Talk:Paul Mirecki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Kansas Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Kansas, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Kansas-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Paragraph about Beating

I've added links to (1) the Laurence Journal-World news item and (2) the full-size photo. (Can anyone find a better photo? If so, please link to it instead.) I've added the name of the conservative website which published the columns by Michelle Malkin and Mike S. Adams. ("Columns" is Townhall.com's name for the articles they carry.) And I only came here to link to our article about Townhall.com ...

By the way, Malkin linked to the news item[1] before writing that column, strongly indicating that she (and presumably Adams) saw the photo but still suspected a hoax. See also http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/08/ne_mirecki_folo/, which Malkin quotes in her column.

Further edits, comments, etc very welcome. Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • On what grounds did Malkin and Adams suspect that it was a hoax? They don't seem to have any other argument than that it "seems fishy". I'm adding this fact to the article. Clan-destine 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you don't believe Mirecki's black eyes are genuine, take a look at this picture. The girls had both been hit in the face with hockey pucks the day before and their black eyes are very similar to Mirecki's. I understand why his black eyes seem incredible because they are an unusual form of black eye. But again, Malkin and Adams had no real grounds for thinking this. Just an unfamiliarity with the variety of black eyes. Clan-destine 17:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off-Topic Discussion

Why is it that the religious fundamentalists get angry and raise a public protest every time anyone criticises their beloved "Intelligent Design"? — JIP | Talk 08:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind this page is intended for on-topic discussion of the actual article, not for debating hot topics. --dcabrilo 13:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, "Had the shoe been on the other foot and a fundie professor of theology had been badmouthing atheists, would similar action have been taken?" is surely a question that has been posited by someone that we can report. Quite clearly the "offence" taken was entirely political. — Dunc|☺ 13:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course atheists would have responded to the criticism and disagreed with at least some of it, but I don't think they would have pressured the United States government to stop teaching all religion in schools. — JIP | Talk 14:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As an example George Bush I in 1987 said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" [2]. His election campaign didn't exactly come off the rails as a result of the non-furore caused.

But I'm not quite sure what you mean about schools. The establishment clause of the US Constitution makes clear that schools can teach about religion, but they can't teach which religion is "correct", or conduct worship which is an endorsement of the "correct religion". — Dunc|☺ 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions About Wording

Not that this all isn't fascinating, but what does it have to do with the article? Actually, I have a question about that - can anyone explain to me the bit that says Mirecki was the "last person to translate an unknown gospel"? First of all, it seems to me that he was working on it with someone else, and second, how can we say that he was the "last person"? We can't say that there are never going to be any more unknown gospels, can we? We wouldn't be calling them unknown if we knew they were there! Maybe I am totally misunderstanding this claim, and if so, please explain where I'm going wrong. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I have edited it to say "one of the most recent persons", which is accurate and will be true for some time to come. Logophile 11:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)