Talk:Kansas Professor assaulted by angry intelligent design supporters

Questions regarding focus

Third paragraph is not specifically relevant to this article.

The mention of Anne Coulter (fourth paragraph) is spurious without connection to this article's topic.

The article topic is an assault on a professor, believed to be motivated by religious fervour. That alone makes this a powerful article. Can we stay focused on that, rather than bringing in unrelated emotional attempts to sensationalize an already sensational event? - Amgine | ^talk 20:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Ann Coulter reference. I disagree on the third paragraph not being relevant: it's proper background of criticism of a person who is beaten by thugs criticising the same. -- IlyaHaykinson 21:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ann Coulter was included only to give an example, since many christian fundamentalists selfidnetify as such, and she objects to this, but removing it is fine too. As for the third paragraph, Calvert is perhaps the major player, aside from Mirecki, in the original contraversy surounding the course. He deserves to be quoted as such, as we never ran an article on the original contraversy. His role in pushing the contraversy into the popular news media should also be mentioned, but I did not do so, yet. Nyarlathotep 21:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe reference to Ann Coulter was relevant because her writings are an example of the type of divisive, right-wing editorialising that contributes to this type of hate crime. Her columns would have fit well in Germany in the 1930s as facisim was taking hold.

Such rhetoric prevents meaningful discourse on the theory of intelligent design, a theory that has been hyjacked by the religious fundimentalists.