Talk:Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article used to be a very good article. It was promoted on 25 September 2007 and demoted on 19 February 2008.
This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now.
You may see the vote that promoted the article here.
You may see the vote that demoted the article here.
This article used to be a good article. It was promoted on 19 February 2008 and demoted on 7 May 2011.
This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now.
You may see the vote that promoted the article here.
You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

Good show[change source]

What, no "cdesign proponentsists"  ;) . . . Dave souza 09:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find that link, and, anyway, that was found after the trial itself =) Adam Cuerden 11:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a christian, yet this article is still one sided.[change source]

Need I say more ? LIAM | LIAM ! 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's reporting a court case that went very, very badly for intelligent design. To my knowledge, the biggest criticism was the Discovery Institute complaining about some, though not all, of the prosecutions "proposed findings of fact". Evidently Judge Jones, um, used some of them in one section of his report, adding references to testimony. (Don't look at me. It's a strange objection.) We have to report what actually happened. Adam Cuerden 01:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article demotion[change source]

  • The article is a stub, at around 5,000 bytes. Be nice to add about 2,000 bytes. Shouldn't be hard.
  • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is the full name... I disagree. It wasn't just Kitzmiller; she had 10 others. Should be Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.
  • They looked at the older copies of the book the school was using. These were from before most people could get the book. I don't follow what this is saying.
 Done - add info about the book and how the authors drafts were used in court.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like using a wiki as a reference, refs 2, 4, 5, 6. Could an alternate source be provided?
ref2  Fixed - Also reworded the Trial section to make it more natural neutral and change from one school to school district.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Cited news articles.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 1 and 3 should be {{cite web}}ed.
 Done --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A school in Dover, Pennsylvania tried to get teachers to say intelligent design was better than evolution. What do you mean, "better"? More accurate?
 Done - Reworded--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They showed him 58 articles, nine books... Who?
 Done --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tammy Kitzmiller and ten other parents... needs a reference for the ten other parents.
 Done --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had not read them, but said none of them was "good enough". Should "was" be "were" here?
 Done - reworded--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of this, the Supreme Court said... sentences shouldn't start with "because".
 Done --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 5 doesn't reference The judge did not think this was true, only that Behe said none of them were good enough.
 Done --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Seems good now. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[change source]

doesn't tell both sides of the trial. I do not think this is NPOV. Frogger48 (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to only be telling one side of the trial at all. It is describing what happened in the trial. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. There could still be more info added to it. Also, is this article accurate? Frogger48 (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kitzmiller,_et_al._v._Dover_Area_School_District,_et_al.&oldid=8775676"