Talk:United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

message: The link to http://www.uscirf.gov/ doesn't seem to work. Bernburgerin 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Web links

message: Commissioner is nominated because of his position at a Private Organization. Thus, His and his organization's freedom of religion record is relevant. Check the USCIRF website for details. This is true for all sectional advocacy group.
Hypothetical example, If Walmart VP is a commissioner of a free-labor sectional advocacy group then VP, and Walmart's free-labor track record becomes relevant. More-over, Is Walmart VP abusing his commissioner position by opposing mom & pop business and pushing Walmart agenda is also a relevant question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs) 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first claim is not correct.  According to the USCIRF website, "Commissioners are selected for their expertise, not because they represent specific religious communities.".  Also, there's no evidence that the commissioner was involved in the given events.  In any case, the allegations against the Southern Baptist Commission and the IMB have no reliable source.  (The HAF is an advocacy group and so not a reliable source.) Spacepotato (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Commissioner and his Organization's freedom of religion track record 

message: I removed this section because it appeared to be made up completely of original research.  For example, it made criticisms of the USCIRF such as "Commissioner’s duel [sic] public and private role can produce conflict of interest and biased recommendation favoring one religion over other" and "Instead of reporting factual violence involving all religions, USCIRF uses deceptive hyperbole and discriminatory omission".  However, these criticisms were not found in the quoted sources.  It is not permissible to insert one's own personal editorializing into an article.  Criticism can only be reported as it is found in reliable sources. Spacepotato (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Conflict of Interest" section

message: I removed this because it seemed to consist mostly of inconsequential political gossip, such as a proposal to cut the funding of the USCIRF (which was denied) and a possible request for an investigation (which was withdrawn.)  Rumors of infighting are already reported above. Spacepotato (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Last paragraph of "Criticism and Controversy" section

message: The comment on this editorial is out of place, because it is about the 2004 report, and it is in the middle of a section which is devoted to Indian press responses to the 2009 report.  Also, the editorial  does not explicitly accuse the USA of hypocrisy, but rather sticks to insinuation.  The reason for this is probably that the argument in the editorial is weak; the only charges against the USA are (1) that foreign-born citizens are not allowed to become president and that (2) all presidents have been Christians.  However, neither of these points have anything to do with the USCIRF, or even with religious freedom—the USA has never had a Jewish president, for example, but this does not prevent Judaism from being freely practiced in the USA.  
I would prefer to leave this editorial out altogether as we already quote plenty of rhetorical attacks against the USCIRF and the USA and this extra one adds little, and does not help the balance of the article.  I find the invective in the Indian press interesting and worth documenting, but this article is certainly not itself a forum to attack the USCIRF. Spacepotato (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Times editorial of 2004

message: I don't know if that's really true.  What is the case is that in the mid 1990s many Christian religious groups in the U.S. were getting highly annoyed by the fact that the U.S. State Department was doing almost nothing year after year to protect oppressed religious minorities, or even to publicly highlight their plight.  This agency was created as something of a rebuke to the State Department (since State seemingly suddenly lost almost all interest in the matter with the fall of communism), and also as a practical means to reduce growing political friction between Foggy Bottom and evangelicals.  It was created because of Christian concerns, but there never was any official stated intention to favor Christianity over other religions... AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "its original intention was to protect Christians around the world"

message: The whole article is peppered with Stanke's POV. Most of the Stanke quotes fails to stand against facts.
For Example:
Stanke Quotes "Commissioners...who come from a variety of political and religious backgrounds as well as various areas of expertise," but the truth is that since inception majority of commissioners are officials of various evangelical organizations. Clearly the commission, which is suppose to protect freedom of ALL faith,  was and is dominated by 1 faith. More-over, Some belong to organization which have displayed hatred towards other faiths.  Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: = Should Stanke's easily refutable quotes be treated as gospel truth ?

message: IP  can you please stop affing content sourced ot a blog, it fails WP:RS Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog ref 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :United States Commission on International Religious Freedom's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nytimes":
From Robert P. George: 
From Abdul Rahman (convert): Abdul Waheed Wafa 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:United States Commission on International Religious Freedom]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031127222008/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/526/eg1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/526/eg1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214205744/http://www.globalengage.org/research/reports/829-the-future-of-us-international-religious-freedom-policy-special-report-.html to http://www.globalengage.org/research/reports/829-the-future-of-us-international-religious-freedom-policy-special-report-.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)