User talk:EndScientificCensorship

No one has explained why any rules were violated.

I am amazed that so much namecalling has gone on here against the change to put Of Pandas and People as a Banned Book, calling this "adolescent vandalism." Of course users are correct that "Of Pandas and People" was not removed from the library in Dover. But while looking at this page, I could not find any definition that limited books on the list to those which were removed from the library. I therefore felt it was appropriate to use the definition of a "banned book" from American Library Association (ALA) -- see http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#wdcb

Clearly the American Libraries Association defines a "banning" as something which was challenged and later removed from the curriculum:

"A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection." (from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#wdcb emphasis added)

The Dover plaintiffs challenged Of Pandas and People to attempt to have it removed from usage in the Dover biology curriculum. They won their challenge. Ergo, under the ALA definition, it is banned book. There are legitimate reasons for including this book, so please stop the tactic namecalling this change "adolescent vandalism" and realize that there are serious reasons for this addition: the Dover plaintiffs successfully removed the textbook from the Dover curriculum. I request that namecallers regarding this change against me need to either two things: (a) calm down; (b) put a clear definition of what you mean by a banned book and define. If you define a banned book as mere removal from a library, then you need to justify why you contravene the ALA definition. If you accept the ALA definition, then you need to uncensor the addition of Of Pandas and People to the list. Either way, I encourage users to stop calling names. Censorship and namecalling is always bad. EndScientificCensorship 11:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice piece of original research, which we do not allow here. Do you have some reliable non-partisan sources that state that the book is banned? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pandas and People was removed from the science class because it is religious and not scientific. Have you not studied Kitzmiller v Dover? Dover children can still read Pandas and People (and the bible for that matter) in the school library. That is not exactly book banning or censorship. Taking Pandas and People out of the science class is no more banning or censorship than refusing to use the Koran, or Penthouse magazine would be. Neither are scientific thus neither belong in a public science class. Mr Christopher 19:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Censorship

Why did you delete FeloniousMonk's comments he left on your talk page yesterday? Why are you trying to silence a fellow editor who takes the time to leave relevant comments on your talk page? That looks an awful lot like censorship. Mr Christopher 19:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what you deleted from your talk page:

Care to explain this?

- At William A. Dembski's blog, Sept, 26: [1] You adding Pandas to the banned books list Sept, 26: [2] Wikipedia is not a venue to promote a particular point of view. Do not treat it as such.

- Please take the time to read and become familiar with our core policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Your single edit managed to violate all three. FeloniousMonk 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And on Dembski's website he states "A colleague of mine added Of Pandas and People to the Wikipedia’s list of Banned Books at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_books." Are you the colleage he mentions? Being a Dembski colleage is certainly no crime, and it would explain alot actually. Mr Christopher 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]