Talk:Christian right/Archive 1

message: Dominionism is a religious philosophy, while Dominion Theology is -- a theology. It's a fine point, but its there.
What credible source has suggested Christian Identity is part of the Christian Right? Cite it and we can talk some more.  Zapped for now.--Cberlet 23:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nazi's and people who claim that they are the "true aryan Jews", Odin worshippers and whatnot cannot rightly be called "christian right". They having nothing to do with the christian coalition, or anthing like that, the Christian right obviously doesn't accept them. While their clearly on the fringes, I think their one of many groups which display the errors of the left-right dichotomy. Good edit mr. Berlet  14:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Details, Details

message: Who is Diamond? Why cite him here? He seems rather a partisan. I happen to agree that the christian right has supported govt. military intervention since the 50's, but that phrasing sounds derogatory to me.  14:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the previous edit had facutally false text about 9/11 being the turnaround from isolationism, which really happened in the 1950s and the Cold War. Diamond was listed in the references at the bottom of the page.--Cberlet 22:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "according to Diamond"? 

message: I hardly know where to begin--this article is so obviously written by someone who doesn't have the foggiest notion what they're talking about, that it, frankly, like so many other crappy articles, casts an unfortunate shadow on the good parts of the Wikipedia.  It is impossible, by reading the text of this article, to not get the feeling that its primary contributors consider the terms "Christian right" and "religious right" to be epithets to describe, alternatively, devious and nefarious corrupters of Christianity in particular and/or religion in general, or a group of people with whom they disagree on religious and political grounds, and are using this article as a platform to summarily dismiss such groups collectively as imbecilic nitwits.  It needs an almost complete rewrite to remove the glaringly obvious POV, as well as to insert something resembling even so much as a foundation for why this deserves an article.  In its current state, this article appears to be an excerpt from a pamphlet distributed by CNN, instructing new "journalists" on the proper way to use jargonize terminology to denigrate people with whom that network has an obvious and constant difference of opinion.  It lacks a factual basis, and sounds like nothing more than just a rambling rant against what some people believe are religious nutcases.  This is not encyclopedic, and leaving the article in its current state, in my erstwhile humble opinion, constitutes a gross example of intellectual dishonesty.  Tomer TALK 00:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
::I am one of the editors of this page, and my articles on the Christian Right have been published internationally in publications ranging from the Boston Globe to chapters in scholarly books.  So you can imagine my surprise to read the above criticsm.  Perhaps Tomer could pick one alleged factual flaw and discuss it here rather than just posting signs on the main page. The article could certainly use more information sympathetic to the Christian Right, but I urge everyone to go back to previous versions and see how much more POV it used to be. There is always room for improvement...but posting criticism and not posting new text is not useful.--Cberlet 01:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope to see a discussion here. --Cberlet 13:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomer is basically right, and your qualifications underscore that, rather than diminish it. Then again, your reply is also correct, you are not to be blamed for the work you have done, rather the answer is to provide more content to the article. Sam Spade  13:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, NPOV is not the same as being factually correct. It is quite easy to write an entirely factually correct article which is nevertheless dripping in condescension, bias and inappropriate framing. For example, I suspect that very few members of the Christian Right self-identify as such. I may try a bit of NPOV-ification, e.g. removing phrases like "such elements." --Jmstylr 13:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. Sam Spade  13:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: Accuracy:   This article is in need of serious rework 

message: ::Note to "Helpful Dave," I am not a vandal or a sockpuppet. You just reintroduced two typos by reverting my minor edit. Do it again and I will file a complaint.  You clearly did not even look at the Diff. I invite others to check out the Diff and see. --Cberlet 14:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith.  I didn't mean to revert you.  I was reverting en masse a large number of pages vandalised by User:Chunkyhoyo, and I must have made a mistake here.  Apologies.   — Helpful Dave 14:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, hard to assume good faith sometimes. Apologies for the flame.--Cberlet 18:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals etc