Talk:D. James Kennedy/Archive 1

Archive 1

January 2006–August, 2007

That Quote

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)

Chart thing

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)

Degrees

Kennedy's bio on the Coral Ridge ministries only mentions four degrees:

• a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Tampa, a Master of Divinity from Columbia Theological Seminary (cum laude), a Master of Theology from Chicago Graduate School of Theology (summa cum laude), and a Ph.D. from New York University. [1]

Are the additional degrees verifiable? Are the honorary? -Will Beback 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, im not really sure. Not all of them show up in wikilinks, they might be abbreviated wrong, or they might be like preliminary degrees for the one's he's got, im not really sure how all that works. Homestarmy 13:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

All his doctorates other than the Ph.D. are honorary; in fact, the various doctorates listed aren't awarded as anything but honorary degrees in the United States. The only academic theological degrees I am aware of are the Th.D., Ph.D., and D.Min. Yahnatan 13:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well are honorary degrees not appropriate for articles? I do not see them very often on biographical articles.... Homestarmy 13:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we shoudl hunt down information on which are honorary and note that somewhere? Perhaps also instead of having the ridiculous train of degrees we could say "The Reverend Dr. James Kennedy" at the beginning and then have a section devoted to the types and honorary/earned status of the rest of his degrees later in the article? -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removing all except for the Ph.D. For reference, here is the complete list:

B.A., M.Div., M.Th., Ph.D., D.D., Litt.D., D.Sac.Theol., D.Sac.Litt., Doc.Hum.Let.

-Will Beback 07:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

His Ph.D. is not in comparative religions but is an interdisciplinary degree in religious education. According to the ProQuest record, his dissertation is a history of Evangelism Explosion. I added that information as well as I could. I'm new, though, so someone else will have to clean up the edit.Drke11ogg 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

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)

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)

Dominionism

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)

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)

Funny, you were making an infinite loop with your comment at Template talk:Dominionism ([2]). --LC 16:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 {{NPOV}} is totally unwarranted. Maybe you should read the neutral point of view policy. 72.198.121.115 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

theocracywatch assertion

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)

AUSCS

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)

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 {{NPOV}}, then the tag is unwarranted. =Axlq 16:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

NPOV tag

It seems from various discussions on wikipedia that this article is in dispute between two sets of editors. I have therefore reapplied the NPOV tag removed by an anon editor so that further discussion can take place. The sources added by various editors are a point of one area of descussion, while the balance of the article is a second point of debate and hence clearly a case of potential NPOV. For background see [3]. Rgds, - Trident13

There is no NPOV dispute. LC does not understand the principles of sourcing. Removal of one side constitutes an NPOV violation, not inclusion of all notable views. Hence, the tag is applied incorrectly. 72.198.121.115 12:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Application of an NPOV tag can be applied by any singular editor, and certainly in this case is valid as an editor feels that the article is POV and there is a high-traffic edit-skirmish between editors. I and wiki rules would disagree with you that addition of information and sources doesn't mean an NPOV tag can be applied; but I disagree with LC that the sources used in the above debate do not pass WP:RS - but clearly there is a debate on balance to be had. I have reapplied the NPOV tag to the article, and hope we can get this resolved - OK? Other wise, one of you might just as well escalate this now to a mediation cabale at WP:RFM if you don't think it can be resolved here on this talk page. Rgds, - Trident13

So the suggestion is that instead I "counterbalance" this inbalance with, for example, the following articles: "Dominionist" Fantasies and Dominionist Domination? I doubt it will make the article any better, and certainly not more encyclopedic. Why did user 72 not add these article then? --LC 13:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

These do not appear to deal with Kennedy, so I don't see how they are appropriate sources for this article. Can you show me where they talk about Kennedy? 72.198.121.115 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because neither of the links you have shown here mention Kennedy? This is an article about Kennedy - a source would need to mention Kennedy to pass WP:RS for inclusion in this article. OK? Rgds, - Trident13

The first reference explicitely talks about "Dominionism" in relation to Theocracy Watch. Theocracy Watch is one of the sources used as reference here. So it is the same Dominionism we are talking about. --LC 13:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's beside the point - that's a discussion for the dominionism article. We are here to report what people say, not THE TRUTH. A dispute about whether there is such a thing as dominionism doesn't belong here. 72.198.121.115 14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just for clarity - are you talking about the references added by 72.198.121.115 to the article, or those you cited above in this discussion you suggest you could add as potential references? Those added by 72.198.121.115 to the article cite Kennedy directly; where as those you have used in example would be suitable for an article on Dominionism, or those specific people mentioned within them. Rgds, - Trident13

User 72 added a reference to Theocracy Watch to this article. I have provided an example source that says that Theocracy Watch et al is perpetrating a conspiracy myth. You say I cannot use the example source because it does not mention D. James Kennedy. That seems to put an unfair burden on my part to find reliable sources that say D. James Kennedy is not a Dominionist. Why would a New York Times waste article space about refuting a conspiracy that is just made by a handful of people? Nobody in the academic community takes these people serious (I cannot find one refereed article about "Dominionism" in Google Scholar, Academic Search Premier or Proquest/UMI). Followers of Larouche cannot perpetrate their conspiracies throughout Wikipedia, but apparently we do allow the Theocracy Watch cabel to vent theirs. --LC 14:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand where you are coming from, but you really need to read WP:RS. In example, lets say you were writing an article on Ford cars. Lets say you had a reference that said all cars were unsafe, but didn't mention specific manufacturers - you could only use that reference in the article on cars, not on the article on Ford. Your cited references refer to Dominionism and it mentions some people it links them to - it could only be used in articles which refered to Dominionism or those people/companies/groups: but NOT Kennedy. As a bio article particularly, unless a reference links the person of the subject of the article to the proposition/fact stated in the article, then the reference can not be used -sorry, but those are the rules here, read WP:RS. You could write an article on Theocracy Watch and use those references there, but first check whether it would pass WP:notability. Rgds, --Trident13 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:RS states "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and also that "Claims of consensus must be sourced." Where are the New York Times sources? Where are the Los Angeles Times sources? Where are the Washington Post sources identifying Kennedy as a leader in the Dominionist movement? These are newspapers of record. They stand for something. If they do not, I am willing to see that being formalized within Wikipedia, for better or worse, via a RFM or any other formalizing procedure. --LC 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you are suggesting that D. James Kennedy is not a demoninist, or that he's not a leader of the Dominionism movement? I have just Googled Dominionism "james kennedy" and come up with 21,700 listings - kinda suggest that if one takes a neutral point of view, he should at least be linked to the Dominionism movement? If its that point of clarity (part of, not a leader) you are aiming at I can see your point of "only two valid references" and questioning sources; but if your suggesting he's not a Dominionist, its probably not a valid point/highly POV. Just as an FYI, when I just Google Dominionism, then there are 208,000 results - and the first ten pages don't include one result from a main stream newspaper, but that volume does suggest that Dominionism is something that should have a wikipedia article. Rgds, --Trident13 17:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no self-conscious Dominionist movement. Nobody is calling oneself a Dominionst. Only a handful of writers use the term, but these writers are also politically active and seem to be opposed to evangelicalism in general. I wouldn't have a problem with calling Kennedy a "leader of the Domionist movement" if there were at least some solid academic references. --LC 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, making some progress. So, you don't have an issue on the view that a body of people see a movement which they term "Dominionism" (much as though you may question their motives, and if/what is/is not Dominionism) but your issue is the portrayal of D. James Kennedy as a leader of something which is a perceived (by others) movement rather than an organisation - Yes? If that's your view (and the limited research I have done since this debate started), then I can understand your reasoning. If my reading of your position is correct, I still don't feel personally the references added by 72.198.121.115 could be excluded BUT if these references were included it would be wholly approriate to add words to the effect that Dominionism is a perceived movement and has no organisation, and hence how can D. James Kennedy be a leader - OK? Rgds, --Trident13 14:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that most dominionists don't self-identify as dominionists isn't surprising - the dominionism article says so, most of the sources say so. The sentence about dominionism links to the dominionism article. If someone knows what dominionism is, they probably know that most dominionists deny being dominionists/Christian reconstructionists/Christian nationalists. If they don't know what dominionism is, they can click on the link. If this article discussed dominionism, then LC's point would be appropriate - it might be worth adding, but probably not at this point.

The article states the bald fact that Kennedy is considered a leader of the dominionist movement. Adding a disclaimer without explaining what domininionism is would not be consistent with NPOV. 72.198.121.115 12:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The references would support D. James Kennedy being part of the dominionist movement, but not sure how you can be a "leader" of something which has no cohesion or structure? Here's the "problem" sentence - He is considered a conservative evangelical minister who is often involved in political activities within the Christian right and has been identified as a leader of the Dominionism movement. How about this changed version - "He is considered a conservative evangelical minister who is often involved in political activities within the Christian right, and has been identified by commentators and journalists as a leading member of the Dominionism movement" - Rgds, --Trident13 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thoughts on WP:RFM - if you take it to mediation, you will be expected to answer questions on your position on religeon/Dominionism/D. James Kennedy/Theocracy Watch/Larouche, etc; in fact anything the neutral mediator asks in good faith. You will need to be prepared to say if you are a believer/member/position on these issues - you may choose to answer these questions in private to the mediator alone, or be public. Resultantly, the mediator may choose to exclude you or not accept the mediation. From personal experience, its always better to sort out a dispute on a talk page than in mediation - the other parties may not accept mediation, and your back where you started, or you may get excluded. If you have tried on a talk page but failed, then its a valid last chance to solve a dispute and shows a track record of trying to reach consensus. Rgds, --Trident13 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the tag? Arbustoo 02:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not yet - I have dropped LC another message. Rgds, --Trident13 12:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the discussion at Talk:Dominionism isn't really moving forward, and I'm not sure it ever will. Anyways, if you want to remove the tag, go ahead. Maybe someone else will find the sources to rebuke that Dominionist claim; note that the current sources do not really explain why Kennedy is supposed to be a Dominionist leader... --LC 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, tag removed. Thanks everyone! Rgds, --Trident13 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Sorry, but interviews with people don't mean that the interviewer supports the interviewee's positions (see: CBS, ABC, NBC, et al). In fact, the text of the interview (here) does not bear that out (and Dembski makes it very clear that despite evolutionist's attempts to redefine it, ID is much different than Creationism). Neither does what an organization's website sells prove that the head of that organization agrees with the ideas those items promote (see: Amazon.com, eBay, et al). Additionally, the Coral Ridge website also sells many, many more Creationism books (gosh, why would someone overlook that?) that support the idea that the Earth is thousands of years old, which greatly disagrees with ID. Finally, what does the forward of the book cited actually say? Does Kennedy actually throw his full support behind ID in the forward, or does he say things like he said in the interview with Dembski? Jinxmchue 01:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be laboring under some misperceptions here. 1) Anybody well-read on Coral Ridge Ministries and Kennedy knows that both have long histories of supporting ID. 2) They would also know that intelligent design is presented as a "big tent" to support all forms creationism, even those that the Earth is only thousands of years old; indeed several leading ID proponents are "Young Earth Creationists" like Kennedy, so he's not unusual. 3) Supporting a movement and believing it are two very different things, the latter is not necessary for the former. It's widely acknowledged that Kennedy is closely allied with the leaders of the ID movement (Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Chapman) and is one of the more active supporters of ID (whether he's a believer or not is beside the point), hawking IDist's media on his site and providing them a soapbox are just two of the more obvious, easily verified examples. I have literally dozens of sources that support this (Googling "D. James Kennedy" + "intelligent design" yields 16,000 hits alone), I'll continue to add them all if you insist. FeloniousMonk 03:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1) That's original research. Provide some references that outright say he supports ID. 2) That's a fallacy created by evolutionists who don't want discussion of ID. Creationism and ID are very distinct and there is no way ID is "a 'big tent' to support all forms of [C]reationism." People who claim to be ID while supporting a young earth hypothesis are simply Creationists who don't understand ID. 3) More original research. Prove it with references that clearly state (i.e. are not simply interviews or "Googling" - here's a Google search that "proves" atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers is closely allied with ID: [4] - 129,000 hits trumps your 16,000) that Kennedy is "closely allied" with ID's leaders. Add all you want, but if what you add doesn't directly address Kennedy's beliefs regarding ID, are very poor sources, or have nothing to do with Kennedy, they will be removed. Jinxmchue 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since reading the sources already provided in the article appears to be beyond the limit of your ability in your rush to delete them, try reading there here:

• "ID proponents share the Religious Right’s dislike of secular education. They also share its theocratic vision for our country. Their most vocal supporters include powerful Religious Right leaders: James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye and D. James Kennedy." Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse by Barbara Forrest
• "ID critic Barbara Forrest has noted that virtually all of the leading organizations on the Christian Right have embraced or at least shown sympathy for ID, including James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, the Concerned Women for America, D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries..." The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney

There's no original research, as you can see. And I have dozens of more sources to add if you insist. Now please find a more constructive manner in which to contribute to the project; edit warring over properly sourced content will not yield the results you seek. FeloniousMonk 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please. If you are going to insult ("appears to be beyond the limit of your ability in your rush to delete them"), then maybe this isn't the place for you. I have read your sources. AU is incredibly biased source - it's virtually the same as using the KKK as a source - and they equate ID with Creationism, which is just plain false. They also provide nothing that backs up their claim. The same goes for the book excerpt, which also doesn't show which people "embrace" ID and which ones "show sympathy" for it, and it's a given that showing sympathy for an idea doesn't mean that someone believes in it. I'm sympathetic to ID over evolution, but I'm a Creationist (though I have no opinion on the age of the Earth).

Please read this about contentious material. Here. I'll even quote it for you: "All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged." Your material falls under "poorly sourced contentious material." AU has a well-known, incredible bias against conservatives and evangelical Christians. There's no way an organization just as biased the other way would be allowed as a source here. Furthermore, interviews with people are no proof that the interviewer shares the beliefs of the interviewee. You can actually read the interview in a link I previously provided and it's obvious that Kennedy doesn't support ID, though he's sympathetic to their cause (i.e. opposition to evolution). Kennedy's organization sells a few ID books, but it sells many, many more books about Creationism. Why does that fact escape you? Finally, as with the interview, talking about a subject doesn't necessarily mean the person supports it. Jinxmchue 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1) You seem to think that ID isn't a form of creationism. It is; a federal court ruled it is. Read Kitzmiller. 2) Both Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse by Barbara Forrest and The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney are perfectly acceptable sources by our policies, and are not contradicted by anything Kennedy has said. Kennedy himself has spoken in support of ID: Fearfully And Wonderfully Made, D. James Kennedy. The Coral Ridge Hour Can you provide a single source where he denounces it? Because I can provide dozens more where he does; the Truths That Transform archive is full of examples. Unless you can provide some notable sources of Kennedy rejecting ID, and considering that Forrest was accepted as an expert witness in Kitzmiller and one who's testimony was heavily cited by the judge as being compelling, there's no justification for discounting the source provided. That, and then there's the next half dozen that would be added. FeloniousMonk 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1) The Kitzmiller ruling is based on the book Of Pandas and People, which is hardly the end all and be all of what ID is. As noted in the interview you yourself cited, Behe makes it very clear that ID and Creationism are separate and distinct. They share the same goal - opposition to evolution - but the ideas are quite different. 2) Neither AU nor waronscience.com back up their claims. They just make bald assertions (and confusing ones at that). Is that reliable? Of course not. Kennedy is undoubtedly a six literal days, animals created as-is Creationist, which is very, very different from what IDers believe. The "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made" sermon supports Creationism, not ID. The "Feature" part is separate from the sermon. Indeed, your source doesn't even show exactly what is said in either part of that broadcast. Is that reliable? No. 3) It's not up to me to deny the claim. It's up to you to prove it and you have failed. Your sources are poor (i.e. they don't specifically spell out Kennedy's beliefs about ID) and rely solely on your personal interpretation of what they allegedly prove, and much of the material you added has nothing to do with Kennedy's beliefs. Jinxmchue 02:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume that you actually read the Kitzmiller ruling and missed the points that were brought up by both the plaintiffs and the defense, and that Judge Jones ruled on the totality of the arguments. It is based on a lot more than one book. Orangemarlin 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole case is centered around and based upon that book. Seriously, it looks like everyone involved in that case had absolutely no clue about the differences between ID and Creationism. Jinxmchue 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, how do you account for the fact that Kennedy wrote the foreward of Darwin to Design C. L. Cagan and Robert Hymers but somehow may not support ID as you insist? FeloniousMonk 03:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In hockey, that's a hat trick for FM. There's nothing else to discuss herein. Orangemarlin 04:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Today is Golf Day, let's say it's a hole in one.  :) •Jim62sch• 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply that he did the foreword doesn't prove anything about his beliefs about ID. What does Kennedy actually say in the foreword? Jinxmchue 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even read the foreward? Had you, you wouldn't be disrupting this article with baseless claims of vandalism. Proper sources have been provided here and in the article, I suggest you read them and learn to abide and not edit war. FeloniousMonk 00:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Have YOU read the foreword? Can you prove what it actually says, or are you relying on original research (which you would be if it's just your say so)? And I don't think reverting "hypothesis of evolution" was vandalism. Your sources most definitely are not proper and prove nothing as to the claims being made about Kennedy. Again, please review the Wiki guidelines regarding contentious material. Finally, I've backed up everything I've reverted with reasoned arguments. All you have are half-assed conjectures about what your sources supposedly prove. Jinxmchue 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your statement is highly provocative and probably borders on uncivil behavior. I believe you should review no personal attacks, biting editors, and assuming good faith on other editors. I believe a thorough review of these points can make you a better editor in this process. Orangemarlin 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That's a good one. Yep, just ignore all the personal attacks made against me here and elsewhere regarding this issue and focus on my description of a person's conjectures (not the person himself). Jinxmchue 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jin, look a little closer at the "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made" sermon by Kennedy there, if you'll look at the Truths that Transform description, [5] you'll find it says ""Stop the presses! Major scientific discovery! Intelligent Design is a groundbreaking theory that deals a devastating blow to evolution!" Sadly, most Americans will never hear that, as defenders of Darwinism won't tell you the truth. But you will hear the facts, on Truths That Transform with Dr. D. James Kennedy." It seems pretty clear to me that Kennedy meant to support intelligent design in his sermon here. Furthermore, there's a transcript you might notice on that page from another Truths that Transform episode where Kennedy interviews William Dembski, and at the end, Kennedy says "You have been listening today to Dr. William Dembski, who holds both a Ph.D. in mathematics and a Ph.D. in philosophy. He is a man that is one of the leaders of the new “intelligent design movement” that is showing that the world as we know it cannot be explained because of its complexity—specified complexity—without a designer. When there is a Designer that has designed the whole universe, you are talking about someone that we would, of course, recognize as God.". That certainly sounds like support for Intelligent Design to me. Intelligent Design is sort of nebulous anyway, why couldn't a young earth creationist support the main premise of Intelligent Design, namely, that the universe clearly demonstrates qualities consistant with the existance of a creator? The tendancy for many IDers to be old earth creationists or something really doesn't seem like a mandatory characteristic of the movement. Homestarmy 02:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I listened to the sermon again (I had first heard it on TV). Kennedy cites Behe's findings and statements, and a little more than halfway through, Kennedy points out that Behe never claims to be a Creationist. Gosh. Now, why would he point that out if he were a supporter of ID? See, what is obviously going on here is that Kennedy and IDers like Behe are using the same evidence, but are drawing different conclusions which aren't identical. Kennedy sees the evidence as backing up his Creationist beliefs (e.g. 6 literal days, animals and humans made "as is"). Kennedy may use the same evidence as Behe, but that does not make him an IDer by any stretch of the imagination. Jinxmchue 03:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design, at its core, is merely "the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."", (Or, from my point of view, the fact that "certain features.....") that sounds like the idea is reasonably compatible with Young Earth Creationism, its just that ID is so nebulous on anything beyond this, that an intelligent design person could be a young earth creationist, old earth creationist, or even any number of things, I think intelligent design books are even being used in Turkey for Islamic Creationism purposes. Kennedy doesn't have to be an intelligent design person first and foremost however to be an intelligent design advocate, its quite possible to advocate for something without actually being a major participant in something. Besides, how do you explain the description of the Fearfully and Wonderfully Made sermon on the Truths that Transform link that I gave, (Felonious's is different than mine) and the quote I got from the interview with William Dembski? Why is this even such an enormous deal anyway? Homestarmy 03:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points. It's funny we see the same thing from totally opposite POV's. LOL. Orangemarlin 03:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Jinxmchue 03:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You can dumb down almost anything to a generic description to make it sound like something else. (Hey, guess what - men are women! I can prove it!) That is what people who want to paint ID as Creationism do, but the devil is in the details, as they say. The description of the sermon and what Kennedy actually says in it are not the same. Did you listen to it? He's obviously not advocating ID, but is advocating the findings and some of the arguments of IDers like Behe. His conclusion is much, much different, though, and is not supportive of ID as Behe and the other ID leaders (and NOT the evolutionists) say it is. You can't have it both ways. Either ID is defined by Behe and those like him (which makes it very different than Creationism) or it's defined by evolutionists who want to paint ID as Creationism. Which is it? Jinxmchue 03:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would that description be wrong though? Truths that Transform may be the ministries most wide reaching media tool, you'd think somebody would of noticed a fraudulent description by now. That also still doesn't explain why Kennedy would say something like "He is a man that is one of the leaders of the new “intelligent design movement” that is showing that the world as we know it cannot be explained because of its complexity—specified complexity—without a designer." without at the very least advocating that the core premise of Intelligent Design is true, Behe and others like him may advocate non-Biblical things as part of their ID arguments, but none of those things really seem like an instrumental part of ID, unless i'm missing something.

Oh, and to Orange, now that I think about it, "the claim" seems a bit weaselly, perhaps I should start a little argument on the ID talk page, the WP:GA/R controversy I was involved in is getting old, and Talk:Creationism seems to be going nowhere.... :D Homestarmy 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said the description was wrong or "fraudulent." I said that the description isn't what Kennedy says in the sermon. It's like a TV show teaser. Anyway, have you bothered to listen to the sermon? Kennedy may cite the "core premise" of the design arguments of ID (i.e. that life is designed - but that goes back to the fallacy of boiling both positions down to a generic description), but he never claims to endorse ID itself. Don't you find it odd that Kennedy makes it a point to say that Behe isn't a Creationist if he endorsed ID? Jinxmchue 17:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If the description mis-attributes what Kennedy is trying to support in this sermon, i'd say that makes it pretty wrong. I have listened to the sermon, and once again, the Intelligent Design movement is highly ambiguous about anything beyond the idea that God exists because the universe has clearly been designed intelligently. Because Kennedy is trying to defend the idea that the universe and various aspects of reality show complexity consistant with the existance of a creator, that makes him an advocate of Intelligent Design, an advocate of Intelligent Design doesn't have to be an old earth creationist, young earth creationist, a creationist from another religion, or really anything else, as long as they are helping to publicly support the idea that the existance of the universe is "best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."", that makes them an advocate for Intelligent Design, irregardless of whatever they believe concerning the specifics on how the universe was created. This is why someone, like perhaps Behe, can be with the Intelligent Design movement without believing what the Bible says, the main premise of the movement is not confined to Christianity. Endorsement of most people's views in the Intelligent Design movement isn't necessary to advocate it. Homestarmy 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, ID is creationism, read the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. I mean really, if you aren't that up to speed on the topic, and you don't appear to be, you really shouldn't be causing so much disruption over it. FeloniousMonk 04:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the insults, Monk. That'll help your arguments. Anyway, if that's all you can cite to claim that ID is Creationism, you seem to be the one who's not up to speed on the topic. Creationism refers to the event in the biblical book of Genesis in which Jehovah created the universe, Earth and all life as-is in 6 days (literal or otherwise). ID does not cite or draw from the Bible at all. They are very, very different. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Jinxmchue 17:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? Ignorant or lying you say? The founder of the ID movement, Phillip Johnson says "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion"; "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact ... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed" and "Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves" and "The objective (of the Wedge Strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus." It's pretty obvious to me that you're not well read on ID. You obviously haven't even read Wikipedia's own ID articles; they're where these quotes came from. What does that say? And you accuse others of being ignorant or lying? Odd nature 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

New Section on ID=Creationism

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)

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)

Either ID is defined by Behe and those like him (which makes it very different than Creationism) or it's defined by evolutionists who want to paint ID as Creationism. Which is it? Neither. You can propose an idea, but if it's supposed to be a scientific hypothesis (or a theological hypothesis) then its implications are its implications. You don't own it. If you propose a model in which A = B and C = B, and someone points out that thus A = C, you can't say "no, it's my idea, I say that isn't true. ID is what it is...and what it is happens to be creationist. Guettarda 04:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

It indeed does, read [6] It's obvious that you really don't know the topic, so please stop ignoring sources. Odd nature 22:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

The section was getting too long. Back to Jinxmchue's comments. There are so many flavors of Creationism that ID is just another one. You assume all Creationism = Young earth creationism. A designer/creator/G_d/aliens controlling evolution or creating the world out of nothingness are the same thing--it's not science, and it is Creationism. Orangemarlin 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let's take a look at the references regarding his alleged belief in ID

1) http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special

• Americans United for the Separation of Church and State... Quite the far-left little organization there. Hey, can I use the Coral Ridge Ministries to add information to the Wiki articles on AU and Barry Lynn? I bet if I did, it would be reverted very, VERY quickly. Anyway, this is all the AU source has to say about Kennedy: "Their most vocal supporters include powerful Religious Right leaders: James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye and D. James Kennedy." No actual proof is given. Just a bald assertion. How reliable is that? (Answer: not at all.)

2) http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=4

• Here's what this source says: "ID critic Barbara Forrest has noted that virtually all of the leading organizations on the Christian Right have embraced or at least shown sympathy for ID, including James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, the Concerned Women for America, D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries, the American Family Association, and the Alliance Defense Fund (a Christian legal group)." More bald assertions and no indication whether Kennedy has "embraced" or "shown sympathy" for ID. Also, the woman this source cites is the same woman who is interviewed in the previous AU source.

3) The foreword for From Darwin to Design

• What does it actually say? That he wrote the foreword is no proof of anything other than he wrote the foreword. And what is the book actually about? Is it about design or Intelligent Design (there's a difference)?

4) Fearfully And Wonderfully Made

• You can listen to this sermon in a link earlier in this discussion. There's no indication whatsoever in the sermon that Kennedy is embracing ID and, in fact, he makes it a point to mention that Behe is not a Creationist.

5) "Coral Ridge Ministries promotes and sells a broad range of intelligent design books and DVDs"

• This reeks badly of original research. It also not only grossly misrepresents the amount of ID materials on the page (I count a grand total of two, and they are a DVD and VHS of the same program), but completely ignores the many other items that refer to Creationism.

This is the "proof" given to claim that Kennedy is an IDer. Pardon my French, but this is piss-poor proof and it's certainly not anything that would be accepted and fought for on any other Wiki page. Jinxmchue 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You can call them what you will, but as far as the rest of us are concerned and from a policy perspective they are reliable and notable sources that clearly supports the content. Odd nature 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's just you calling them what you will. These sources don't fit the burden of proof for claiming Kennedy is an IDer. Just because a notable person says something doesn't always make it true, correct? They can be wrong or lying, correct? What's this woman's proof beyond her proofless say-so? Jinxmchue 03:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There's one solid reference: Forrest. She's one of the leading scholars on the ID movement. The source of this (Americans United...) is only relevant if you have some reason to believe that they would misrepresent Forrest. So...what evidence do you have that the source misrepresents Forrest? Guettarda 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Francis Crick was a leading scientist in regards to DNA, but he believed in panspermia with no proof to back it up. Should I go amend Wiki articles to portray panspermia as a fact just because of what Crick believed? Just because a "leading scholar" says something doesn't make it true. That's called the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Jinxmchue 03:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We work off of sources. I'm sorry to inform you of this, but the weight of the leading academic expert on a subject trumps your opinion. Every time. Forrest is the leading authority on the ID movement. It's called relying on a source. That's what Wikipedia is about. Reliable sources. On one hand, we have the leading scholar on the ID movement. On the other hand, we have you. If you are an expert on the matter, please find an appropriate academic journal in which to publish your scholarly study. Then we will balance Forrest's expert opinion with yours.

As for Francis Crick was a co-discoverer of DNA, not the person who was most knowledgeable about DNA. He definitely was not the leading authority on the origin of life. To say that we can't trust Forrest because Crick had a strange opinion on the origin of life is stunningly inane. (I take it you have a source for this assertion? Please do share.) This isn't even OR, it's just tendentious nonsense. Please stop wasting people's time. Guettarda 13:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you want it that way, then Behe's an even bigger authority on ID than Forrest, and he's never claimed that ID is Creationism. His opinion carries more weight than Forrest's and trumps her baseless accusations that these people are IDers. Good enough for you? Jinxmchue 15:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you could consider Behe a "bigger" authority on the ID movement...to the best of my knowledge he has published no studies on the history of the movement. And while no, one authority does not "trump" another, I would definitely be interested in what Behe has to say on the matter at hand: what the relationship is between Kennedy and the ID movement. My apologies if I missed it, but I can't find your reference to Behe's having spoken or written about Kennedy's relationship to ID. So please, can you point us to your source? Thanks. Guettarda 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Jinx, enough with the back and forth here: either provide a source or zip it. I don't care about Crick or any other nonsense unrelated to your assertion. Just provide a source (and, no, it would not be proving a negative, so drop that argument) •Jim62sch• 17:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Odd nature 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Provide a source to prove Kennedy is not an IDer? Is that what you are asking me to do? Jinxmchue 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask it again by itself: does Forrest's say-so that Kennedy is an IDer make it true? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Any attempts to weasel out of directly answering will be taken as a "no." Jinxmchue 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First, as a master-weaseler, you should be making no accusation of weaseling.

In any case, it is a part of the proof. But there's more: note that on this site intelligent design is promoted on 100 articles all linked through Coral Ridge Ministries. All touted by, all supported by, all given the blessings of one D. James Kennedy. How much more would you like? Oh wait, you're going to ask "how do you know it has his blessing"? Well, it's his bloody site, and barring a coup d'État or, more appropriately a coup de grâce, I think it's pretty safe to say he gave his blessing. •Jim62sch• 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice personal attack, there. Hope you enjoyed the warning.

So if "it is a part of the proof," where's the rest? What I note on your original research is that you failed to use quotes. Searching with quotes around "intelligent design" shows that only 22 articles come up. Of course, a search reveals NOTHING about the actual content, so your whole asinine "given the blessings of one D. James Kennedy" bit is, oh, just SLIGHTLY dishonest.

In any case, I'll take your answer to mean "no." Thank you. Jinxmchue 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the warning was humourous. Dude, the search was within Coral Ridge's own site. You can take the answer in whatever way floats your boat. •Jim62sch• 22:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[D]oes Forrest's say-so that Kennedy is an IDer make it true? While Forrest is the most reliable source we have on the matter, "Truth" isn't the issue, it's Verifiability (please do read our core policies). And when the issue is "Forrest says X but Wikipedia User:Jinxmchue says Y", I think our policy is very clear - if you want your opinion reflected in the article, get it published somewhere. Guettarda 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Who says she's the most reliable source? You? AU? I didn't realize that far-left sources are considered reliable on Wiki. I guess that means that I can use Coral Ridge's website to add negative information to the AU and Barry Lynn articles and it would stay, right? Yeah, right! Jinxmchue 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Who says she's the most reliable source? As the academic who has published most widely on the topic she is one of the top sources, if not the top source on the matter. If there's an academic at Coral Ridge who has published extensively on Lynn, then by all means you should consider using him/her as a source in the Barry Lynn and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State article. Who do you have in mind? What has he or she published? Where was this material published? Thanks. Guettarda 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So if Kitzmiller had gone the other way, do you think you'd be using her as a reliable source? I seriously doubt it. Jinxmchue 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, where does that come from, and how does that relate to my question concerning your reliable academic sources based at Coral Ridge? She's a reliable source based on her academic research into the matter...which is why Jones accepted her as an expert witness. How that possibly relates to the verdict in Kitzmiller, I can't imagine. Weird. Guettarda 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The judge in the Dover trial, for one. Jeez, read the transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover next time. It's clear to me, and probably everyone else here too, that you have zero background knowledge on ID, so it's best if you stop disrupting this article over your misconceptions.

So Kitzmiller was about proving that D. James Kennedy is an IDer. Is that right? Jinxmchue 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing Forrest as a reliable source. Jones recognised her as an expert witness in hte Kitzmiller trial based on her study of the ID movement. Which is what this discussion is all about - your demand for "proof" that Forrest is a reliable source on the matter. Guettarda 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

lol!

My edits are biased? Hey, guys - remove the planks from your own eyes, alright? Jinxmchue 20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Fine. Own the article all you want.

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)

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)