are added. I am not sure if they are reliable. What qualifications do people like Michelle Goldberg or Fredrick Clarkson have? They do not get regularly published in magazines that specialize on religious affairs, and seem to belong to a particular clique which also promotes a certain political agenda (PRA, Theocracy Watch). Clarkson even makes a difference between "Hard Dominionism" and "Soft Dominionism" (The Rise of Dominionism), so he can include Kennedy as a Dominionist, but also not. Pathetic. --LC 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." The sources currently used, do not make this cut. --LC 14:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For example, why cant I find an assertion of Dobson being leader of a "Dominionist Movement" in various religion oriented journals and magazines that are being listed in the Academic Search Premier database? --LC 14:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are well-known, reputable journalists.  The material comes from reliable sources.  Nothing I added asserts that something is the case, they merely describe what the reliable sources say.  Unless you have some evidence that Goldberg, Clarkson and others are not reliable sources, the  is totally unwarranted.  Maybe you should read the neutral point of view policy.  72.198.121.115 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Goldberg, nor Clarkson, have professional qualifications to speak authoritatively about religion. That is why they are not reliable sources. Quit playing games. --LC 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source.  Wikipedia is not based solely on academic sources.  You have added material based on far less reliable sources.  I'm not the one "playing games" here.  72.198.121.115 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominionism 

message: Why should we care? Anyone can start up a web site nowadays. Point is, that Kennedy is nowhere referenced as leader of "Dominionism" in academics. I suggest putting a link to Theocracy Watch in the external links section instead. --LC 17:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  theocracywatch assertion 

message: I am not sure about the inclusion of the AUSCS material. To me, it sounds too general, and more like criticism of the Christian Right in general. What makes this material so specific to Kennedy in particular? --LC 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only does every sentence quoted by AUSCS in the article relate specifically to Kennedy, but the cited source is an AUSCS article about Kennedy.  Did you read the cited source? If this is the reason you tagged this article with , then the tag is unwarranted. =Axlq 16:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the tag was not because of AUSCS inclusion. The problem I have with AUSCS text is that it points out the obvious. You would have a hard time finding someone in the Christian Right who is not opposed to how abortion is currently regulated, so why not make a reference to an section in the Christian Right article, and include the AUSCS material there? --LC 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AUSCS 

message: One more source: Intelligent Design Theory Challenges Darwin in Schools, Coral  Ridge  Ministries, August 2003, pp 1, 4 FeloniousMonk 04:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just don't get it, do you? Talking about or writing articles about ID is not the same as supporting it. Jinxmchue 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Does ID claim that Jehovah created the universe and all life as-is in 6 days as it is described in the book of Genesis? No. It doesn't come anywhere near any of that. ID and Creationism may share the argument that life is designed, but beyond that they are very different. Jinxmchue 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It indeed does, read  It's obvious that you really don't know the topic, so please stop ignoring sources. Odd nature 22:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no mention of Jehovah in that paper and only the most generic of references to the leaders of ID basing their beliefs on the Bible and calling themselves Creationists. No specifics, as usual (just like in this discussion). Jinxmchue 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I don't assume Creationism = Young Earth Creationism. I assume - quite rightly - that Kennedy is a Young Earth Creationist and not an IDer. The two terms are not interchangeable, despite what you and others wish to accomplish here. And as far as your last sentence, you seem to be grouping directed panspermia under the header of Creationism. I've little doubt that Francis Crick would've disagree very strongly with that. Behe would probably disagree with you, too. Jinxmchue 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do they need to be interchangeable? Why can't Kennedy be both, must every IDer believe exactly what Behe believes, or really what any IDer believes beyond that the teleological argument proves God's existance? Homestarmy 00:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are commonalities among Creationist beliefs and ID beliefs (e.g. the belief that life is designed), but there is much more that makes them entirely different and incompatible (despite what one judge in one case or anyone else claims). Your question is like asking why someone can't be both a Christian and a Muslim. The two religions have similarities and someone from one religion could certain support some ideas or beliefs from the other (e.g. some religious texts), but they obviously are two very different religions that are not compatible. One could certainly generalize the two religions to make them appear to be the same thing, but that's dishonest, just as it is when people do the same with Creationism and ID. Jinxmchue 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The core idea of ID really seems to transcend any one religion, it sounds more like what Monotheism is to Christianity and Judaism, rather than what Hinduism is to Islam or Buddhism or example. What makes the core principles of intelligent design incompatible with Creationism? Homestarmy 03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's kind of funny that you bring up Hinduism, because it's creation beliefs are far closer to what ID is than Christian beliefs. Hinduism even gives quite a bit of room to include evolution, which ID also includes but Christian Creationism does not. Jinxmchue 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hinduism is so fragmented, that the concepts of deity throughout Hindu sects range from polytheism to pantheism, and ID definently isn't pantheistic, and in apparently siding with a rather deistic look on things, probably isn't polytheistic either. And that still doesn't explain how someone can't both be an advocate of the core principle of Intelligent Design and be a creationist. Homestarmy 15:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I've been thinking about your question and it's really pointless. Sure, someone could claim to be an IDer and a Creationist, but Kennedy has not. That's the only person who matters in regards to this article and not anyone else. Just Kennedy. The "proof" for his alleged support of ID is spurious at best and fictitious at worst. "His website sells books about ID!  He interviewed Behe!" So freakin' what? Neither is proof he supports ID. Kennedy agrees with some of the views IDers have about life and how it appears designed. That's it. All similarities end there. The burden of proof that Wikipedia demands for contentious claims such as this has not been met for this claim and Wiki rules demand that the information be removed immediately. Jinxmchue 16:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when have article subjects been required to explicitly name which Wikipedia categories they belong to? It's not just about what article subjects say, its about what they do. Without your answer to my question, I have absolutly no reason to believe that when Kennedy expresses support for the idea that the universe is too complex for there not to be a designer, that he is somehow not advocating Intelligent Design one way or another, and I certainly will not back down simply because you believe my inquiry to be pointless. Homestarmy 21:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "proof" for his alleged support of ID is spurious at best and fictitious at worst.  How is: Their most vocal supporters include powerful Religious Right leaders: James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye and D. James Kennedy "spurious" or "fictitious"?  We have a solid statement by the leading scholar on the intelligent design movement, the woman who literally "wrote the book" on the history of the movement.  Guettarda 01:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Francis Crick wrote the book on DNA, but he still believed in panspermia without a shred of proof. Where's this woman's proof? Jinxmchue 03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And panspermia has what to do with DNA?  If you know some reason to doubt Forrest on this issue, please provide a source.  Something?  Anything to back up your rejection of all facts?  Guettarda 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Doesn't work that way and you know it.  You cannot prove a negative, remember?  Not with either "there is no God" or "Kennedy is not an IDer."  All I have to do - and have done - is show how your proof is incredibly, laughably lacking. Jinxmchue 15:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't work that way?  I ask you for a source for your assertion that Forrest isn't a reliable source, and you say: Nope.  Doesn't work that way?  I didn't ask you for a source which says "Kennedy is not an IDer", I asked you for a source which says "Forrest is not a reliable source".  The assertion that Forrest is not a reliable source is a puzzling assertion.  Surely you would not make that assertion without something very strong.  So what is the source for your assertion that Forrest isn't a reliable source?  Guettarda 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section on ID=Creationism

message: My edits are biased?  Hey, guys - remove the planks from your own eyes, alright? Jinxmchue 20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First it was uniformed and biased editing, and now you think trolling is a good idea, too? I think it's all too clear that it's time for you to find something else to do; you're not helping here. Odd nature 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Uninformed?"  I'm not the one trying to portray Kennedy as an IDer.  And, again, "biased?"  It just amazes me how you all can throw out that accusation so nonchalantly without even considering your own biases. Jinxmchue 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejecting reliable sources in favour of your own opinions isn't ok.  Inserting unsourced OR and weasel words isn't ok.  "Alleged" isn't ok, especially when it's you vs an expert on the subject.  Similarly, your stuff on the relative numbers of sales is OR.  Guettarda 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you are clearly are not knowledgable about creationism and ID, so uninformed seems a good fit. And sorry, but you've earned it, it's justified by your long-running disruptive behavior. Do yourself a big favor and read WP:DE. Excellent sources have been provided supporting the content. Furthermore, Kennedy's support of ID is abundantly evident at his own websites. That you repeatedly reject each and every source while denying the obvious and then conduct an edit war is material to how WP:DE relates to you here. Add to that the fact that you've ignored every call for you to provide just one source where Kennedy rejects ID, and the conclusion that you are a disruptive crank (to use WP:DE's own term). Odd nature 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lol! 

message: I'm not about to further this dispute by calling in my friends, too. I actually respect Wikipedia enough not to do that. Just continue to make the article say whatever you want it to and then continue to wonder cluelessly why people say Wiki has a left-wing bias. Jinxmchue 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with ownership - it has to do with editing articles in keeping with policy.  Policy does not allow you to insert your own opinions into the articles, and policy does not allow you to reject reliable sources just because they do not conform to your POV.  I'm glad you claim to respect Wikipedia - now why not try turning that respect into a willingness to read and abide by policy?  Guettarda 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fine.  Own the article all you want.