Talk:Daniel v. Waters

Lenny Flank

Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America By Lenny Flank, Jr. ISBN 978-0-9791813-0-6 . Hardcover 6x9, 244pp. He is a published writer on the subject, and therefore the site is covered under WP:SELFPUB. Please do not remove his site as a source. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Will the IP who continues to delete the Flank reference care to discuss it here as he asked me to, or will he delete it again under a misleading edit summary? Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The site is fine. The IP user could easily have found the book and clearly doesn't understand our WP:NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Masterjack777's edits

I'm bringing this here after being emailed by the editor, discussion should be here. This is the bit I found most problematic "The proponents of the theory of evolution have since this ruling sought to have it interpreted as meaning that the Bible could not be taught in public schools. The Court actually went to the trouble of seeking to dispel this view when it stated (quoting from a prior decision): "While study of religions and of the Bible from a literary and historic viewpoint, presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, need not collide with the First Amendment's prohibition, the State may not adopt programs or practices in its public schools or colleges which "aid or oppose" any religion." The Bible can be taught in public schools, alongside the texts on evolution, as a science view contrary to the theory of evolution. To say otherwise would have violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. However, many have believed the evolutionist interpretation of the decision in Daniel v Waters. Further attempts, unnecessarily were then made to legislate equal time for creationism."

I think this new editor doesn't understand our original research policy (see WP:OR or our policy on sources, see WP:RS - as it says below this edit field, "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources". 'went to the trouble to dispel this view', 'to say otherwise', and indeed 'the Bible can be taught in public schools...as a science view' as well as 'further attempts, unnecessarily are not cited and look like original research. I won't quote the email as it was obviously private, but it furthered my impression that, as is understandable with a new user, the editor is not familiar with the policies I've mentioned. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel v. Waters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823063247/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm to http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)