Talk:D. James Kennedy

Wikipedia bias

Wikipedia's general anti-Christian bias is really really showing in this talk discussion. It is amazing how extremely biased certain of the discussion participants are. That someone who writes something called "Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse" is in and off itself proof that the person is completely totally and utterly biased and completely unreliable source for anything about the creation vs evolution vs ID issue. If Forrest identifies ID and Creationism then that says more about Forrest then it does about ID. The very fact that one of the most prominent Creationist organisations differentiates it self from the ID movement proves that they are not the same: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement. Of course Forrest's et al's attack on ID and Creationism is motivated by their religious bias, which is certainly a two-way street, despite some people's insistence that only Creationists can ever be biased. If such people can be used as sources on Wikipedia then the problem is Wikipedia's standards for sources. Kristian Joensen 19:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That article doesn't prove they aren't the same; in fact, that article goes out of its way to say that ID is a flawed version of creationism because it doesn't mention God, and instead it's dressed up in scientific terms. The article explicitly states that ID is a good way to introduce people to creationism.

I don't see anybody claiming that ID and creationism are exactly equal, but they do have a large intersection, which makes it easy to equate them. It's a fact that many creationists embrace ID. While creationists certainly aren't all ID-ers, available evidence suggests that most ID-ers are creationists.

But that's neither here nor there with respect to Kennedy. The arguments above aren't so much about whether ID equates to creationism as whether Kennedy can be described as an adherant to ID. Wikipedia has pretty straightforward standards for sources: they must be verifiable and reliable. =Axlq 14:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Kennedy "self-identified" as a Creationist, not an IDer

As per the arguments made in regards to Midge Potts and Senator Craig (and many others), Wikipedia's policy on "self-identity" is of prime importance and any sort of "deductive reasoning" regarding the alleged "evidence" that he supports ID is baseless. Jinxmchue 00:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There's distinction without a difference. Odd nature 00:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The distinction is that Dr. Kennedy was not GLBT, which is the only group of people to which "self-identity" becomes a factor in what they are described as on Wikipedia. Christians "self-identifying" as Creationists? Whites "self-identifying" as blacks? Mentally unbalanced people "self-identifying" as Jesus Christ? Forget it! Absolutely ZERO Wikipedia articles would be changed to reflect those peoples' "self-identities" and if someone did try to change articles in that manner, they'd be deemed "vandals," warned and most likely blocked. Jinxmchue 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please link to this Wikipedia:Self-Identification policy, i've never seen it before. Homestarmy 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's at WP:MOS, specifically at WP:ID. I actually over-stated what it is. It's not actually a policy, but a non-binding guideline. Of course, the way people are treating it over on the Midge Potts article, you'd think it was a binding policy. Jinxmchue 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose reminding you that WP:MOS is not policy, but a guideline will make any difference to you. But it does not trump policy like WP:V and WP:NPOV. As long as a WP:RS source establishes that Kennedy is viewed by significant quarters as a ID proponent then mentioning this alongside his self-identification is supported by WP:NPOV. Odd nature 00:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating that certain people - if notable - claim he was a supporter of ID is fine, but making it seem like he outright claimed to support ID (as has been done in this article) is dishonesty of the grossest form. Jinxmchue 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

<RI>Creationism=ID and vice versa. Not sure what you're trying to say? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not. Jinxmchue 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of perspective. They are the same. Odd nature seems to agree. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure is. The perspective I hold takes everything into account and sees the major differences between Creationism and ID. Your perspective doesn't. For example, I see that ID does not follow the biblical account of Creation (i.e. the universe and all life created "as-is" in 6 literal days). That's quite enough to strongly distinguish it from Creationism. Jinxmchue 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly, silly Orangemarlin, I see you've continued believing everything the so-called "reliable sources" have been telling you about Creationism and ID. But anyway, it really doesn't matter here whether Creationism=ID or not, (Even just typing that equality statement as an example makes me laugh at the absurdity of it, hah! :D ) The guy is on record as supporting the fundamental principles that ID is composed of, and his statements align almost exactly with the definition in the Intelligent Design article, (Minus the negative stuff, of course) right down to going into a Teleological argument. How can his statements in the Truths that Transform episodes mentioned previously possibly be interpreted as not supporting ID? Homestarmy 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That a "reliable source" is about someone's claim about someone or other does not necessarily make it absolutely true. As I have already said, you can state in the article that some people claim that Kennedy was a supporter of ID, but there is absolutely zero direct evidence that Kennedy actually supported it. Talking about the controversy regarding questioning evolution or selling a couple of books about the controversy does not support make. Neither do the claims of people with a vested interest in being biased against Dr. Kennedy. Jinxmchue 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Are people just not interested in this anymore or are my responses sound? If discussion about this is over, I will make the appropriate changes to the article. Jinxmchue 23:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then. I've gone ahead and altered the section. It retains material on ID, but makes it clarifies that it's not obvious that he outright stated support for ID. Jinxmchue 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Even though the subject is recently deceased, his estate can still sue for libel, so until his estate is settled, WP:BLP still applies. I added the template back to the page, just as a reminder. Also, no, ID and Creationism are not the same thing. - Crockspot 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Something tells me these people are more concerned with insulting Midge Potts regarding the pronoun usage in his article than they are with insulting Dr. Kennedy (when he was alive) and his family regarding the claim of his supporting ID. Jinxmchue 23:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How would we know if the estate has been settled? Homestarmy 11:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding Barbara Forrest's statement about Kennedy

This reference raises a question about sources: if anyone who some consider notable and an expert on an issue claims something about someone else, is that absolute proof that the claim is absolutely true? Another example comes to mind: Republicans-in-name-only (RINOs). If someone like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter - both of whom obviously are notable and are considered by many to be experts on politics (save your jokes and asinine comments, please) - calls a liberal Republican senator a RINO, is that absolute proof that the senator actually is a Democrat? Jinxmchue 02:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Forrest was not only accepted in a federal court as an expert witness on the topic of ID, her testimony for the plaitiffs in the Dover trial was cited liberally by the judge in his ruling in their favor. Her insight on ID is widely regarded as reliable and accurate within academic and legal circles and oft cited. Other sources supporting her view of Kennedy will be added if you think this source is insufficient. FeloniousMonk 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean her statements are true and factual. It only proves that she made them. In the absence of direct evidence from Kennedy himself, it should be stated in the article that Forrest claimed Kennedy was a supporter of ID. Jinxmchue 17:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the Coral Ridge ref supposedly about ID

This sermon (I could only get that page to work in IE) is given in the article as a reference that Kennedy supported ID, however in reviewing the video, I have to disagree with that. He talked about design and pointed to the findings of scientists, but definitely not in the same manner as IDers like Behe do. He mentioned Behe, but clearly made it a point to point out that Behe isn't a Creationist. If Kennedy supported ID as promoted by Behe, why would he make that distinction? Kennedy may have seen design in life and was interested in and supported the scientific findings of people like Behe, but that does not mean he supported ID. Kennedy's Creationist beliefs were quite different from what ID presents. They are two different conclusions based upon the same evidence. Jinxmchue 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Coral Ridge Ministries promotes and sells intelligent design books and DVDs"

I see exactly ONE and ONLY ONE video - ""Unlocking the Mystery of Life" (available in VHS or DVD) - that is actually about Intelligent Design and there are ABSOLUTELY ZERO books about ID in the reference provided. This does not justify the use of "books and DVDs." My edit is completely appropriate until someone can prove that anything else on that page is about ID. Jinxmchue 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Title is POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's taken directly from the references which you are reverting back. So apparently you think it's okay for the reference to be POV. Jinxmchue 18:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it woyuld seem that our beloved POV warrior be wrong. [1]. I see 2 DVD's and a CD, and I'm sure that if I wade through the 200 page of crap sold there I can find more. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It was obvious. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV opinion. (Gosh, you're guilty of POV. Imagine that...) Wikipedia doesn't work on what's "obvious." It works on verifiable, reliable sources. You aren't a verifiable or reliable source. What you still lack is direct proof that Kennedy supported ID and you know it, which is likely why you (and others) are so wont to avoid discussing the issue. Jinxmchue 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's someone else stating something is "obvious" (or "clear[ly]") getting smacked down recently in another article. Jinxmchue 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd think any ID specific books would be really easy to find if they were there, and wouldn't require trawling through 200 pages of material.... Homestarmy 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Behe, Johnson, Wells and Dembski.[2],[3],[4],[5] – ornis⚙ 21:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... Kennedy... Kennedy... Kennedy... Nope, his name's not there. You've got interviews with IDers, but interviews don't automatically equate to the interviewer supporting the ideas of the interviewee, and you've got books of related interest because they oppose evolution. What you lack is any example that Kennedy himself outright stated support of ID. Your evidence of his support for ID is circumstantial at best and, if presented in a court of law, would be laughed at by the presiding judge. It's obvious (hey, if you guys use that, so can I) that Kennedy supported the research and findings of IDers and their opposition to evolution, but he came to quite a different conclusion. Jinxmchue 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What you lack is any example that Kennedy himself outright stated support of ID. We have a quote from the leading authority on the ID movement...oh, wait, we had this discussion before. And it was resolved. We came to the conclusion that your personal incredulity does not trump Wikipedia policy. Remember? Or maybe you remember the conversation we had a couple days ago where I reminded you of that fact. No? Guettarda 23:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept what Forrest said about him being included in the article as long as it's clearly represented as someone else's opinion of Kennedy, not as an absolute fact based on something Kennedy himself stated. It's got nothing to do with my "personal incredulity," which, by the way, YOU resolved on your own. I never was a part of resolving anything because of you and your little clique (to borrow someone else's word) of Wiki editors. Jinxmchue 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not the link that was given for a reference was it? I guess you people are a little lazy with your links. And "POV warrior" violates NPA (and no, you can't hide behind SPADE). I'll thank you to retract it. You and others are just as guilty of being "POV warriors" as you accuse me of being. Jinxmchue 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and wow. Four whole items out of hundreds and maybe even thousands of items. Weak. Jinxmchue 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the wikipedia entry on Intelligent_design? That Kennedy was a proponent of Intelligent Design is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. It's propagation BY HIM is ESTABLISHED by his lending his presence to, and his distributing of, the books and videos in support of it. Not to record that fact about him is an attempt to censor history. It is grammatically correct to say he sold books and DVD's about it, even if there were only a few books about creationism and one only DVD. 70.231.16.80 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"COMMON KNOWLEDGE" is not a reliable source, but since you're apparently new to Wikipedia, I'm sure you wouldn't know that. Have you read WP:RS or any other Wikipedia policies and guidelines on editing? As to what you think establishes his support of ID, it doesn't. Lacking any direct statement from Kennedy, the evidence presented is circumstantial at best, and there's plenty of evidence that while he did support the research and findings of IDers, he came to a much different conclusion about those things (i.e. Creationism). The article can certainly record the facts that he interviewed IDers and that his organization's website sells books and videos about ID, but it can only record those facts as they are. In absence of Kennedy himself stating "I support Intelligent Design," drawing conclusions based upon the evidence given is wrong. For example, see Sen. Larry Craig's article. Based on the evidence given about his behavior, he probably is gay or bisexual, but the article does not and cannot state with absolute certainty that he is gay or bisexual. It can state the facts of his behavior, but it can't draw conclusions from those facts. Jinxmchue 03:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If he PROPAGATED it, he was a PROPONENT of it. Those are two ways of saying the same thing. And since it is undisputed that Kennedy PROPAGATED it, it is a correct usage of the english language, to say he was a PROPONENT of it. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that only direct quotations of specifically used words, can be used. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.143.117 (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's very much disputed whether or not he propagated ID. He propagated their research and findings, but not their conclusions. He took the evidence used it to back up his belief in a literal 6-day Creation as recorded in the Bible. He focused on the Bible. IDers focus on the evidence. Jinxmchue 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We need a "trial" system within wikipedia. And once an editor is found, in a precedent-setting analysis, to have "lied" at any time, or to have evidenced "logical-thought error" at any time, he needs to be permanently barred from Wikipedia. What dramatic improvement in quality articles, we would see, if that practice were adopted. 69.215.151.79 13:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that, eventually, every editor on Wikipedia would be banned with a such a policy, eventually, you're bound to say something illogical on Wikipedia. (Perhaps by accident) Homestarmy 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a sad day, if the consensus is that everyone who edits wikipedia is a liar and can't think straight, and that to eliminate them would mean there would be no editors left. I'm not talking about thinking at the level of genius, just thinking at the level of: "If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C". Even the mentally retarded can handle that level of thought. There's no excusing editors like Jinxmchue, who lie and don't follow basic logic. Deliberately dishonest editors don't belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should eliminate them after giving them a fair trial using a "common-law" jury system. 64.109.203.246 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We have our blocking policy and banning policy for dealing with disruption. In general, wiki-lawyering is considered a bad thing. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC filed

Seems like a content dispute based on refs. Just find the refs and silence this debate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please find refs where Kennedy outright stated "I support Intelligent Design" or something similar. You won't though, because he didn't. He interviewed IDers, but interviews don't automatically equate to support of IDers ideas. He supported their research and findings, but he used it to draw a different conclusion. That much is obvious from his interviews and sermons. (And I don't actually have to back that up. Saying "it's obvious" is proof enough. Just ask OrangeMarlin.) Jinxmchue 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. There's no valid basis for this content RFC, but it is suitable as evidence for a user conduct RFC on it's filer: It's another bogus misuse of process from someone with an established history (see: User_talk:Odd_nature#A_notice) of misusing process to silence and drive away opponents in order to gain an advantage in content disputes. More grist for the mill. Odd nature 23:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• RfC's are ALWAYS a valid way to attempt to settle a content dispute. Please start assuming a little good faith on Jinx's part. I am somewhat ignorant on the details of ID, but I do know it is not the same thing as Creationism. As I am ignorant, I am seeing a lot of ignorance (and hostility) displayed in this dispute. Everyone should stop with the personalizations, and focus on the content. From my limited perspective, I would say that calling the subject a proponent of ID in wikipedia's voice, basing that upon basically primary sources, is a synthesis to promote a position, in other words, original research, and not very correct original research to boot. - Crockspot 19:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the irony! Jinxmchue 01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Double sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Loquacious as usual, I see. Are you ever going to actually add substantial material to the discussion, or just continue to rely on being able to subvert 3RR by having one or more other people on your side? Jinxmchue 01:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

After using his own testimony from the Truth's that Transform episodes clearly indicating his support for the main ideas behind Intelligent Design, I really don't understand how a more clear reference could possibly be found, even if it was Kennedy explicitly saying he supported Intelligent Design. After all, someone could make such a statement but actually espouse views compleatly incompatible with ID, so such a statement itself wouldn't be much better on its own than the TTT interviews I think. Homestarmy 01:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there are people who believe that extraterrestrials seeded our planet with life. They support the "main ideas" behind ID (e.g. design), too, but there's simply no possible, logical way you could say that they share the views of Kennedy. Jinxmchue 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That claim is a rhetorical tactic used by ID proponents to hide their motive and side step the First Amendment. No ID proponents actually believe in panspermia. They all are on the record that the designer is God. They use ID as a stalking horse for garden variety creationism, as the ID article describes. Odd nature 21:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Equating ID with Creationism (and calling it things like "intelligent design creationism") is a rhetorical tactic to falsely portray ID as a religious belief or a "trojan horse." Many, many people who subscribe to ID are not religious and don't ascribe any specific identity to the "intelligence" they theorize designed the first lifeform. Additionally, ID does not dismiss things like evolution of life from simple to complex or the earth being billions of years old. Finally, to claim that "no ID proponents actually believe in panspermia" is a false presumption (akin to saying "there are no atheists in foxholes") that lacks proof. Jinxmchue 18:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this semantics or is there a real question here? Dr. Kennedy believed in the Biblical 6-day creation account, which, I suppose, is a subset of intelligent design. Is the dispute over whether to call him a Biblical Creationist or an IDer? If so, I think the former is more specific, but both would be true. --B 21:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't put the cart before the horse. Creationism came before ID. Of course, neither is a "subset" of the other. They are quite different. If anything, ID is a "subset" of the theory of evolution. Jinxmchue 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's the question, he definitely did not believe in evolution. --B 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies the main problem. People with POV agendas are trying to equate ID with Creationism. In the most generic way, they are the same. Both have a being of immense intelligence who designed life. But a generic portrayal of both to make them the same is grossly dishonest. In fact, the generic portrayal is where the similarities end. ID doesn't claim to know who or what the designer is. Creationism does. ID doesn't say how powerful the designer is. Creationism does. ID doesn't discount things like the 4.5 billion year calculation for the Earth's age or simple lifeforms evolving into more complex ones. Creationism does. ID is not based upon the Bible. Creationism is. And on and on and on.

The second part of the problem is unequivocally calling Kennedy a supporter of ID based on the flimsiest of evidences. There is no direct statement from Kennedy himself that he supported ID. We have references about his interviews with IDers, but interviewing someone doesn't automatically mean sharing their ideas. We have references about his sermons, but actually watching his sermons doesn't bear out the claim that he supported ID. We have references about what the Coral Ridge website sells, but again, this is not proof that Kennedy himself believed in ID (and there are many, many times more materials on Creationism sold). Finally, we have references about what someone else said about Kennedy. In this case, the information should be included in the article in the form of "so-n-so claimed in an interview with such-n-such that Kennedy was a leading proponent of ID." It's not, however. Jinxmchue 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding (which is probably wrong) is that ID = {anything but atheistic evolution}, as opposed to being a single coherent theory. In other words, if person A believes that space aliens planted the first DNA kickstarting evolution, person B believes in the Biblical 6-day creation, and person C believes in theistic evolution, all three would believe in intelligent design. My understanding may be completely and totally wrong ... but I would bet it is more likely than not that if Dr. Kennedy or his ministry uses that term, that they are using it to mean what I described. Their actual view ... the subset of ID that they really believe ... is B. I could be wrong. --B 08:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize the theory of evolution had anything to do with theism or atheism (i.e. religion). If true, then isn't teaching evolution of either sort a violation of the First Amendment? If not, why not? Jinxmchue 17:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific theories have nothing to do with religion or atheism. "B" said many times "I could be wrong" and he is. On the other hand, ID has much to do with religion, because it resorts to supernatural explanations. I do agree that Kennedy shouldn't be classified as an ID supporter. I always thought he was more of a young-earth creationist who, like many other creationists, embrace ID as a means to wedge the teaching of creationism into science classes. =Axlq 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I would contend, however, that "supernatural" does not equate to "religion." Religion is about systems of beliefs and faith. Stating that life appears designed or that an intelligence could have purposefully created life here is not a religion. It's a matter of, "This is what I see when I look at the evidence." Additionally, scientists who theorize about other dimensions that we cannot see or interact with are, by definition, dealing with the supernatural. Thus, supernatural things can be and are a welcome, non-controversial part of science. Jinxmchue 05:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, you need to read Intelligent Design. You haven't been citing sources, you are merely being disruptive. There is no cult that I know of that asserts that ID is a subset of evolution. Evolution means random processes resulted in the creation of first life, whereas ID means the exact opposite, that non-random process resulted in the creation of first life, i.e. "intelligence" was behind it. Kennedy ESTABLISHED himself as a proponent of ID, by promoting only people, and DVD's, that supported it, and by giving many sermons in support of it, and that opposed the theory of evolution. One need not state "I believe in intelligent design" to be cited as a proponent of it, one needs only to be on record as in support of it's tenets, which it is everywhere consistently publicly evidenced that he was - in fact, that was one his biggest issues - to PROMOTE the theory with his sermons, books, and videos which he produced and lent his appearance to. Not to record that fact about him would be an attempt to censor history. Deduction is everywhere permitted in Wikipedia. With such bias as you evidence, you are not competent to edit this article. 70.231.16.80 02:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. You claim I need to read the article about ID, but then you go and get the definition of evolution completely wrong. As I've read countless times, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life (which makes be wonder why evolutionists are so dead-set against someone suggesting an intelligence created life). In the simplest terms, evolution is about change over time. The article about evolution even states that evolution can be studied and understood without even getting into the issue about the creation of life. And as I've also read countless times, evolution - as it is theorized - isn't a "random process." In regards to Kennedy, his interviews with IDers clearly establish that he was a proponent of their research and findings, but only to the extent that, to him, those things supported the literal biblical account of Creation. Have you listened to his interviews or watched his sermons? A lot of them are available online. If you can, please point out to me exactly where he clearly stated support for ID - and I mean EXACTLY; i.e. providing an exact quote. As to "deduction," I will again point to the article about Senator Larry Craig. By your reasoning, he doesn't need to say "I am gay/bisexual" for the article to state unequivocally that he is gay or bisexual. But your reasoning is faulty and the article cannot state any such thing if there is no direct statement from Craig himself that he is gay or bisexual (and he has stated that he is not). Contrary to your assertion, deduction isn't allowed on Wikipedia. (Deduction is subjective and Wikipedia could get in a lot of legal trouble if it were allowed.) Unequivocally stating that Kennedy supported ID is rewriting history, just as stating Craig is gay would. You can cite what materials his website sold, but you cannot use that as proof he absolutely supported ID. You can cite what interviews he did, but you cannot use that as proof he absolutely supported ID. You can cite what other people thought of him, but you cannot use that as proof he absolutely supported ID. Jinxmchue 04:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't agreed with one thing that Jinx McHue has ever written (maybe once he said the sky was blue, but I doubt it). However he is right. Evolution says nothing about the creation of life. That's Abiogenesis. And randomness is one of several processes that drive evolution. the rest of McHues' comments. SSDD. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If Kennedy PROPAGATED ID (Intelligent Design), he was a PROPONENT of ID. Those are two ways of saying the same thing. And since it is undisputed that Kennedy PROGAGATED ID, it is a correct usage of the english language, to say he was PROPONENT of it. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that only direct quotations of specifically used words, can be used. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.143.117 (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"the Institute's Fellows are frequent Coral Ridge Ministries guest speakers"

This statement from the article needs an RS to back it up. (Or is it just "obvious" as well?) Jinxmchue 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it seems that those who are so quick to revert are wont to avoid discussion

Are they hoping that their refusal to participate in any meaningful way (i.e. something more substantial than "It was obvious" or "Double sigh") will ultimately result in their being able to claim there is "no consensus?" If so, that's a rather underhanded gaming of Wikipedia rules. If you refuse to discuss, then you should have no right to claim there was or was not a consensus. Jinxmchue 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert filed

Here. Jinxmchue 18:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Guettarda 18:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, isn't it? At least I'm actually trying to remedy the situation. You guys complain about me not being helpful in resolving conflicts. Well? Why not look at yourselves for once? Jinxmchue 12:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of cute personally. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If people can blow off these things so casually, what's the point of the Wikiquette alert page? Homestarmy 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert for a content dispute? Failure to reply to specious arguments isn't a violation of Wikiquette? That's utterly silly. Guettarda 02:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I did an RfC for content dispute. This is about the failure of shoot-from-the-hip reverters (yeah, I made that word up - sue me) to participate in discussion about the content dispute. Jinxmchue 12:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Still don't have anything worthwhile to add? Jinxmchue 12:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Hi there. I saw the post on WP:WQA, so I looked over the discussion. To be honest, I'm not seeing hugely blatant personal attacks -- just a long content dispute with a few uncivil comments (ie "POV Warrior"). While that might be a case of SPADE, extra civility hasn't killed anyone. (Although long exchanges of pleasantries could in theory be painful). I also don't think this is a cabal. To me, it looks more like a consensus. If Jinxmchue thinks he has valid points that haven't been heard, than the RfC is the right direction. However, if that fails to attract users who support his point, I think he should consider dropping the matter (as he'd probably be going against the established consensus). --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The "established consensus" of 4 or 5 people who defend each other's edits to get around the 3RR. Jinxmchue 11:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Compare the treatment of Dominionism in the article to Intelligent Design

Dominionism:

He was considered a conservative evangelical minister who was often involved in political activities within the Christian right and has been identified as a leader of the Dominionism movement.

...

Kennedy has also hosted Christian Reconstructionists Rousas John Rushdoony and Gary North on his program. However, he denounced any attempts to link him to Reconstructionist movement as a McCarthyist technique of guilt by association, and that he does not approve of their theology. Dominionism represents the political theory which springs from Christian Reconstructionism. Frederick Clarkson argues that despite his denial, Kennedy meets the criteria for being a dominionist.

Intelligent Design:

Kennedy was a Young Earth Creationist and supporter of intelligent design...

See the difference? Dominionism: "...has been identified as a leader...", "...Clarkson argues... Kennedy meets the criteria...". ID: "Kennedy was a... supporter of intelligent design..."

Let me spell it out: lacking any direct statement or evidence from Kennedy of support for Dominionism (and having an outright denial of supporting Reconstructionists), the article uses language that makes it clear that it's other people who are saying he supported it. However, the article treats the issue of his support for ID as if it were a fact backed by a direct statement and/or non-circumstantial evidence, which is simply not true. Jinxmchue 03:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

add burial details to article

I'd like to add the following non-controversial edit to the Article's section Retirement and death Kennedy is buried at Lauderdale Memorial Park Cemetery in Ft. Lauderdale

Thx, JGHowes ^talk - 04:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! NCurse _work 15:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

This article has now been protected for almost a full month, and no progress seems to be taking place to resolve the question of how the article should address Kennedy's position on "Intelligent Design". That being the case, I'd like to propose a formal WP:RFM, JGHowes ^talk - 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's what it will take to end full protection, then that's what we ought to do, though quite frankly, having to do it on account of one user seems rather overboard. Homestarmy 02:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard that Jinxmchue has sworn off of the internet, so I wouldn't expect him to be involved here. - Crockspot 02:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

article now unprotected JGHowes ^talk - 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually....

The link given for the accredidation thing doesn't really support the statement, because all it does is link to the home page of the website, which of course doesn't mention every single unaccredited school on it. Perhaps a more direct link could be provided? Homestarmy 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The section was lifted in it's entirety from this site: http://www.coralridge.org/about_djk.htm . We need a better source and a rewrite. I did the whole school check thing but I believe the school is misnamed on his website. Once we find the actual name of the school, we can check with more authority. That site links all accredited institutions, so it is a valid source, if we have the name right.

P.S. His homepage is probably refering to the University of Chicago Graduate School of Theology. Or maybe not. Turtlescrubber 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell can't even get his own school name correct? Would you rather believe that Kennedy was that incompetent or believe that it was a different unaccredited school? Miles Naismith 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, the webmaster of his talk page who might have assumed that using the shorthand for the school is okay. Why does everyone have their claws out on this page? Turtlescrubber 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. We are going to state that he has a degree from an unaccredited institution just because you can't find the name of the school on the website of CHEA? What if the name of the school was garbled? What if the school is defunct, but was accredited when Kennedy attended? The latter seems likely, as I can find no "Chicago Graduate School of Theology" on Google; degree mills usually have websites. The man had a Ph.D. from NYU, which hardly fits the profile of someone who needs the flimsy credibility of a Master's degree from an unaccredited institution. You need to have a reference actually stating that the claim is true before making a statement like this, not just one that fails to prove it false. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The CHEA has a comprehensive list of accredited schools. CHEA doesn't list unaccredited schools. Simply put, those that aren't on the CHEA list are not accredited by any recognized agency.

Chicago Graduate School of Theology isn't listed. However, it is listed as an unaccredited institution here as well as on the Frad Watch Dog site. I think it's fair to say the school's non-accredited. That doesn't mean it's a degree mill; legitimate schools (especially theological schools) do exist that don't pursue accreditation. =Axlq 04:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That first link is just content reposted from the Wikipedia article List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, and I can't even tell what the second one is since much of it isn't in English, is it some sort of blog? there's a "by: diplomamills" thing at the bottom.... Homestarmy 05:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't in English because it's a Japanese web site that lists schools that don't have English names. Nevertheless, the following facts remain:

• Chichago Graduate School of Theology is an unaccredited institution.
• Non-accredited schools can be legitimate, and aren't necessarily degree mills.
• The school's accreditation status is irrelevant to this article, and doesn't need mentioning. Using the word "unaccredited" violates WP:NPOV as it serves no purpose than to belittle a school that may actually be legitimate, and by consequence belittle the subject of this article.

=Axlq 16:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't speak Japanese, could you give us a rough evaluation over whether the site in question is reliable? As to including it, I am inclined to argue that if it wasn't accredited then it would be POV not to mention a relevant detail about his degrees (although it might make more sense to simply mention it on the stub article about the school that Bluemoonlet helpfully made. At minimum if the school was unaccredited it should be mentioned in that article). JoshuaZ 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How reliable are these sources? What are their sources? I have yet to be convinced that CGST still exists. If it does not, then its inclusion in these lists may be based on the same faulty logic that we've already discussed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) My Japanese sucks, so I won't try. But that's beside the point. Let me try to explain this again. I have had this debate in another article in the past. In a nutshell: Use of the word "unaccredited" when referring to a school violates WP:NPOV. Why? Because the word is ambiguous. One should instead use one of the explicit possible meanings of the word:

• the school is legitimate but has never sought accreditation;
• the school was denied accreditation;
• the school is degree mill (accredited by an accreditation mill, or not)

Note that two out of three possibilities above are negative, which is why the word "unaccredited" often has negative connotations. Absent any source saying exactly which of the above possibilities applies to Chicago Graduate School of Theology, the word "unaccredited" in this case serves only to promote a derogatory POV. Furthermore, an article about the school might make mention of it, but an article about someone who went there? I don't see the logic or need for mentioning the school's accreditation status. =Axlq 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Axlq. The statement gives a negative connotation, and the source cited does not specifically back up the statement. Not sure why it keeps getting reverted back in. - Crockspot 18:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that Axlq puts it that way, it does seem like saying that Kennedy got a degree from an "unaccredited institution" doesn't really give that much clear information about why that matters in this case... Homestarmy 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I did the whole school check thing but I believe the school is misnamed on his website. Once we find the actual name of the school, we can check with more authority. That site links all accredited institutions, so it is a valid source, if we have the name right. P.S. His homepage is probably referring to the University of Chicago Graduate School of Theology. Or maybe not. Also, whoever called my edits pov should apologize. It's called checking your sources and using the talk page. Turtlescrubber 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the University of Chicago Divinity School? Because, if I received a degree from the school that is routinely ranked 1st in religious studies, I would probably remember it's name. Baegis 04:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it might have been a typo from a ghostwriter on his bio. Check the link. The name may be written in shorthand. That is why it wouldn't appear in the database search. I also did a google search on the institution (no results) and that is why I think the institutions name might have been falsely listed. Turtlescrubber 05:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a typo. Google searching on "Chicago Graduate School of Theology" -kennedy turned up several other people who have gone there. All I found were CV's, though, no website for the actual institution. My guess is that it's defunct. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The anti-POV warriors gorgeous babes will be here I assumein tight wet t-shirts right after the beer chugging contest in thethis morning. It'll get reverted to the long-standing consensus. Consensus will be to add their pictures to the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I object to your name-calling, OM. It is inappropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your new version is no less inappropriate.

Back to the encyclopedia: I did some checking on CGST and created an article. It was apparently founded in 1920 as Winona Lake School of Theology, and moved to Chicago in 1970. I can find no indication on the web that it still exists (thus its failure to appear on the CHEA website). The burden of proof is upon those who would add the statement that it was unaccredited at the time Kennedy attended. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty safe bet that any "graduate school" that picks up and moves across state lines and subsequently closes down is not going to be accredited. Just a hunch. Baegis 07:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the school is not accredited.

Bluemoonlet, you created an article on a school that seems to have gone *poof*? Unreal. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. I make no claim that it is accredited. I'm only asking that the statement be sourced. The fact that it today is not listed on an accreditation website tells us nothing about its status in the 1970s. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah bluemoonlet. Actually doing research and checking sources is something that is frowned upon around here. Instead, you should just assume you are right and then make snide comments. Turtlescrubber 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not help, TS. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreal. Just a hunch. 3rd grade. Turtlescrubber 13:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a mere hunch to state that the CHEA does not positively identify the graduate school in question as unaccredited, aren't there websites out there that track this sort of thing? I know there's a whole bunch of school articles which deal with the controversy surrounding diploma mills and whatnot, and surely their references do not begin and end with the CHEA. Homestarmy 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good edits Bluemoon. I can live with that, though I don't Coral Ridge Ministries makes a good source for anything, since they may be relying on inaccurate data. But it's the best we can do for biographies. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

CHEA doesn't list defunct schools, so the lack of mention by CHEA is not by itself sufficient information. I'll see if I can track down a source for a lack of accreditation, we do need in this case better sourcing, but I'd be surprised if it were accredited. JoshuaZ 03:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea whether CGST was accredited or not, though I would point out that Kennedy most likely took the classes in order to fulfill an entrance requirement to NYU, and that NYU apparently accepted its validity. I would also point out that this detail is unmentioned in any secondary source. Why is it so important that WP mention it? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a POV issue/weight issue if we mention a degree that's from a non-accredited school in that it gives the degree extra legitimacy (I have no idea if NYU accepted the degree or not but giving how muddled this is I think we need a secondary source at minimum that says it was unaccredited to include it). JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One possibility (not sure yet if I recommend this) would be to drop mention of CGST. It's one thing to mention that someone's degrees were from an unaccredited institution (with the insinuation of diploma mill) if that's all they've got. "Dr." Kent Hovind comes to mind. But Kennedy's terminal degree was from NYU, and perhaps that's all we need to get into. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible solution for now at least until we find out more information about the school. JoshuaZ 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And as I explained in the section above this one, it's the insinuation of a diploma mill that we need to avoid in keeping with WP:NPOV. Some theological schools simply don't seek accreditation. Some are denied accreditation. Some are degree mills. We don't know which applies to the Chigaco Graduate School of Theology, so there's no point using the word "unaccredited" except to insinuate something negative. =Axlq 17:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WaPo made on mention of that degree in their obit. Coral Ridge isn't a reliable source. 129.15.163.78 18:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Several obits made mention of the CGST degree, but I would imagine that all of them simply used the Coral Ridge press release as their source. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Axlq is quite right. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Orange, was that last edit removing the "unaccredited" bit really vandalism? To me, that seems like a curious way to characterize that editor's position... Homestarmy 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OM even put a {{uw-delete2}} tag on the talk page of the IP address from which the edit came. Rather too quick on the draw to label something like that as vandalism, in my opinion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Verification of content needed for refs 28 and 29

Does the content actually show Kennedy supports ID? Jinxmchue 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)