Contents

Talk:Selman v. Cobb County School District

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Creationism: Intelligent design This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup[edit]

I appreciate the work everyone did on this article, but it is not very well written. There was a lot of POV in the article, and I attempted to clean some of it up. I hope others can help too. Orangemarlin 23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Whole Page is a absolute Joke!!! Does anyone here even know what the istablishment clause even says!? "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..." it Does NOT say anything about what schools may and may not put in their textbooks! Also, what made us jump to the conclusion that "Evolution is a theory not a fact" has anything to do with religion anyway! It doesn't even say anything about intelligent desiegn! According to the scientific method, evolution isn't even a theory! According to the scientific method if your theory has ANY enidence that contradicts it, than you have to go back and re-formulate tour hypothosis. --TheSoccerDude9119 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheSoccerDude9119: this talkpage is not a soapbox or a forum for your naive and ill-informed rantings on the Establishment clause and Evolutionary biology. I would also suggest you take a look at Teach the controversy and Critical Analysis of Evolution, to explain why this label is creationist. Oh, and could you please post new threads at the bottom of the page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how my understanding of the istablishment clause is "ill-informed"? If i'm so wrong, why didn't you refute any of my "Rantings"? --TheSoccerDude9119 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article on the subject: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Then take a look at the SCOTUS jurisprudence on the matter here. They will explain the complexities of the situation far better than I can, or should. This talkpage is for discussion of improvements to this article, not to rectify your deficiencies on the Establishment clause and Evolutionary biology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, SoccerDude9119, consider reading the Evolution FAQ. This reflects the consensus of editors at Talk:Evolution, and should answer many of your questions. --Hojimachong^talk 01:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...I see this as the background to that one item from Conservapedia's "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia". (As of now, it's #15) It appears that the CP edits were just removal of factual background information rather than improvements. Ten days earlier that same "Soccer Dude" user did a similar edit.

But what about the user's removal of "creationist" from the lead? I see no objection from any regular WP editor from the other user doing so; I guess that was a POV issue another editor raised earlier.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery Selman has written a biographical book about the trial. I've just finished writing that WP page and am about to make it live. I see that this page is missing almost any mention of Selman, which is odd considering his name is on the page. And he has done a lot of media interviews. I'm going to update this page over the next couple days and give more exposure to Selman. I'm not exactly sure how much I will give to Selman on this page, you are welcome to come in after me and do cleanup. I'm looking at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District page as a guide.Sgerbic (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]