Talk:Fundamentalism

message: Entry added that needs a little work before prime time inclusion.  The first source will not work unless I log in which violates WP:RS so it needs replacement.  The second source is from a partisan democrat but the sentence is about vagueness of the constitution authorship which can be sourced more neutrally from a constitution scholar.  The third source is from a senior Newsweek journalist and is fine but all the sources need to use  or  style citations which are a much higher class referencing scheme.  The text is fine with me.  --Alatari (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is primarily a criticism of Tea party folks, and does not attempt to explain their so-called "fundamentalism". It seems to mean close fidelity to the original text. However the Supreme  Court pays very close attention to the original words of the Constitution, --indeed that is standard practice in the U.S. The sources turn out to be journalists and bloggers and not constitutional experts. In a word: the material is not based on RS, is primarily argumentative designed to ridicule a political position (ie POV)  and is not encyclopedic. Rjensen (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I didn't look for more sources about this yet and am also unsure if this article is the ideal target.  If the main issue was weight, possibly that in the new organization it could marry with the "Non-religious" section without an additional subheader...  —PaleoNeonate – 01:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional fundamentalism entry 

message: While the article has various specialized sections, some of the material in the lead should probably be in a main section, possibly before the various religions/political examples.  Such section could give a little more general context, see for instance this source.  There probably are even better sociology and religious studies sources about the topic that could also be used to expand that eventual section...  —PaleoNeonate – 00:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social context etc 

message: Presently the second sentence in lead: 
However, fundamentalism has come to be applied to a tendency among certain groups–mainly, although not exclusively, in religion–that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions, leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed.
As converted to slide-projector punctuation: 
However, fundamentalism has come to be applied to:
* a tendency among certain groups
** mainly in religion
*** although not exclusively
* that is characterized by:
** a markedly strict literalism as it is applied to certain specific:
*** scriptures
*** dogmas
*** ideologies
** and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining
*** ingroup distinctions
*** outgroup distinctions
* leading to an emphasis on:
** purity
** desire to return to a previous ideal
*** from which advocates believe members have strayed.
Does the average reader even agree with this, which I pondered for several minutes? This is a crazy grammatical unboxing video if you ask me. — MaxEnt 00:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the constatation, that sentence is indeed definitely too long and should be split or rewritten.  Even the relationship of claims to the citations is blurred...  —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: BTW, I may eventually get to do it myself, but in the spirit of WP:BOLD, feel free to attempt to rewrite the lead (if it includes sourced information that's not in the body already, it should probably be moved there, then the new lead would not need any citations if it simply is a summary of the important parts of the body, per WP:LEAD).  —PaleoNeonate – 01:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rube Goldberg Jack-in-the-Box 

message: Since this defining phrase is not spoken, we are free to use "which". I don't know where you got the idea that a defining phrase cannot use "which". It is perfectly good grammar. But I'm not going to edit-war over it. I have more sources. Elizium23 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "That" or "which"