Talk:Comparison of McLean and Aguilard "academic freedom" acts

I assume you know these are both from the same think tank, and that there are at least 15 states who are discussing similar initiatives either in the legislature or "of the people"? That might be worth including in an intro type paragraph. or not. I'm sick of these think tanks. They are, sadly, smart enough to watch what passes and what doesn't and make tiny modifications each time so their horror bills (abortion, birth control, education, foreign language, immigration, evoultion, gay marriage) start to pass muster. Fuckers Godot  19:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a History of "academic freedom" acts article. This is just a textual comparison. No introduction necessary. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Necessary?
I get what this is trying to do, but does it need its own article? In such a poorly done, ugly way, with no explanation? ThunderkatzHo! 17:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a space for resources? -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Poorly done and ugly? There's not much of explanation because the title speaks for itself, though I'm sure an some context could be helpful. In any event, what it does should be perfectly clear to any reader drawn to it from either the McLean or Edwards articles. What other manner would you do the markup? This is how lawyers track changes and it seems good enough to me. I can't think of any clearer way to show the extent to which the Louisiana statute, which I believe was cursorily debated and signed the day after the ACLU filed the McLean complain in Arkansas, is essentially identical to the Arkansas statute, just pared down to remove many of the specific references to aspects of creationism the ACLU complained of. Do you have any proposition for making the markup clearer? If anyone wants to move this to whatever space things like this go, that's fine with me. I was unaware we had anything like that. But I object to any suggestion this isn't necessary. It provides a specific comparison to the two statutes that exists nowhere else on the internet. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As think tanks become more and more popular, and are pushing these laws not only in the Evo world, but anti-gay stuff and abortion laws, it is important to track this to see not only 1) that everything is the same source, but also 2) what insights into how they are adapting can we take from the subsequent changes. (ie., personhood laws have adapted slightly, with each defeat, to make them more presentable, and more constitutional).  I don't really like the red-line in an online format, cause i find it hard to follow myself, since large blocks of text are redded out - but that said, I'm not sure of any better way, and the info is far too important to dump, simply cause it takes a bit of thought to read through.
 * I must say, though, I would advise/enjoy some commentary on the differences, if/where such comments would be informative. (for example, showing why you change terms from "marriage" to "marriage and civil unions" or from "fetus" to "embro" etc).[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot   19:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just a textual comparison. Any analysis in annotations or a separate page would be welcome. I could dump this into a PDF with a jpg thumbnail so that analysis could go on this page if that would be helpful. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nods. I don't see why that would be necessary.  If any of us is so inclined (we should be, but doesn't mean we will be) we could make a section above, that introduces and compares, and then the actual data?  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot   21:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody who knows something about this...
...please sketch out an introductory paragraph explaining what it is? Like, what are the "McLean and Aguilard academic freedom acts," and who did all the striking out and why? EDIT: I see there's a key there, but there needs to be some sort of precis on the actual page, ideally. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose, as far as I can tell, is to show how two completely "unrelated" documents likely have the same authorship. Ikanreed (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you need more context, view the first two links in the "See also" section. Bhull242 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)