Talk:Cheri Yecke
 | Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Creationism Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
This appears to be a campaign brochure rather than a useful Wikipedia article. I believe it is fair to categorize Ms. Yecke as a somewhat controversial figure (certainly among Minnesotans), yet this article is merely a blandly positive overview of Ms. Yecke's life and current political campaign.
It would be useful for someone with knowledge of Ms. Yecke's time heading the Minnesota Department of Education to provide some information with respect to her term there, which was shortened by the decision of the Minnesota legislature not to confirm her (I believe). Also, she has provided some provocative opinions in editorial articles in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which should be summarized. Barring any of that, I would respectfully suggest that this entry be marked for deletion due to {{POV}} (bias).
Deletion?
Bias rarely requires deletion. A rewrite is generally the fix for this sort of thing. Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
This is merely a bio of Dr. Yecke and what she has done through her life. She is no longer a candidate for public office and is now going to Florida where she will be appreciated, and has already been welcomed with open arms. The Democrats in Minnesota can stop their smear campaign any day now, they already threw out a brilliant mind. Florida is now lucky to have her!!
Heads up for WP:COI vios
Yecke has hired a company, ReputationDefender, to scrub references to intelligent design from any mention of her online:[1] We need to keep an eye for them on this article. Odd nature 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll point out that ReputationDefenders did not ask for the blog post to be removed, just the one quote Yecke disputed. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This woman is an anti-science religious whacko.
Advocacy for intelligent design
This is the transcript of Yecke saying that local school districts can, indeed, teach "intelligent design" if they decide they want to.
CPY: Well, creationism is off the table completely because of a 1987 supreme court ruling. The issue really is intelligent design and evolution and the there was language that was put in the conference committee report that accompanied the no child left behind act that said you know students should be exposed to all sides of a controversial issue. And we brought that up to the committee members because we didn’t want to see this just evolve into a controversy. We spent a lot of time on the math committee just just talking about the use of calculators, and time is precious, so we wanted to make sure that we stopped any kind of controversy at the beginning. And it is well understood now that this is a decision that would be made by local school boards and not the state.
This is verifiable; go check the video. I think that the article can be less diffident on this score. --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, that's promoting ID by any definition. Thanks, Wes. Odd nature 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
She was not "promoting" ID -- she only said that "students should be exposed to all sides of a controversial issue." I think she was mistaken when she said that "the issue really is intelligent design and evolution" because there are also non-ID scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticisms of evolution, e.g., criticisms concerning co-evolution, the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (an example of a pseudoscientific criticism). Also, she did not misrepresent or misuse the No Child Left Behind Act because even though the language she was referring to is just in a Congressional report and not in the Act itself, the courts use Congressional reports in interpreting statutes. Anyway, there is nothing to interpret here in the Act itself because the Act itself says nothing about evolution or criticisms of evolution. This whole thing is just a witch-hunt and a fishing expedition and is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia bio. Larry Fafarman 12:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's called Teaching the Controversy, and Teach the Controversy is another Discovery Institute ID campaign. BTW, your rebuttals Meyer et al are not notable enough for inclusion and constitute self-promotion. FeloniousMonk 16:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
"rebuttals Meyer et al"? Who said anything about Meyer? And what does notability have to do with a rebuttal? And how is rebuttal a "self-promotion"? And the fact that "teach the controversy" is promoted by the Discovery Institute does not mean that "teach the controversy" is only about ID.
I see that you have already deleted by entry. Leave it alone, you felonious dunghill. I didn't delete your stuff. You yourself are breaking the rules by using blogs as sources. If you can do it, then so can I.
Show me where the Wikipedia rules say anything about a "non-notable self-promotion by long-known internet crank."
Let's ask Cheri Yecke if she wants my stuff to stay. It should be her decision. Why don't we let her decide if it is OK if I exploit her bio for my own "self-promotion." After all, this is her bio.Larry Fafarman 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)