Welcome!
Hello, Pikachudad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! I am One of Many (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The post you are probably referring to does comply with the neutral pov. The statements were quotes from the bills author. What the post did lack was editing and selection of his statements to be more pithy and precise. They were probably also a bit lacking in proper links to the video testimony in question. I need to figure out hoe to put such changes in the sandbox first.Pikachudad (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I[reply]
- I think that would be ok. Most of the quotes weren't about the purpose, but the Senator's interpretation. That is why I edit the section down to the two quoted about the purpose and made it clear it was his point of view. If there were another section stating, this was his interpretation of the meaning, intent, and purpose of the bill, that should be fine as well.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for leaving the two quotes. If it were any Senator describing the law, I would agree with you, but this is the author of the legislation describing his law. That makes his statements of the bills purpose authoritative as to his intent. I had put his entire speach in to begin with. I was looking to prune it appropriately. There is a lot of good debate in the original Senate hearing. There are some good quotes in there that should be in the article. The debate helped me understand why the legislature passed the bill overwhelmingly despite the objections of some prominent scientists. It appears that the legislature believed that item 5 adequately dealt with the religion issue.
- The problem I have with the legislation is that it appears to further disempower our teachers. Before they can bring in a supplement on a new science discovery (new planets discovered... Mars rovers exploits... Pluto being demoted to a 'minor' planet... Etc...) they have to get the permission of the school board and BESE. That is enough of a hurdle to stop most teachers.
- In a way though, it is rather humorous that this repeal effort is being driven by New Orleans (New Orleans Rep, son of the New Orleans CEO, etc) given the horrendous public school system in New Orleans. My daughter attended Ben Franklin in New Orleans - that school being their one saving grace. Ratng of 150plus out if 200 with a 1/4 of the graduating class being National Merit Level. the rest of the schools were mostly in the 20-30 range pre Katrina. which was why the State had already passed a law allowing their seizure before Katrina hit.Pikachudad (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]