![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I believe that this article has a bias on the accomplishments and character of Paul Weyrich. This is evident through the near-consistent omission of negative aspects of Paul's character, and choice of words that paint a very 'saintly' picture of his political activism. As such, the writing is not blatantly biased, but rather lacks balance. Naturally, all that should need to happen is that the article is enlarged a bit, to cover ideas that would make it much more neutral.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhero ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Assigning the term according to, to a partisan organization when describing its enemies gives them undue weight and violates the NPOV rule. The term "according to" denotes objectivity or matter of fact, rather as a stated opinion.
Furthermore, quotes should never be taken out of context, and Wikipedia editors should not engage in editorializing. It's curious that many of the same editors go ape when anything defamatory is said about Left-wing notables. -- Pravknight 03:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As a personal friend of Mr. Weyrich's, having attended his Melkite Catholic parish outside Washington, D.C., for 4 years, I can say he has absolutely NOTHING to do with Dominionism, which is a Calvinistic doctrine that we reject. Sure, we believe religion has a place in public life, but I would wager that my friend's detractors would equally cringe if he were to run around saying they wanted to establish an Atheistic state.
It sounds to me just as he said the boycott should continue until the Army rescinds its approval for the Wiccan ceremonies. Look at the larger context, which seems to evade you. Otherwise, you are editorializing and saying what you think he meant. That's not good enough. I take it that you don't like quoting from people on both sides of the issue, which I attempted to do with my last revision.
In my last revision, both perspectives are included. It should be up to the reader to decide what it means, not for you to supply the commentary.
Besides, how do I know everyone here aren't sockpuppets for one individual with a vendetta against Mr. Weyrich.
I take his comments in context as meaning that if the Army wants to promote witchcraft and Satanism, then Christians shouldn't join the Army. You are overreaching.-- Pravknight 03:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's likely sarcasm, and Paul's a hothead who frequently puts his foot in his mouth. Besides, it's a comment of secondary importance. He and I are similar people, and I know that I frequently get sarcastic when I'm angry over an issue. I've seen him do likewise. Still, unless you can provide a third-party quote to that effect. It's editorializing. I could live with a third-party voice saying what you want to say, but I can't live with something that's unattributed. Find a third-party source to quote, then I'll stop arguing about that issue.-- Pravknight 06:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a professional journalist, and that's what I do for a living. If I cited the hit pieces you cited, which really are nothing but bigoted hate citations in of themselves without getting a balancing perspective, I would get fired.
Your citation of the ADL, which itself is a bit of an anti-Christian hate group and the TheocracyWatch whose bias is glaring show you have nothing but hate for my friend and are not interested in having a dispassionate and objective biography. Everything in those articles are from ignorant individuals who don't have a clue about what they are writing about. They don't understand the theology, and to boot they are every bit as intolerant as they accuse Paul Weyrich of being.
I politely ask you to strike this from this entry or you could easily find yourself faced with a lawsuit for slander and defamation.
Excuse my flaming, but I take attacks against my personal friends personally, especially when they amount to slander.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s052.htm
Anonymous. I can furnish fresh rebuttals from Mr. Weyrich to your B.S.
The section should at best be edited to introduce balance. Citing Mr. Weyrich's enemies without providing neutral language or getting Mr. Weyrich's opinions on Dominionism undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.
Our parish community 1)is Arab dominated. Hence Mr. Weyrich is no big fan of Israel in the Christian Zionist sense, and he has been part of Holy Transfiguration Melkite Church http://www.holytransfiguration.org since almost 1970. 2) We scoff at Calvinistic ideas about government, and he has told me personally that he shares my personal belief that mixing ecclesiastical and civil functions isn't a good idea because such an arrangement corrupts both.
Take a look at who you are citing. It's not like you are citing CNN. Bokaer and Foxman both have an axe to grind against Mr. Weyrich, period. You aren't objective, let alone fair. Credible. What you have done here is akin to doing a biography of Bill Clinton and only citing his enemies. Would you tolerate citing the KKK about Martin Luther King?
Why do you consider TheocracyWatch a credible source? I would even go to the extent of saying it is bigoted against Mr. Weyrich.
It's hardly fair or objective. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12900 http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/DouthatTheocracy.php
I only dismiss what they say about Paul Weyrich because I know him a hell of a lot better than they do. He's been like a second father to me at times. I think I am in a far better position than they are.
I will get quotes from Mr. Weyrich and balance out your slander, and I can even make them verifiable via his e-mail address.
Citing TheocracyWatch, a Far-Left group, as a source. Define biased. They have a strong anti-Christian bias, and as a group they can hardly be considered an objective source.
How do you reason TheocracyWatch is a "less biased" source, considering the vast majority of academics, at least in the Humanities, in in Ivy League schools such as Cornell subscribe to Marxist-influenced or Neo-Marxist ideas? What other than your own personal prejudices makes a Left-leaning group objective and a conservative one not?
Is an anti-Christian bias an acceptable bias? Weyrich has never publicly endorsed Rushdoony's political theories, and Wikipedia's own entry on Dominionism says, "The term is rarely used as a self-description; many feel it is a loaded or pejorative term, and use of the term is primarily limited to critics of the Christian Right."
What you have done is akin to accusing Hillary Clinton of being a Communist.
"Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism, primarily, though not exclusively, in the United States, that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs."
Mr. Weyrich is not a Protestant Evangelical. I would say your dismissal of David Horowitz's FrontPagemag.com in favor of the canards of TheocracyWatch or the ADL shows your personal bias. I would surmise that you personally hate Mr. Weyrich. The word theocracy in today's heated political climate is a semantic term.
I reject the concept of a Massachusetts-style theocracy as does Mr. Weyrich. If Rushdoony got his way, Catholics such as myself and Mr. Weyrich likely would get the short end of the stick. Whose Theocracy are you so afraid of: Calvinist, Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Islamic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox?
Reconstructionists constitute an insignificant minority of the Christian conservative coalition. Wikipedia's Dominionism article says "the Christian Right is a political coalition based on common cause shared by otherwise differently motivated groups."
Where has Weyrich publicly endorsed the postmillenial beliefs espoused by Rushdoony and the Chalcedon Foundation? I reject Dominionism and look for a restoration of the balance between American civil religion and secular thought, as does Mr. Weyrich. We both believe in freedom of conscience, and in our case it means the right to defend our faith from militant secularists who seem intent upon forcing us into the closet.
I wrote the following article for Crisis Magazine that Mr. Weyrich endorsed, which represents his shared viewpoint. http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2005/feature2.htm
Besides, Mr. Weyrich opposes having the government mandate acceptance of any particular theology or attendance at any particular church.
If a real theocracy were established the Christian Right coalition likely would fracture because Catholics in the coalition would not accept rule by Calvinists or vice versa.
What makes them objective? At least you could be fair. How can you say they are not biased? The problem is everything TheocracyWatch and the ADL wrote that you cited were themselves unsubstantiated rhetoric pieces, not objective studies of what Weyrich believes. What makes these two far-Left groups above reapproach? You didn't answer my question? What makes Joan Boakaer's hate site more objective than FrontPageMag.com?
Why is it not objective to call the ADL an "anti-Christian hate group," considering its hatred of the New Testament's teaching regarding Jesus as the Messiah and the ridiculous lies it perpetrated during the Passion of the Christ, not to mention St. Paul's call to evangelize the Jews?
If Mr. Weyrich were to say something about the Talmud, the ADL would be up in arms. It cuts both ways. Perhaps, you personally are so bigoted against traditionalist Christians that you can't see things straight. I report for a mainstream local newspaper for a living, where I am not allowed to editorialize.
Fine, if you want your theocracy junk in there, go ahead, as long is it isn't finger waiving or editorializing and is balanced. The most you have going here is guilt by association.
It's like saying Jesse Jackson supports gay rights also The Revolutionary Communist Party supports gay rights; therefore, Jesse Jackson is a revolutionary communist.
The problem is your sources are inaccurate and filled with lies and inaccurate information. I guess its only editorializing when it conflicts with your infallible, extremist POV.
FeloniusMonk, your deletion of my balancing of your biased work violates Wikipedia guidelines. "Partisan websites
Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source."
The sentence in the article is "According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with Dominionism." This is sourced and attributed. It isn't as though the article stated "Weyrich is a Dominionist" as a bald fact, with no attribution. KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It's like saying "Eric said Johnny is a murderer," but Eric lacks concrete proof that Johnny is a murderer. I dispute the sourcing on the TheocracyWatch site that I feel as takes Mr. Weyrich's views out of context. A stronger source would be a speech or other. Let's change the tone here.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acknowledged this in the 1822 case of Updegraph v. the Commonwealth: “The constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common law doctrine of Christianity, as suited to the condition of the colony, and without which no free government can long exist…. If Christianity was abolished, all false oaths, all tests by oath in the common form by the book, would cease to be indictable as perjury.” [1]
-- Pravknight 16:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Citing TheocracyWatch and ADL as objective "non-partisan" sources without saying their claims is a significant POV violation. Good journalism is fair and balanced. I will restore my edit, balancing the unbalanced POV of the Left-wing extremists who seem intent upon vandalizing Weyrich's biography.
[[User:Pravknight]-- Pravknight 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Right-wing means traditionalist, and by definition Orthodox Judaism affirms the divine inspiration of the Torah, the literal interpretation of the Jewish law and abhor secularism. I am aware of the existance of Liberal Orthodox Jews such as Sen. Lieberman, but as a whole Orthodox Jews reject the left-wing secularism represented by the ADL. The OU opposes homosexuality [6] Orthodox Jews are far more likely to vote Republican than Conservative or Reformed Jews. That's a fact. [7]
I'm not Jewish, but I'm afraid it is you who are mistaken. -- Pravknight 03:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but the sentence "Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First_Amendment" is misleading for reasons unrelated to either Weyrich or to Wicca. Wiccans in the U.S. armed forces, like their Muslim, Christian, or atheist counterparts, are already subject to restrictions on religious practice, for instance see Goldman v. Weinberger ( 475 U.S. 503 (1986))
The passage describes FCF's opposition to what it calls "witchcraft rituals" [8] which the Court says Congress or the military could regulate for military personnel without imposing upon their free exercise of religion. Besides, the sentence is not necessary to introduce the passage, which is presumably intended to highlight religious intolerance on the part of Weyrich rather than the nuances of civil rights laws, and I'm fairly certain this is incorrect use of the word "exempt." - choster 15:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to a 1999 controversy covered by the press concerning a group of Wiccans in the United States military who were holding religious rituals and services on the grounds of the bases they were assigned to, Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First_Amendment and bar them from serving the military altogether. Weyrich, as president of the Free Congress Foundation, led a coalition of ten religious right organizations that attempted a Christian boycott on joining the military until all Wiccans were removed from the services, saying:
"The official approval of satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American soldiers have fought and died for," Paul Weyrich added. "If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks. It's time for the Christians in this country to put a stop to this kind of nonsense. A Christian recruiting strike will compel the Army to think seriously about what it is doing." [1]
According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with Dominionism. [2] [3] TheocracyWatch lists both as leading examples of "dominionism in action," citing "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation," The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement [4], "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement." [2] TheocracyWatch, which calls it "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual," and others consider this manifesto a virtual playbook for how the theocratic right in American politics can get and keep power. [5] The Anti-Defamation League identifies Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations which threaten the separation of church and state. [3] Weyrich has rejected allegations that he advocates theocracy saying, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry" [6] and dismisses the claim that the Christian right wishes to transform America into a theocracy. [7]
-- Pravknight 22:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the whitewashing is a matter of POV. Let's develop a consensus here instead of trying to climb inside someone else's head, saying what he meant by x or y.-- Pravknight 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Kids, whatever your disagreements over the rest of the section or the article, my objections to one specific statement have not been addressed (whatever your views of Weyrich and his allies, the First Amendment 1) does not give anyone the right to serve in the military, 2) is circumscribed with respect to military personnel), so please do not remove my comments. WP:NOR WP:WQT - choster 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This was left on my talk page. It should be here. Note the connection betwen Pravknight and the subject. •Jim62sch• 22:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Jim, you haven't answered my questions. Instead you dismiss them. I know the man, and if he did believe the way you have interpreted his beliefs, I wouldn't have anything to do with him.
I have asked for mediation on this page. -- Pravknight 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
<wiki> User:Pravknight-- 68.45.161.241 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>
What do you mean semantics in the Paul Weyrich article? The trouble is, the accusations levelled against Mr. Weyrich are false, and what do you mean by whitewashing? Your edits are POV pushing.
Nothing has been whitewashed, except for what I see as a Left-wing bias in the wording: "In response to a 1999 controversy covered by the press concerning a group of Wiccans in the United States military who were holding religious rituals and services on the grounds of the bases they were assigned to, Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First_Amendment and bar them from serving the military altogether.
Weyrich, as president of the Free Congress Foundation, led a coalition of ten religious right organizations that attempted a Christian boycott on joining the military until all Wiccans were removed from the services
, saying:
"The official approval of satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American soldiers have fought and died for," Paul Weyrich added. "If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks. It's time for the Christians in this country to put a stop to this kind of nonsense. A Christian recruiting strike will compel the Army to think seriously about what it is doing."[3]
According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with Dominionism.[4]
[5] TheocracyWatch lists both as leading examples of "dominionism in action," citing "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation," The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement[6], "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement."[4] TheocracyWatch, which calls it "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual," and others consider this manifesto a virtual playbook for how the theocratic right in American politics can get and keep power.[7]
The Anti-Defamation League identifies Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations which threaten the separation of church and state.
[5] Weyrich has rejected allegations that he advocates theocracy saying, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry"[8] and dismisses the claim that the Christian right wishes to transform America into a theocracy.[9]
-- Pravknight 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please provide some references to support your interpretation of matters? Specifically
First of all, Wicca/Satanism are not an organized religions, and many would regard them as
cults
rather than religion in its own right. Secondly, what Mr. Weyrich objected to wasn't their free exercise, but rather, the military's formal sanction of witchcraft and Satanism in the military's chaplain's manual. The First Amendment doesn't apply to the military. see above.
I know Mr. Weyrich personally, and what he meant is he wanted the Army's formal approval removed. It seems to me that you misunderstood his column when read in context. The only way you can remove someone from the military under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is with a dishonorable discharge, and assuredly, unless those Wiccans/Satanists were engaged in criminal activity they couldn't be court martialed. I see POV pushing in that unnecessary addition.
Mr. Weyrich believes as do I, just because a certain view is tolerated under the free exercise clause, it doesn't mean the government or a society should sanction those views, especially when they are antithetical to the values America was founded upon. Wicca and Satanism are built upon the anti-Christian philosophy of Nihilism, and that's why they're problematic, unlike Judaism or Buddhism. [14] [15] Would you support the Army, say if it granted members of the Christian Identity movement official standing, or those who believe in the racist Neo-paganism practiced by the SS during WW2?
The choice of wording is poor and doesn't show a good understanding of how things work in the military.
I want the "according to TheocracyWatch and ADL" wording kept out of the article because they are expressing an opinion that isn't backed up by any first-hand evidence.
That wording gives undue weight to what I see as a militant secularist POV that's not objective. It's kind of like according to the surgeon general smoking is bad for your health. That's a fact. TheocracyWatch and the ADL are political groups with an axe to grind, and should be treated with a grain of salt. Would you prefer treating John Birch Society accusations as fact in an article on Wikipedia?
How would this sound to you in a Wikipedia article:"According to the John Birch Society and the Free Congress Foundation, TheocracyWatch is a communist front group. They cite the group's ties to known Communist x who appeared on stage with Joan Bokaer. They list Bokaer and TheocracyWatch as part of a conspiracy to transform America into a Soviet-style Atheistic state... [16]"
You are asking me to disprove a negative because it's obvious that you have it made up on your mind that they want a Theocracy. What more do you want beyond the explicit disavowal from Mr. Weyrich that you or someone else keeps deleting?
I think the question really is, whose theocracy, Catholic, Evangelical, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic? The Religious Right is a heterogenous group that really is more of an alliance of convenience that has been brought together by a common fear of secular fundamentalism. From our perspective, the Left wants to reduce Christians to the level of closeted second-class citizens who don't have the right to defend our faith from a hostile government. That's the issue.
If you are an atheist, agnostic, liberal Christian,etc., I don't know a single Christian Right figure who would oppose your rights of conscience, but we also don't believe that a tiny minority should dictate its own narrow views to the minority. Its about toleration, not the postmodern redefined tolerance.
To borrow Mr. Weyrich's words accusing Christians of wanting to create a theocracy, as is affirmed by almost every state Constitution and innumerable pre-20th century court decisions, because they believe religion should have a leading role in society and in government creates a theocracy is shear bigotry.
Mr. Weyrich has told me that he believes the government should be barred from mandating anyone adhering to any particular theology or from attending any particular form of worship under the Establishment Clause. However, that doesn't extend in his view to moral issues that even the non-Christian founders agreed with.
I don't care if the Left calls the Christian right the "Theocratic right," but it doesn't have a place in an encyclopedic article where editorializing is not allowed. Would you like me to put something in the TheocracyWatch article saying it aims to ban religion and create a Soviet-style atheistic state? There are many on the Right who run around calling people who think the way you apparently do Communists. Just because that's widespread, should I be immature and return the favor?
The problem is the Left and the Right have two different definitions of the "Separation of Church and State." It's not an objective concept. To the Left, it means essentially an atheistic state where religion is pushed off into the fringes of society, which never was the founders intent as demonstrated more by their actions than their words. I will disagree with you, and I will not allow your mischaracterization to stand.
To the American Christian Right, "Separation of Church and State means that the government is prohibited from 1)mandating that any person belong to a particular religious sect.
Unless you can furnish evidence that Mr. Weyrich has personally,in the first person called for abolishing the U.S. COnstitution and replacing it with Old Testament law, it should go.
I am whitewashing nothing, except for trying to prevent what I see as extreme leftists from imposing their POV on the article. It seems yourself and others like you are not content with attributing the arguments as opinions rather than as facts. I look at the same information, and I can't help but to disagree with their conclusions because I feel I understand the issue better.
My revision is more consistent with the spirit of the NPOV rule because it avoids unnecessary editorializing language. If you want to vent about how aweful Paul Weyrich is, I would ask you to take it up on the Daily Kos or some other left-wing site.-- Pravknight 22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
for another administrator to come in and take your place. Treating Chip Berlet as an authority on Dominionism is a bit like treating Joseph Stalin as an authority on Christianity, considering Berlet's known apologetics for Enver Hoxha's repressive regime and it's campaign against religion. That shows me where the folks on your side are coming from.
If you want to talk about whitewashing, what about the whitewashing of Chip Berlet's biography deleting references to his past Communist activism? I guess that get's a pass. -- Pravknight 22:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you missed this sentence fragment "Until the Army withdraws all official support and approval from witchcraft," -- Pravknight 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone here other than Pravknight feel it is justified? If so, what exactly is the justification for the template and what is the specific issue that needs to be addressed? FeloniousMonk 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The template is warranted because of your insistance upon reverting to biased and POV wording. -- Pravknight 22:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can't see the POV pushing in your choice of words, then you are blind. I really don't think you are interested in being constructive. Flawed understanding. Give me a break. The rules forbid portraying living figures in an unsympathetic light. The problem is with the other editors, and for all that I know, the "other editors" could be sockpuppets of yours. It's curious they always use the same edits that you use. I've offered to try to work things out, but you just haven't been interested in reaching a consensus with me.
I have filed a request for arbitration with the Arbitration Committee. Let them decide.-- Pravknight 22:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact."-- Pravknight 00:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The current version has a POV tone to it. I object to the use of inaccurate biased POV material. I said before that I don't mind including negative information as long as it maintains a fair tone and is attributed. Their outlandish cliams about Weyrich aren't verifiable from third-party sources that are neither liberal or conservative. TheocracyWatch belongs in the same category with the British Socialist Workers Party because it represents an extreme left-wing viewpoint. The TheocracyWatch stuff is propaganda, as is the twisting of Mr. Weyrich's words because the author surmises what Mr. Weyrich wanted to do. If he came out and explicitly said what you said he said, then I wouldn't be arguing. The section, as worded, is a diatribe. I really don't care if it's in there, but I do care that it's properly attributed.
The tone is the real issue in the article, and it's POV as written. You don't know what's in another person's head, so don't surmise that Mr. Weyrich wanted the military to discharge witches and Satanists because he doesn't come out and say so in his article. It's also factually incorrect to say he wanted to abridge their First Amendment rights because it doesn't apply to the military.
The problem is TheocracyWatch and ADL should not be used as unsourced secondary sources because they are political organizations, and their beliefs should be treated as opinions not facts, I note:
"Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only, i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities or viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources." -- Pravknight 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I will not. Considering your ties with Left-wing extremists and your lack of objectivity, noting your connection with CBerlet, a known Marxist. And your anti-Weyrich bias isn't a problem? I don't see you have much of an ability to be objective yourself. This theocracy, dominionism talk has become the Left's McCarthyism, and Wikipedia rules discourage guilt by association links.
Or would you like me to embellish your friend Chip Berlet's alleged Stalinist credentials on his article? Mr. Berlet objected to Chris Arabia's "hit piece" against him, and that was sustained.
The same thing is in play here because the article you cited about the "Paul Weyrich Training Manual" is a hit piece in itself.
My only concern is fairness and balance, and I refuse to follow your lead because it violates policy. The tone is shear propaganda that lacks direct attribution.
Mr. Weyrich, for one, doesn't believe in TheocracyWatch's "Religious Right Economics," especially because he opposes Free Trade agreements, believes in unionism on the local level and opposes unrestricted Capitalism. Secondly, Mr. Weyrich isn't lockstep behind the Bush administration. Thirdly, he's opposed to Christian Zionism and is pro-Arab. Fourthly, Weyrich doesn't believe in any of the religious beliefs that TheocracyWatch defines as Dominionist. [26]
He's a Catholic, an amillenialist and his socioeconomic ideas are formed by the Catholic Church's teaching, such as is found in Rerum Novarum, not John Calvin. To put it succinctly, he's a Christian Democrat, not a Dominionist. Try reading his Next Conservatism series first hand instead of reading it through the lense of TheocracyWatch, which is nothing other than the Left's version of The John Birch Society.
I will not back down.-- 68.45.161.241 03:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
But they are. The political affiliations are important because they influence the person's ability to edit objectively and accuately call something WP:NPOV because that rule extends to tone as well as content.-- Pravknight 01:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
There are different sects of Marxism amigo. I do know a thing or two about political science, considering I have degree in it from Penn State. Marxism inevitably is little better than capitalism because it exploits people's misery and provides them with even fewer options than capitalism. Marxist apologists will never realize it just doesn't work. More people have been killed in the name of Karl Marx than Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha rolled together. My accusation is factual because Chip Berlet founded a pro- Enver Hoxha group in the 1980s.
It's failed wherever it's been tried.
I mentioned the Marxist bit because it's an ad hom just like Dominionist. Just wanted to see how you would react.-- Pravknight 01:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Citing political groups without attribution is a potential violation of the rule regarding reliable sources. No non-partisan secondary sources apart from TheocracyWatch and the ADL have been provided.
"Partisan, religious and extremist websites
The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source.
Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources."-- Pravknight 05:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I contend it violates the WP:LIVING RULE: "Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."
Right now, that's all you have is guilt by association.-- Pravknight 05:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Pravknight 08:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly what I have been arguing here that I feel has been ignored WP:NPOVT: "Obviously, false accusations are unfair and non-neutral, so if you suspect or know an accusation to be insincere, attempt to "neutralize" it. Unfortunately, without a confession from the accuser, insincerity is hard to prove. The best way to proceed in these cases is to locate reliable sources that treat this issue and attribute the discussion to them. Be sure to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. Give the facts to the reader to decide for themselves."
I still say ADL and TheocracyWatch are unreliable sources.-- Pravknight 08:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#Undue weight
"If we're going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."
Explain to me why you are so opposed to including rebuttals from Weyrich, and perjoratively referring to the Christian Right as the "Theocratic" Right.
The article relating to "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual" is a hit piece, not an objective examination of what Weyrich actually wrote?
I dunna know who you are talking about, and I definitely would find the principles more reliable than what I have seen on this board since Aug. 2.-- Pravknight 01:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I will be offline for a week or so, and don't have time before I go to check these out and see if they meet RS and how to utilize them but perhaps someone will have the time and interest to look into these before I get back:
If I inadvertantly added something already in the article, apologies - I just wanted to get the urls down here in case they were useful or led to useful content. KillerChihuahua ?!? 08:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Why doesn't Prav list here all the sources he thinks should be included and then we discuss any possible NPOV way to include those sources. Since the main issue seems to be sourcing (especially over the dominionism matter) that seems to be a possible solution. While we are at it, I will note that if Prav can find an explicit quote from Weyrich of the sort "of course I'm not a Dominionist, that's a Calvinist heresy" or something similar then that point could be included. But we need sourcing. JoshuaZ 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Weyrich has never written anything on Dominionism pro or con, and without proper Third-party attribution. It's guilt by association. Weyrich prides himself in his Eastern Orthodox belief. [27] [28]
Orthodoxy and Catholicism consider Calvinism a heresy, not to mention Weyrich's beliefs from my experience are closer to those of Hillaire Belloc. These links demonstrate the Orthodox antipathy to Calvinism. [29] [30]
What other than some unsubstantiated allegations made by a partisan organization gives you the idea Mr. Weyrich supports hyper-Calvinism? [31]
I note Mr. Weyrich opposes outsourcing, believes in local control of unions. His "The Next Conservatism" series is Catholic/Orthodox in origin, not Calvinistically orient.
I sent a query to Mr. Weyrich that I know can't be used in the article asking him if he personally identifies with the Christian Democratic movement.
Paul,
I was wondering, would you consider yourself ideologically in league with the Christian Democrats of the Konrad Adenauer variety?
Since I've known you, I've noticed your willingness to depart ideologically from other Christian right leaders when their beliefs have been at odds with Catholic social teaching. Economic issues such as trade come to mind along with communitarian strains I've observed in your thinking
http://cdusa.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page.
His response at Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:19:09 -0400: "Yes, I could be considered a Christian Democrat in the mold of der olte."
I'm just including this FYI.-- Pravknight 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
According to who's definition? I see it as perjorative. Dominionism is by definition a Calvinistic movement, and User:BlueBoartold me he feels TheocracyWatch shouldn't be cited on it's own. Whether or not Mr. Weyrich is a dominionist depends upon your definition, and even user User:CBerlet doesn't paint with such a broad brush. It's a bit like me calling you a Communist.
My problem all along has been with the tone, which I believe treats TheocracyWatch 's opinions as facts.
How about According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation have been associated with Dominionist figures in the past such as x, y,z. (Name them)
It needs more than just their word for it, and User:BlueBoar agreed with me on that issue about this group. It's not good enough to take TheocracyWatch's word for it, and besides its definition of Dominionism is ill-defined. Does it include Catholic Christian Democracy? Who defines it?
[5] TheocracyWatch lists both as leading examples of "dominionism in action," citing "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation," The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement[6], "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement."
The underlying article contains no citations or evidence for Mr. Weyrich's involvement with Dominionism, and no definition of what it means. It's a flimsy ad hominem argument that falls in the same category with some of the things I've read in The New American about the Trilateral Commission or CFR.
Because Yurica's article is unsourced in an academic sense, it's merely an opinion. I would suggest rewording it as: TheocracyWatch beleives both demonstrate what it calls "dominionism in action," citing "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation, that it believes "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement."
[4] TheocracyWatch, which calls it "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual," and others consider this manifesto a virtual playbook for how the theocratic right in American politics can get and keep power.[7]
Hold it here theocratic right. Whose words are these? Yours or theirs. That phrase is a bit like using the N-word with a black American, and the conservative Christians I know abhor the idea of a theocracy. Would you class Christian Democracy as theocratic? Then by whose definition of the term?
Suggested revision: "Christian right." What do you gain by using the theocratic epithet?
The Anti-Defamation League identifies Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations which threaten the separation of church and state.
That's an opinion of an interest group. Let me reverse things here, so you can see how this sounds to my ears.
"The Free Congress Foundation identifies Joan Bokaer and TheocracyWatch as part of an alliance of 50 or more of the most prominent liberal secular leaders who threaten to transform America into a Soviet-style atheistic state."
It's an opinion. In the article Foxman says Weyrich threatens ADL's position on the separation of church and state. The way you have it worded treats their opinion as a fact because there really isn't an objective view of the issue. I want people from all across the political spectrum to read this article, and not be able to tell who wrote it.
<Paragraph break> [5] Weyrich has rejected allegations that he advocates theocracy saying, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry"[8] and dismisses the claim that the Christian right wishes to transform America into a theocracy.[9]
Katherine Yurica has written that Weyrich guided Eric Heubeck in writing The Integration of Theory and Practice, the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan published in 2001 by the foundation,[10] which she says calls for the use of deception, misinformation and divisiveness to allow conservative evangelical Christian Republicans to gain and keep control of seats of power in the government of the United States."
It's wordy. Try tightening it up a bit. Katherine Yurica of TheocracyWatch calls "The Integration of Theory and Practice," Weyrich’s strategic plan, published in 2001, [10] a means for "deception, misinformation and divisiveness" to allow conservative Christians and Jews in the Republican Party to gain and keep control of seats of power in the government of the United States."
Your friend Chip Berlet seems to remember the Christian Right is a coalition, not a monolith, and I believe if secularism were eliminated it would collapse because old animosites would re-emerge. What Catholic would tolerate an Evangelical Theocracy or vice-versa?
The Catholic theocrats who I know are all monarchists who yearn for the restoration of the Bourbons monarchy and the abolition of the French Revolution. The Eastern Orthodox theocrats would want the restoration of the Byzantine and Russian thrones. They would balk at the idea of a Republic of Geneva come to America. Additionally, the Religious right includes contingents of Orthodox Chasidic Jews and other conservative-oriented Jewish groups. It's not a Christian-only club.
Yurica's stereotyping.
I apologize for being hot-headed and belligerent recently. If you are willing to amicably work with me, then I am willing to back down and play by the rules.-- Pravknight 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight FeloniousMonk 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
RE: [37], what are the specific cites you object to here this time, Pravknight? FeloniousMonk 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What I said was they fail to make their case that Weyrich is a Dominionist. They don't demonstrate that he believes in the establishment of Old Testament law in America.
You also impetuously refuse to treat their statements as opinions, not facts.
Dominionism is representative say of the Constitution Party, Howard Phillips. If you were discussing Howard Phillips, someone who I also know, then I'd agree with you because I've heard him espouse such views. However, Yurica's article is one big ad hom. Supporting facts don't matter, only opinions that you like, right?
You fail to get it. What have argued against all along is your partisan choice of words. Besides, in terms of American politics. You might as well cite this too. You know, the Revolutionary Communist Party argues the same as TheocracyWatch about the Christian Right. Why not cite them too while you are at it?-- 68.45.161.241 05:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC) [45]
The whole kit and kaboodle. Something that you seem to disregard. By definition, the section about the Mr. Weyrich and the desire to abridge the First Amendment is WP:NOR. I guess supporting the opinion, something I attempted to do, isn't good enough here. I threw a bone here, by finding a source that supported the state POV in the following section.
"In response to a 1999 controversy covered by the press concerning a group of Wiccans in the United States military who were holding religious rituals and services on the grounds of the bases they were assigned to, Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and bar them from serving the military altogether. Weyrich, as president of the Free Congress Foundation, led a coalition of ten religious right organizations that attempted a Christian boycott on joining the military until all Wiccans were removed from the services."
This paragraph is only the editor's opinion. And editor opinions don't belong in any article on Wikipedia. I asked for a citation, but none was given.
It is a prime example of the "No Original Research" rule:
"Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
An example from a Wikipedia article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.
So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:
If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.
But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion.
For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about."
Let's comply with this rule.-- Pravknight 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)