Talk:Christian right/Archive 3

message: A Request for Comments has been filed for this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics
--Cberlet 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

message: Can we add material that speaks to the relationsip of the Christian right/conservative Christianity to Catholicism/Catholics? --Dpr 17:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationsip to Catholicism

message: Sorry to butt in and edit, but the sections on perjorative and benign terminology contained a lot of material that did not hang together.  Plus, Theocracy is a real term, not an invention of the political left. But I did add another criticism of those on the left who conflate evangelicals, fundamentalists, and the Christian Right.--Cberlet 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit away... the article currently says "America journalist Kevin Phillips".  If this guy works for a journal called America, the name should be italicized.  If he's just an American (i.e., U.S.) journalist, America needs an -n on it.  Since I know nothing about this fellow, I leave it in the capable hands of those "in the know" to fix it...  Tomertalk 09:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: Though the article as a whole is not entirely biased, I'm noticing that a few sentences and paragraphs seem to be reflecting a viewpoint or assumption, rather than an objective view which is either neutral or presents the arguments of both sides. In particular, the final paragraph in the "History" section, reading:
'The Christian Right does not represent all evangelicals. Some Christians are active on the left. In taking the Great Commission as a global political mandate for Christendom they have looked to government for support. They hold to a more left-wing ecumenical view of the Gospel. This socialistic perspective is not nearly as common in the U.S.A. as it is in Europe and the British Commonwealth countries. Then there are a significant number of evangelical Christians in America and elsewhere who are quite apolitical.'
Seems to be one person's viewpoint/observation. (It should also be noted that the quality is rather poor.) Anyone care to discuss this point? I haven't put a POV tag on the article thus far, as I'm trying to see if there's any kind of consensus on this. I would edit some of these biased points out, but I'd rather not start any revert wars as of yet. --Mister Mister 17:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing out unsourced claims, POV, and OR should not cause a revert war. Give it a try. The article could use a freshening up.--Cberlet 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV2 

message: Just to let everyone know, I'm taking the final paragraph under "History", describing the Christian Left, as well as the section "Theological versus Political conservatism", and editing these paragraphs together into a new section titled "Contrasting Viewpoints", near the end of the article. I believe it will help the article flow better, keep things in their proper place, and move the alternate views into one section rather than multiple ones. If you have any concerns or objections to this, please list them here. --Mister Mister 07:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should work on the Christian Left article, instead of this one. Alternative views INSIDE the Christian right are appropriate but not views OUTSIDE it. Rjensen 07:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree with Rjensen. This is not the page for a discussion of the Christian Left and I am part of the Christian Left). Just the mention with a link is proper.--Cberlet 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A short summary of contradictions would be fitting, I think.  That's pretty normal, right?  Having brief information about a relevant topic but also linking to the main article?  The Christian Left is certainly a relevant subject when discussing the Christian right.  Karwynn (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new section, "Contrasting Viewpoints" 

message: As the former incarnation of this entry concentrated on the US Christian Right, I thought I'd provide meat to the international summaries of people and organisations through fleshing out references to the Australian, United Kingdom, Canadian and New Zealand Christian Right movements. There are significant similarities and differences between the national movements, as one can note.
User: Calibanu 12:41, 09 May 2006
"Opposition to same-sex marriage laws and other measures to promote equality for homosexuals by groups such as the Focus on the Family and Traditional Values Coalition."
The phrase that I removed was "...and other measures to promote equality for homosexuals." I doubt members of the Christian right would say they oppose equality for all, but that the legislation they oppose would not foster equality. I'm not against saying their opposition isn't limited to same-sex marriage; but as it's written now it's advocacy language, as slanted as saying liberals oppose domestic phone taps and other anti-terrorist initiatives. Tom Harrison Talk 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, liberals do oppose domestic wire taps and other anti-terrorist initiatives.  However, their motivation is not pro-terrorist, but pro-privacy.  In the same way, it's entirely accurate to say that the Christian rigth opposes measures that promote equality for homosexuals.  I just don't see you point, here. Al 22:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the statement makes a judgement as to the reasons and motives of the subject, in either case, and therefore is POV. It needs to be removed. Pollinator 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internationalisation

message: Someone added this link — Religious Right History Revisionism — at Religious Right. Clearly, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in this article, not that one. I leave it to people working on this article to decide if it should be linked at all. - Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly link 

message: I didn't see any way to salvage the polemic recently added on political influence. It's hopelessly POV, propagandistic. Terms like arch-conservative, fundamentalist are tossed around with little understanding. Ther whole section has a mocking tone. The editor needs to read Wikipedia:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone, and the AP policy on use of the term fundamentalism. Pollinator 00:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, it seems to have been added back in from an earlier version of Wikipedia. While I'd agree it's POV/Prop, it does have some interesting numbers. Of course, since the most immediate source is an old Wikipedia piece, primary source(s) to validate would be worthwhile. =) Abb3w 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV section removed 

message: Grant section is unsourced and overly narrow - anyone have a cite?
Anyone?--Cberlet 04:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grant?

message: I recommend removing Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church from this list as he is just too eclectic to fit into any neat category and is quickly disowned by both Right and Left. For example, Phelps has been a constant and vociferous opponent of the Iraq war. unsigned post.
The post above is not by TheModerate 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People 

message: Paradoxically, though, censorship policy has been a continued point of contention between Canada's lesbian, gay and arts communities and federal Customs.
:I'm interested in knowing what this really means. If I am not greatly mistaken, it means that, hypothetically, a pederastic gay man who has just returned from Thailand with a DVD he made of his adventures would have considerable trouble getting that DVD past Canadian customs officials? Or what?Theavatar3 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the Canadian section... 

message: Furthermore, many Christian Right organisations from the Anglosphere use discourse, tactics and strategies from the United States Christian Right in their own contexts, leading their feminist, gay and social liberal opponents to foster their own global networking in retaliation.
:The latter half of this sentence is loaded with many debatable implications.  For instance, it implies that any feminists, homosexual, or social liberal is necessarily an opponent to the Christian Right and that together they constitute the major opposition groups (to the exclusion of others).  It also inaccurately suggests both that these groups are retaliatory in nature and that any global networks of these groups have been created specifically to combat the Christian Right.  While there may be individual issues on which some of these groups as a whole may disagree, it's more fair and accurate to say that advocates of leftist policies would be in opposition to the Christian Right.  Additionally, while it's possible that feminists as a group may tend to hold to leftist ideals, the Christian Right in general does not advocate policies that would be in opposition to feminist ideals, such as opposing women's sufferage, outlawing women in the workplace, or opposing gender equality in general.  The only such topic that may fit this bill would be abortion, which is largely an issue unto itself and not solely the domain of feminism.  I recognize the potentially volatile nature of this topic, and since a Wikipedia administrator reverted my changes (without thorough consideration IMHO), I'm proposing them here for discussion and the opportunity to further explain the edits.  I believe the following sentence is more accurate, carries a more neutral and less combative tone, and is not as badly in need of citations:
::Many Christian Right organizations from the Anglosphere use discourse, tactics and strategies from the United States Christian Right in their own local contexts in opposition to advocates for some leftist policies, such as the expansion of gay rights and legalization of abortion.
:See the entire third section for examples, should the statement in general be in question. -- Deacon 03:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Implied in the use of Christian right as a category are the remaining grids; christian left, secular right, and secular left, which seem pretty much empty. The whole point of a term is to allow you, in a natural way, to divide up a larger group into smaller groups, and relate the groups to each other. Religious right, to me, seems like an us-and-"them" kind of division. Also implicit in this is the assumption that Christianity makes you  different in some way, in some essential way, from what you were before. That is a very kind thought, but is it true in practice? Is this category practical?  Martin |  talk • contribs  21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian right as category 

message: There is more to social than sexual. The Catholic Church's "social" teachings, since Leo XIII, have been on the right to a living wage, on poverty, on the oppressed - almost Marxist mindfulness of class conflict. I think that the term "personal conservative" comes closer to describing the issues denoted than "social conservative". And there mayt be better terms, in the sense that they more accurately indicate what is meant as well as what is not meant.  Martin |  talk • contribs  21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "reactionary" may be more literally accurate than "conservative" as well, as many of these changes have already happened, and the "conservatives" want them changed back; this detail, however, is largely moot. "Social conservative" is how the concept is most commonly expressed (politely). Similarly, the teachings of the Catholic Church you refer to would be characterized as falling under "socially progressive"; they are issues of the (less prominent) Christian Left, not the Christian Right. (See also my earlier exchange w. Karwynn above.) Abb3w 13:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will go back and read what you said above to Karwynn. Meantime I note that you commented on the term "Conservative", rather than the term "Social", which was the question. To ask it in another way, why is one side of "helping the poor" called "social progressive" and the other side called "fiscal conservative"?  Martin |  talk • contribs  18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Or is the side that is against "helping the poor" properly called "social conservative"?  Martin |  talk • contribs  02:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the word "social" in social conservative 

message: The social conservative article is international in scope. Mixing in, or trying to mix in, the polite usage of Social Conservative, confuses what might be a simpler topic. This suggestion will probably seem odd at first, but look at that article, and see whether you think that a move in that direction would be helpful.  Martin |  talk • contribs  17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation page for "Social Conservative (polite)" 

message: I am starting a bibliography secton below.  The references section is a good step, but is not numbered in any way.  Perhaps we need some kind of numbering scheme?   TheModerate 03:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: Seems like we need to number the references section to allow some form of tracking, as is common in researched papers.
TheModerate 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: We now need to move on to the People section.  As written, it is pure personal POV and completely unsupported.  In view of the often defamatory uses of the term Christian Right, I think that personal and unsupported nominations to this category have absolutely no place in an encyclopedia article.  If Wikipedia is sued for defamation, that could be the end of a magnificent experiment.  Don't think it can't happen.  PLEASE help get this article in better shape.  As I suggested article number 1 in the Google search 
New York Times
March 3, 2007
Evangelical’s Focus on Climate Draws Fire of Christian Right
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/us/03evangelical.html
"Leaders of several conservative Christian groups have sent a letter urging the National Association of Evangelicals to force its policy director in Washington to stop speaking out on global warming. ...
The letter, dated Thursday, is signed by leaders like James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family; Gary L. Bauer, once a Republican presidential candidate and now president of Coalitions for America; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; and Paul Weyrich, a longtime political strategist who is chairman of American Values."
That would give three people to start with and a respected source for them.  I cannot emphasize it strongly enough that any identification of an individual as Christian Right must cite a reliable source.  Let THEM get sued.  The NYT has a legal staff for just that kind of issue.  Do you?  TheModerate 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The People Section

message: This section is offered as a place for source materials that can foster understanding of people and issues.  
Excellent NPOV article in the Washington Pos that is worth the time to read:
Christians Who Won't Toe the Line
Washington Post.
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, March 16, 2007; Page A21
"Evangelical Protestantism in the United States is going through a New Reformation that is disentangling a great religious movement from a partisan political machine. This historic change will require liberals and conservatives alike to abandon their sometimes narrow views of who evangelicals are."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031501868.html
The letter by what may be construed as the "old-line" Christian Right can be found at:
http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/NAELetterFinal.pdf
There is a list of signatories who might be taken as self-identifying as some form of "Christian-Right"
TheModerate 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles and Sources 

message: We are in the process of adding citations to this page. All new material must be cited to a reputable published source.  All new material added without proper citation will be removed.  All text not cited in the next 30 days will be removed.--Cberlet 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you applied the same standard to your self all would be well.  But you refuse to do so.  You are a Culture Warrior with an axe to grind. You are not contributing. Stop your vandalism.  TheModerate 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid personal attacks.--Cberlet 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please avoid systematic vandalism.  The fact that the Christian right opposes trafficing in persons for sex slavery is well documented.  Their opposition to ongoing genocide is also well documented.  Please explain why you deleted those from the Issues section or restore those posts.  Your next cheap shot will be that the is no cite for these yet.   If you are willing to delete all issues in that section without cites I will understand your action as consistent and honest.  Will I see that happen?  TheModerate 02:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cited material

message: This is an official policy. See WP:RS.
::Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. 
::Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. 
Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. 
::Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. 
Analyzing Google hits fails this test.--Cberlet 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As does most everything you have posted.  Choices like Slate in the Issues section are highly questionable.  Perhaps the National Enquirer is next on your list of sources?  The entire issues section is weasel words and unsubstantiated. As is the people section.  Shall I go on?  This whole article is of deplorably low quality.  TheModerate 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, would you like us to ask for a mediator?--Cberlet 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like you to adhere to the same standards you ask of me.  I have invited you to participate in the relevant discussion sections before making unexplained deletions.  You have insisted on arbitrary and capricious deletions in response.  Your pattern is to delete any suggestion that your opponents on the Christian Right are human or ever engage in useful activities.  This shows a world view rooted in the Culture War.  I challenge you to join in an intelligent discussion before attacking with a systematic campaign of unexplained deletions. TheModerate 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation might help. Please avoid personal attacks.--Cberlet 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A challenge to engage in intelligent discussion rather than vandalize all posts that are inconsistent with your pursuit of a biased POV not a personal attack.  The edit logs show your pattern of bias conclusively, and we both know it.  Raids deleting uncontested facts that are inconsistent with your POV are unethical.  I am actively engaged in the discussion groups and, unlike you up to now, I am open to reasoned discourse.  You need to  stop vandalizing Wikipedia to make it fit your biased POV.  You will find that the article improves as a result.  TheModerate 13:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not refer to editing disagreements as "vandalism," it is discouraged under Wiki guidelines. Please stop personalizing our disagreement. Calling another editor "unethical" is a personal attack. Please desist.--Cberlet 13:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright.  Systematic deletion of uncontested facts that are inconsistent with your Culture War POV.  If not "vandalism" it was surely no innocuous editing either.   A couple of things are clear.  They include that the CR has some important humanitarian positions and campaigns including:  opposition to trafficing in persons for sex slavery worldwide, and prostitution in the US and elsewhere which often involves virtual slavery to pimps through violence and drug addiction, and child pornography.  Their opposition to ongoing genocide is also well documented.  They run substantial and well funded programs to feed, clothe, and vaccinate disparately poor children.  You do realize that they take the stand they do on pornography because they view it as immoral exploitation of women, do you not?  Is that an issue that the feminists agree with? Is that agreement on BOTH sides of the Culture War?  Why suppress it?   Yes, the Culture War issues like abortion rights, erotica, gay rights, same sex marriage, judicial activism, and so forth belong there.  But my edits did not remove or deface those issues, now did they?  Yours aggressively removed factually accurate statements of ADDITIONAL issues that don't fit your world view.  BTW, you also removed some edits that fixed sloppy writing. ;-)  Ready to call a truce and work on improving the article? TheModerate 01:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the nasty personal attacks. You do not seem to understand basic Wiki guidelines.  This is not a page about the views of conservative evangelicals, it is a page about the Christian Right. There are scores of books and hundreds of articles about the Christian Right.  There are published statements by conservative evangelicals objecting to the term "Christian Right."  If you go to a library you can find them. There are also numerous issue positions attributed in print to various Christian Right leaders and groups. We should find cites to back up all of the items in the list of issues or remove them. But what is not acceptable is to salt the list with issues that are not specifically highlighted by Christian Right leaders and groups. And it is not up to you or me to pluck these issues out of thin air.  You demanded documentation. I am adding it. You now need a citation for every sentence you add. You claimed that cites were needed.  That goes for all editors now. If it cannot be cited to a reputable published source, please do not add it.  If you are unable or unwilling to cite new text to a reputable published source, please stop editing this page and wasting my time.  I have added a score of cites.  Your turn.--Cberlet 02:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop calling what I do "vandalism." This is not considered proper here on Wiki.--Cberlet 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What shall I call it?  Is culture war POV raiding considered proper here on Wiki?  If not then give me an honest term for what you are doing.  Meanwhile, I will continue to log your behavior in the vandalism section.  TheModerate 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gee... I thought the article abstract says: "The "Christian Right" as a social movement includes individuals from a wide variety of theological beliefs, ranging from moderately traditional movements within Lutheranism and Catholicism to theologically more conservative movements such as Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and Fundamentalist Christianity."  Are you the author of that?  You might want to narrow that broad brush a bit if you are suddenly excluding these people.  Did you know that Lutherans are in a concord with the The Episcopal Church (TEC), which is perhaps one of the most liberal sects in the US and which is famously rupturing the Anglican Communion over ordination of gay bishops?    Do you actually know anything about the Christian community? TheModerate 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I already added and offered a large number of references.  Please read them. TheModerate 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No original research

message: I removed all the entries in the "Issues" section and am repopulating the list with only material cited to reputable published sources.  Any assistance in this effort is greatly appreciated. Please look for cites that mention the "Christian Right" and not conservative evangelicals in general. Thanks.--Cberlet 15:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this a sound approach. TheModerate 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your addition was not proper. Please find a secondary source that says a particluar position is representative of the "Christian Right."  Anecdotal incidents do not count.  The Christian Right is split on the case heading for the Supreme Court.--Cberlet 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that TheModerate does not seem to understand the differences between primary and secondary sources, original research and research cited to sources, what consititutes an anecdotal incident versus a seconday source suggesting a paradigm, and other matters related to Wikipedia guidelines.  I am requesting Admin intervention.
Dear Chip,
Having looked you up on Google I find your long history of confrontation with those on the right wing by whom you feel threatened.Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, C. Berlet, M. Lyons, Gilford Press 2000, ISBN 1-57230-562-2Counter Intelligence: A Documentary Look at Americas Secret Police by Noam Chomsky, National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties C, and Chip Berlet (Paperback - Jun 1982).  Clearly you are a veteran Culture Warrior who takes extreme positions for a living.  Don't take that the wrong way; I do respect the need for a broad and vigorous discourse in this pluralistic society of ours.
But I have you at a disadvantage, so I will offer you a couple of biographical details.  
First, I write here as a Christian with many years of theological training, but one from a very left-wing denomination, much in the news these days for accepting Gays as priests and Bishops, and it has a long tradition of broad carefully reasoned discourse.  That is why your comments about Lutherans in the article introduction, who are also on the liberal wing of American Christianity, are so laughable to me.  Your knowledge of  your fellow extremists may be encyclopedic, but your knowledge of these main stream Christian groups is clearly and profoundly deficient.
Second, I was once a committed Atheist so I know that viewpoint well, too, and do not scoff at the faith of its believers.  You will have to excuse me because my faith in Atheism failed me a couple of decades ago, and I now find the two-thousand year tradition of humane beliefs that are the core of Christianity to be better.  Yes, I am well aware of the many sins and errors committed in the name of Christianity in that time.  But I am also aware of the monstrous butcher bill for the socialist Atheist experiments in the Twentieth Century, with their body count in a just few decades exceeding that of all  history's religious wars combined.
Third, I strongly believe in the Separation of Church and State, because it protects the Church.  History shows that mixing the two creates an always toxic mixture in which the Church always serves the state.
Fourth, bigotry is on all sides of the Christian Right debate, as much as you deny it.  Apropos of that, the major flaw in your contributions is poorly differentiating the extremists you are trying to pursue from the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Evangelicals, and Catholics.  There are over a billion of us, and your bigotry does no one justice.  You really need to target your polemics more carefully by clearly identifying the extreme fringe you seem to want to discuss.  Then again, the habits of a lifetime of conflict may make that impossible for you because you may well see all who have differing opinions as enemies.
Fifth, I must tell you that this encounter was an experiment for me.  I saw an article by some (right) wing-nuts claiming the Wikipedia editors were poisonously biased and impervious to reason.  They said their views and inputs were systematically suppressed, and that they have had to start their own Wiki version to have a chance to be heard at all.  Frankly, I thought they were paranoid.  So I decided to log on and bring some balance to a controversial topic just to show they were wrong.  What did I find?  An irrational old (left) wing-nut agitprop so convinced that he has a compete corner on the truth that he self-righteously suppresses all ideas but his own.  You are welcome to the article, and your hatreds.  Having learned what I wished to know, I will trouble you no further.  Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
TheModerate 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is another narrative.  It goes like this. User:TheModerate came here, did not bother to learn any of the basic rules, policies, guidelines, or courtesies. User:TheModerate made several edits that violated basic editing policies of Wikipedia.  After getting into a disagreement, User:TheModerate became rude, abusive, and posted numerous personal attacks.  User:TheModerate ignored several offers of assistance, advice, and mediation. Then User:TheModerate posted a message about an important mission of discovery--and left.--Cberlet 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a third, as well Chip. A new user from a middle-of-the-road position tried to give a little more balance. You did not really offer help; rather you instantly reverted his/her work, condescendingly lectured the new user, demanded compliance with perfect procedures, and actually got into an edit war, which an experienced editor should not be doing. In effect you were claiming ownership (and won). This is not a personal attack; it's a simple description of what I've seen happening, and it's hard for me to understand why you cannot see what you've been doing. Pollinator 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues section

message: I think the whole article should be tossed, and a new one started. With some kind of ground rules. -- Martin |  talk • contribs  10:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ground rules are provided by standard Wiki guidelines.  I propose re-opening the page for edits, and I will attempt to find cites for the material on the United States over the next month.--Cberlet 17:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restart