Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Comments

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)

I think that the VFD nomination is as close to a bad faith nomination as I've seen in a while. If you can't even get a consensus to merge, then getting a consensus to delete is very unlikely. DJ Clayworth 20:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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"[1]. This has been a long-running dispute. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

3 Revert Rule

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)

I'm sorry, I'm new. What is the 3 revert rule and what will it do? Mred64 22:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate sections

This discussion page has become corrupted. Many of its sections appear twice. It needs to be cleaned up. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have now done so by deleting the duplicate sections. I believe that I have not lost anyone's comments but if I am wrong I assure everyone that it was accidental. My only motive was to sort the page out. I do not wish to intervene in the dispute. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:20, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Summary

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)

not surprised. you don't see my objection to the merge either. carry on. Ungtss 15:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So do you think that it's not short, neutral, or factual? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Joshua, your version has one person in favor and two people have stated they prefer the last consensus version. There is clearly no consensus for yours. The MPLX version was not discussed at all before he made his massive changes. This has raised strong objections. The current version may not be perfect, but if we are going to change it, it must be through working together to seek consensus. Not unilateral strike force action.

Here is my summary of the previous constructive discussions. No one objected to my summary at the time. --VorpalBlade 20:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summary of comments on Proposal 4

I am in favor.
I understand Mel Etitis is in favor.
Ungtss is in favor.
Monk has not commented directly but drafted the original version (and Proposal 4 has very few changes from that).
Ian thinks it needs more work, but has bowed out of the discussion.

JoshuaSchroeder thinks it needs work, but only recently came to the discussion.

Based on this, I am going to edit to replace the current intro with Proposal 4 (which is a fairly minor edit). This seems to be the version closest to full consensus.

I propose that we follow Wiki policy going forward and that large or controversial edits be worked out in the discussion room before they or done. If an edit causes controversy, we should agree to go back to the previous version until we can get a consensus.

Thanks for your cooperation in working this out.

--VorpalBlade 13:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Ungtss 20:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I'm in favour of what's there now. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is quite interesting, Mel. You have right to change your mind, but if there are to be major rewrites to the intro, it should be discussed here to seek consensus. Your taking the side of a highly POV version with no attempt to encourage discussion here is inappropriate and inconsistent with Wiki policy. The fact that your are doing this as an Admin tells me that the some actions contrary to consensus are approved by the ultimate powers that be on Wikipedia. I guess power trumps consensus here, as in the real world. --VorpalBlade 14:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, when I asked Ungtss "So do you think that it's not short, neutral, or factual?" he replied "It's all three" (see above). I find it difficult to see where the lack of Neutrality is; could you explain? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Ungtss is wrong about its neutrality. It does not give a good summary of the movement and it focuses entirely on the DI. The ref. to Howard A. in the intro is ridiculous conspiracy theory propaganda. It extends the ad hominem attack back to contributors to DI. How can that possibly belong in the intro?

Regardless, the overall quality of the revisions you are enforcing are clearly inferior to the consensus version.

You are, of course, ignoring my observation that we should keep the consensus version until we agree on a revision. You have two contributors who think this is a very bad major edit, but instead of encouraging MPLX (who has shown himself to be a loose cannon) to discuss before making such radical changes, you support him and revert to his edits. Your tactics are clear based on your past actions. If I make edits, you will revert back and lock the page, if necessary. --VorpalBlade 17:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you support is dogma, not a NPOV encyclopedia. Clearly the rubbish that was there was a poorly written and repetitious duplication of other articles. I am still convinced that this silly idea duplicating the wedge movement should be merged with the DI article. As far as reverts are concerned, you tiptoed up to the 3 revert limit and then stopped and a sockpuppet mysteriously appeared to do the same sort of thing in your place until I brought attention to that. You had a consensus of you and yourself because even your supporter was not in lockstep with you and he even called DI "fascist" and the financial supporter a mental case. So as far as your reference to ad hominem remarks are concerned, you can shine the light fair and square on your lone supporter since he is the person calling DI fascist and its financial backer a nutcase. Obviously you are on a rant that is getting blocked. MPLX/MH 18:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support Mel Etitis as a highly qualified academic editor of the English language and the last edit that he has made to the article. I noted that the supposed poll above resulted in Mel Etitis being misrepresented by VorpalBlade who also dismissed the contributions made by Ian who disagreed with VorpalBlade, dismissed JoshuaSchroeder for appearing too late and ignored my contributions. This in effect left VorpalBlade getting sole endorsement from Ungtss which means that the majority are in favor of either merging or deleting this article! MPLX/MH 22:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no current Proposal 4

There is no Proposal 4 because the Talk has moved on. There is:

*1) a proposal to Merge with the Discovery Institute article.

*2) a proposal to Delete the article.

Of note:

VorpalBlade has reverted twice, engaged in little discussion and 1 revert away from breaking the Wikipedia prohibition on reverts.
Ungtss is a constant critic of all change but does not engage in specific criticisms of sentences to show how they could be improved.
As it stands the article is over the Wikipedia length for an article.
The present article requires heavy editing to remove redundant words and phrases.
The present article requires editing for accuracy (for instance, the article refers to a "movement" which does not exist within the definition of a "movement". What exists is an idea proposed by Johnson, endorsed by the Discovery Institute of which Johnson is a member, and financing of both Johnson and the Discovery Institute.
Since this is a job for strict editing and since this article has the interest of a highly qualified editior of the English language according to all accepted academic standards, then Μελ Ετητης) should be given free hand to edit from the standpoint of encyclopedic quality control. Once he has completed his total revision of the article as a work in the English language, then each paragraph should be opened for comments as to accuracy. Failure to adopt this proposal by persons unqualified or less qualified will demonstrate a refusal to cooperate with other Wikipedia editors for the sake of attempting to achieve the adoption of a biased polemical writing as a NPOV Wikipedia article. MPLX/MH 22:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, editors are allowed three edits in twenty-four hours, and I don't thin that anyone is in danger in breaking that. I agree, though, that Ungtss's forte is long and vague criticism, with rarely anything specific enough to be useful (or that allows him to be pinned down). I agree that the article needs strict editing, but not that it should be done by one person, however eminently – or even uniquely – qualified. Perhaps we should wait for the result of the VfD before doing anything major to the article. We can (I probably shall) tinker with it to make it more concise and accurate, but that's all. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My suggestions have been very clear, and have been utterly ignored by those caught up in a conspiracy theory. this article should describe the policy of TTC according to its proponents, provide attributed criticism of that policy, and limit itself to information directly related to the movement and the proposed policy. the intro should describe the proposed policy according to its proponents, which is very clearly articulated in VorpalBlade's version. Ungtss 22:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"this article should describe the policy of TTC according to its proponents, provide attributed criticism of that policy, and limit itself to information directly related to the movement and the proposed policy. Ungtss 22:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

There is no movement, only an idea proposed by Johnson and endorsed by the Discovery Institute of which Johnson is a member.
There is no policy other than the Discovery Institute policy paid for by the same person who is funding both Johnson and the DI.
The FRAUD of this article is in trying to asset that it is an independent movement which has caused controversy - when the article states that it is a controversial proposal that one man originated, his organization backed him up and the person who Ungtss earlier discribed as being mentally ill, has paid for! MPLX/MH 22:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine. i'll concede all of your nonsense, and your argument still doesn't follow. There is an independent article on Wedge strategy -- which stems solely from DI and these fascist, hateful, whatever-you-wanna-call-them donors. No justification for merge. Ungtss 22:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you conceded, but I did follow your link and I did check out the history of edits on the Wedge strategy article and I can see that you guys are breeding this stuff like bunny rabbits. These duplicated articles are wasting everyone's time. It would seem that what should be called for is a review of all of the several related articles on this topic that are trying to keep distance from each other to prevent merging. I find it funny that you call the financier of both Johnson and the Discovery Institute both a fascist and hateful since without his money none of this nonsense would have happened in the first place. We need a new template to link all of these articles and to call for help from Wikipedia Admins - since it is obvious that this entire subject is making a total mockery out of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. They all need merging into one main article with supporting biographies of key players. MPLX/MH 22:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I conceded your conspiracy theory for the sake of the argument; i was shocked and surprised at your response. Would you support a merge of Wedge strategy? Ungtss 22:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! Where stuff belongs to DI it should be moved there, same with Johnson, wedgies and anything else. These articles spew all over the place like religious tracts seeking to find a home anywhere. The fact of the matter is that this topic is highly POV in that MANY people (me included) have open minds as to the origin of life (it is not a "us" versus "them" because we are ALL on this Planet with knowledge limited to scientific discovery.) Many people - me included DON'T believe in Johnson or the DI and their ram-rod theology, but do have an open mind regarding what the US Declaration of Independence calls "Nature's God and Nature's Laws". A lot of tub-thumpers read right over that and think that it says "God of the King James Bible and Jesus Christ", well it does not say that and there are a LOT of people who have read Tom Paine, who agree with Tom Paine and who agree with the classification of Nature and Nature's God. It is this wedging in of stuff for ulterior motives under the guise of neutrality (when it is POV) that irks me. Johnson (and the man you call mentally ill who funded all of this), need to be described on their apporopriate pages - but not shoved here, there and everywhere under misleading articles! MPLX/MH 16:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reverts

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)

Accidentally unattributed recent edit

Oops. I just edited the page (quite substantially) without logging in. My bad. The edit of 19:29, 2005 Apr 25 by 194.203.111.212 was mine. No attempt at sockpuppetry was intended :-). Gareth McCaughan 19:32, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Discourtesy

VorpalBlade has reverted what he ~~ingenuously~~ disingenuously referred to as MPLX/MH's 'vandalism'. Leaving aside that characterisation, he also reverted two unrelated sets of edits, one by an anon editor, and one by me (which included mending the badly formed 'merge' template). That is vandalistic, as well as bad manners. Please don't let your emotions get in the way of Wikiquette. Veiled personal attacks on this page are one thing, but heavy-handed behaviour on the article itself is quite another. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel, your criticism and hypocrisy are truly laughable. See my comments above. Any reader can look at the record on this page to see who has worked toward consensus. By the way, I don't think "ingenuously" means what you think it means. --VorpalBlade 20:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Massive undiscussed deletions speak for themselves. Your editing a vandalized page makes you a vandal as well, and the proper step is to correct it. --VorpalBlade 20:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

~~I suggest that you look up 'ingenuously' in the dictionary.~~
I didn't expect an apology for your poor manners, but I expected a little more than 'so are you'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to "ingenuous," I think I am "openly straightforward or frank; candid." Thanks for the kind words. I think that may be the first nice thing you have said to me in all our discussions.

Sleep-deprivation, or something.

But once again you avoid the main issue. --VorpalBlade 21:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I rather think that that's what you're doing. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the material involved in the edits that you reverted, it's still bad Wikiquette (and bad manners) to revert later, unconnected edits. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But Mel, my main point is that good editing and true courtesy means protecting each other's edits from the likes of MPLX, who does massive deletions and screams on this page. And then we cooperate to do measured edits that we can all live with. I think it is possible and I thought that that is what we were doing before the last round of radical deletions. --VorpalBlade 22:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleting 120+ lines of text without discussion

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)

Editing

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)

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)

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)

Recent Edits re Congress Action

Ian, both houses of Congress did vote on it, so your edit was inaccurate. There is already a paragraph on the legal force of the language. Maybe you want to move it up to the para above the report language?

You can't just delete the proponent sections, leave in the opponent section, and say that is neutral. Readers know that opponent section are telling them what they say. I think the opponents are wrong and much of what the say is false, but I also know it has to stay in to make a balanced, fair article. --VorpalBlade 10:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May 14, 2002

Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.

Executive Director

National Center for Science Education, Inc.

420 40th Street, Suite 2

Oakland, CA 94609-2509

Dear Dr. Scott:

Thank you for contacting me to share the concerns of the National Center for Science Education, Inc. regarding the report language accompanying H.R. 1, now titled, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). I am writing to express my views on the compromise language on science education that was agreed to by the conferees.

As you are now aware, NCLB calls for states to implement annual assessments in the subjects of reading and math during grades 3 through 8. The law also requires states to measure the proficiency of all students in science starting with the 2007-2008 school year. To address the importance of these newly required assessments in the area of science education, the conference committee included a compromise version of the Santorum Amendment in report language:

The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exists, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries profoundly affect society.

Quality assessments involve the application of critical thinking skills, and perhaps this is nowhere more important than in science education. Teachers often encourage critical thinking through the introduction of controversial issues. While the subject of evolution was used as an example of a controversial issue in the report language, neither the teaching of evolution nor any other specific topic is mandated in NCLB or the conference report. The law restricts the federal endorsement of curriculum, and the report language should not be construed to promote specific topics within subject areas. Congress recognizes that the teaching of the "full range of scientific views" should be encouraged, and such decisions are best left to the scientific community, rather than legislators.

The purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act is to ensure that all children receive a quality education with reading, math and science as its foundation. The report language correctly describes science as a subject of "data and testable theories", different from "religious or philosophical claims." It is critical that the effort to narrow the achievement gap not be burdened with ideology regardless of subject matter. The language is profoundly clear that "science" should be at the center of a quality science education.

Your interest in upholding academic excellence is science is appreciated. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,

[signature]

George Miller

Ranking Democrat[2]

After Santorum's language was deleted from the bill, he was able to insert a watered down version of his language in the explanatory report of the conference committee. Here is where the language about evolution is located, right on page 703. However, a committee report, even when it is accepted by the Congress, is not a bill. It was not sent to the President's desk for signature, and it is not part of Public Law 107-110. Case closed. Committee reports simply do not have the force of law.

Not sure what in the quote you think supports your view. This language supports mine:

Thank you for contacting me to share the concerns of the National Center for Science Education, Inc. regarding the report language accompanying H.R. 1, now titled, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

See the more detailed explanation at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=112. --VorpalBlade 14:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response:

1. The legislative history of the Santorum Amendment actually opposes the idea of teaching intelligent design, because it was removed from the bill.

Federal laws in the United States must be passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Often, a bill is submitted to both houses at the same time, and the two houses work on them independently. But before the bill goes to the president, there must be just one bill; both houses must vote on exactly the same language. To accomplish this, a conference committee, formed of members of both houses, hashes out the differences and makes a compromise bill. The committee produces an explanatory statement that tells the legislative history of the bill and any views about it that conference committee members want to include. Such a report may be taken into account if courts later need to consider the intent of the bill, but it has no legal force per se.

The Santorum Amendment was added to an early draft of HR-1 by Senator Rick Santorum. It was a recommendation that would have made no binding requirements anyway. It was not included in the House version of the bill. The conference committee for the bill considered the amendment and deliberately chose to omit it, and the Santorum Amendment does not exist in the law that was signed by the president (Public Law 107-110). The amendment still exists, in watered-down form, in the explanatory statement due to the special interest of one or more of the conference committee members.

As noted above, the explanatory statement can still be used to interpret the law. But what does it mean to interpret a nonbinding recommendation that was removed before the bill became law?

2. Even in its original form, the Santorum Amendment did not oppose teaching evolution or advocate teaching intelligent design. The language said, "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist." Evolution is used only as an example. It is a poor example, since there are no competing scientific views. In particular, intelligent design is not scientific.

3. A governmental requirement for teaching intelligent design or other so-called alternatives to evolution would likely be found unconstitutional, given the precedent of past cases, particularly Edwards v. Aguillard, 393 U.S. 97 (1987).

4. Members of the U.S. Congress are not well qualified in educational matters. Rick Santorum in particular proposed and supported the amendment for religious reasons, not for pedagogy.

The political action section

So, I'm curious why VorpalBlade failed to note that the passage he cited is known publicly as the contentious and hotly debated Santorum Amendment? Clearly he knew it was, as he's been editing that article as well. Anyway, I've rewritten it to reflect it's common name and the fact that the Discovery Institute lobbied hard for it's inclusion. I also included a paragraph on the Meyer/Miller incident with the Ohio Board of Education. Lastly, I've renamed the section political action, as this is clearly political action- driven by outside influence, not government. FeloniousMonk 13:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see someone beat me to it. FeloniousMonk 13:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And that VorpalBlade quickly emasculated it. I'll fix it. FeloniousMonk 13:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Monk, I kept a reference to Santorum Amendment in my revision, and I put back in your ref. to Miller. We were both editing at the same time. If I inadvertantly reverted some of your changes, I apologize. I disagree with your contention about "political" v. "government," as discussed above.

Monk, you have shown yourself as someone who can craft language that both sides can agree on. I disagree with you on some edits, but I respect your willingness to allow both proponents and opponents sections. Let's please work together to make this a better article. And please help me stop the wholesale deletions by MPLX and Ian to language they happen to disagree with. --VorpalBlade 13:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words; I'll try to live up to them. I've found that you have been willing to work together with me in the past, so of course I'm happy to work together now to settle on content that we can all more or less agree on, and that reflects reality. FeloniousMonk 14:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you perhaps convince Ian to stop deleting the "proponent" paragraphs that give balance to the "opponent" paragraphs? One is in the intro that you drafted originally that led to the consensus that we had. Thanks. --VorpalBlade 14:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't need two paragraphs in the introduction about what proponents want and in any case the claims are false as anyone reading the Ohio lesson plan can easily work out. Proponents don't want students to "critically evaluate continuing debates in the scientific community" they want students to access the website of Discovery Institute collaborator ARN for the latest DI propaganda before hopping along to the latest creationist front organisation at http://www.objectivityinscience.org before moving along to "scholarly and popular resources concerning intelligent design and philosophical theism" at http://www.origins.org. For balance students are then advised to go along to a history site, a site on genetics carrying nothing on evolution and a site about Gould. Using these sites students would have little chance of learning anything about contemporary evolutionary biology. Ian Pitchford 14:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Based on what you write, why don't you add a section critiquing the Ohio lesson plan? Then I will write a response by proponents. That would move us toward a more substantive discussion of the movement/policy. --VorpalBlade 15:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There isn't a movement/policy to critique, just a DI strategy to debunk. To act as though these duplicitous machinations are sincere would simply bolster the propaganda effect sought. Ian Pitchford 15:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

length

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)