Talk:Paul Weyrich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neutrality

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)

POV pushing

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)

Inaccurate information

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.

So, we have very well-referenced and supported sources, "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party, Religion in America’s Public Square: Are We Crossing the Line?, "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual", versus your anonymous word for it? Sorry, but we'll stick to the sources here. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Paul Weyrich Witchcraft Article

" 'Satanic' Army Unworthy of Representing United States

10 Groups Call for Nationwide Recruiting Boycott

WASHINGTON, DC - Responding to recently reported officially approved witchcraft rituals in the United States Army, 10 Christian and conservative organizations today called for a nationwide recruiting boycott of the Army.

"Until the Army withdraws all official support and approval from witchcraft, no Christian should enlist or re-enlist in the Army, and Christian parents should not allow their children to join the Army," said Paul M. Weyrich, President of the Free Congress Foundation, one of the organizations calling for the boycott. "An Army that sponsors satanic rituals is unworthy of representing the United States of America," Weyrich continued.

On June 8, The Washington Post reported the existence of officially approved witchcraft "covens" at Ft. Hood, Texas, and several other Army posts. According to the Post, "Two summers ago, the Army approved the Fort Hood Open Circle as its first official wiccan group. Without much fanfare, Fort Hood officials gave them a grassy campsite for their sacred ground, sanctioned their choice of high priestess - even lent them an Army chaplain for moral support. Twice a week, the wiccans hold evening classes on subjects such as lunar cycles and the meaning of a coven. On full moons and eight sacred holidays, they and dozens more witches from the surrounding area watch the high priestess lift her dagger over a ball of salt and honor the blessed earth. The events are posted on base and open to anyone interested." The Post further reported that the Army's Handbook for Chaplains lists other groups that may seek official approval, including the "Church of Satan."

"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."

In addition to the Free Congress Foundation, the recruiting strike was today endorsed by Traditional Values Coalition; Christian Action Network; the American Association of Christian Schools; Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.; Madison Project; the Religious Freedom Coalition; I Love Jesus Worldwide Ministries; 60 Plus; and the American Council for Immigration Reform.

The Free Congress Foundation, where Mr. Weyrich serves as President, is a 21-year-old Washington based think tank, which teaches people how to be effective in the political process, promotes cultural conservatism, and works against the government encroachment on individual liberties."

Okay, where in this column does Mr. Weyrich demand that Wiccans be expelled from the military? What sentence? It does, however, call for the removal of official sanction for occult activities by the military. There's a huge difference between calling for their expulsion and asking the military to remove official sanction for their activities. It's a huge difference, but facts don't seem to matter around here.--Pravknight 01:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, the relevant quote is in the article, the one that contains ""If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks." JoshuaZ 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So. But at the same time, he didn't demand they get kicked out. I'll say that I disagree with my friend on this one, but still, the comment needs to be taken in its proper context of what his real demand was. If he said throw them out, then I'd agree with you. But unless you attribute that to someone, it's just your personal opinion. This isn't about winning political arguments. To quote User:Jimbo Wales, "Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions."

As we say in journalism, let someone else speak your mind in an article.--68.45.161.241 03:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you claiming that that quote is not a call for a general boycott until the wiccans are thrown out? What does it sound like to you. JoshuaZ 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Among other problems with your comments, unlike you who seem to only care about this article and related ones, everyone else here edits a myriad of different articles (just look at their contrib lists), so your "besides" comment hold zero ground. Second, not to be too blunt but what don't you understand about ""If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks"? Note the phrase I bolded please and explain how the context changes what this means. JoshuaZ 03:56, 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)

Well referenced but biased sources

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.

Judging by your rhetoric, strained reasoning and rush to dismiss credible sources, it appears it is you who is opposed to a dispassionate and objective biography of Weyrich, not us. FeloniousMonk 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

Has it occured to you that perhaps your self-admitted close personal relationship to Weyrich is preventing you from writing neutrally about him? It has me. Anyone who thinks David Horowitz's site, frontpagemag.com, is a more credible, less biased source than Cornell's TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League is an "an anti-Christian hate group" is not likely going to be swayed by reasoning that rests on our policies, but I suggest you read our Verifiability and Reliable Sources policies. Personal e-mails to you from Weyrich rebutting this content are not acceptable in the article unless they were previously published in sources that meet the Reliable Sources and Verifiability standards. Wikipedia:Autobiography may also preclude you from editing here, considering your admitted close personal relationship to Weyrich. FeloniousMonk 05:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Biased Sources

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.

Anyone who claims David Horowitz's site, frontpagemag.com, is a more credible, less biased source than Cornell's TheocracyWatch and calls the Anti-Defamation League an "an anti-Christian hate group" is not objective enough to opine on what constitutes a biased source in my opinion. There is no prohibition at Wikipedia against sources that have agendas since most do. The way that Wikipedia works is that any significant opinion that meets WP:V supported by a source that meets WP:RS and is presented in a manner consistent with WP:NPOV is fair game. Regardless of whether opinions voicing concerns over Dominionism and its Weyrich's relationship to it are realistic or justified, they verifiably exist and are notable. The cited opinions of the ADL and of TheocracyWatch regarding Weyrich amply meet the bar for verifiability and reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes; that you find them uncomfortable or distasteful is not a valid justification for removing them. FeloniousMonk 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

Editorializing

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."

Do you think you could manage to sign your posts with for tildes? •Jim62sch• 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Using "according to" gives undo undo weight to their POV. The sourcing on those two sites is rather poor, and relies more upon innuendo than anything else. The voice tone in the section is not NPOV.

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.

We agreed upon the following as a more neutral wording that doesn't give these groups views undue weight:

"TheocracyWatch, a secularist think tank based at Cornell University, and the Anti-Defamation League claim both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with "Dominionism," a Calvinist-influenced movement.[3][4] TheocracyWatch assert both are 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, "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement."[3] This manifesto, called "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual" by TheocracyWatch, is considered by some, a virtual playbook for how Christian conservatives in American politics can get and keep power.[5] The Anti-Defamation League charges Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation are part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations that threaten secularism."

Saying they claim x or y doesn't detract from these group's opinions, but it makes it clear it is an opinion, not a fact. Christian conservatives don't refer to themselves as the "Theocractic right," but rather it's what their enemies call them. TheocracyWatch doesn't even define what it thinks a "Theocracy" is on it's website, and by the definition they use FDR could have been considered a theocrat for singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" aboard the HMS Prince of Wales with Winston Churchill in 1942, or Thomas Jefferson could have for allowing the halls of Congress to be used for religious services during his presidency. Not to mention the numerous 19th century court rulings that affirmed Christianity's unique place in American government and society.

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]

I dispute their verifiability. Consequently, I consider it editorializing to retain the wording you have selected. The Christian right supports the institutional separation of church and state, but disputes the secularist's interpretation thereof. To quote from 19th century Union Theological Seminary Professor Philip Schaff, who had the benefit of having lived before the 20th century navel gazing over the issue: “The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the infidel [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself…. The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

[2]

TheocracyWatch's citations have little place as a primary source that should be taken as "fact".

--Pravknight 16:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Left-wing extremist POV rules

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.

Baloney!--Cberlet 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No one has asserted that they are non-partisan sources (and if they have, then they are wrong). No source is objective. However, neither is composed of "Left-wing extremists" and even if you have issues with Theocracywatch, it is unreasonable to cal the ADL left wing. Incidentally, I strongly suggest you read WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. JoshuaZ 01:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you not say that ADL is Left-wing? It's hardly right wing. It advocates a secularist agenda, and even Orthodox Jewish leaders such as Rabbi Daniel Lapin have said:"The most deeply held values of the ADL are a hatred of Judaism and Christianity—and a secularization of society."[3]

The ADL has shown intolerance, not only of Conservative Christians, but of fellow Jews who do not share its secularist viewpoint.[4]

Calling the ADL a Left-wing Jewish group is every bit as accurate as calling the Orthodox Union a Right-wing Jewish group.

[[User:Pravknight]--Pravknight 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we supposed to take sources that include this [5] on their front page? A homage to David Irving? And for calling the OU a Right-wing Jewish group, that would be inaccurate in the extreme and just demonstrates that you don't understand American Jewish politics and how they intersect with religion. JoshuaZ 03:21, 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)

Not that it's really relevant to this article, but you are wrong about OU. It is a religious group, not a political group. It doesn't take a stand on political issues. None of your links points to OU taking a political position. A single Orthodox rabbi doesn't speak for OU any more than Sen. Lieberman does. --dm ^(talk) 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Free exercise of religion in the military

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))

... [SCOTUS] have repeatedly held that "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society." [475 U.S. 503, 507] Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 743 (1974). See also Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 300 (1983); Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 757 (1975); Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94 (1953). ... In the context of the present case, when evaluating whether military needs justify a particular restriction on religiously motivated conduct, courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest.

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)

I tried altering it to put it into better context, per Mr. Weyrich's actual column along with personal insight I have into the man's thinking, but it constantly gets reverted. I consider it editorializing, unless of course User:Killer Chihauhua has a third-party quote accusing him of doing so, and in that case it would be necessary to put a point of clarification in. Also, Mr. Weyrich never said anything about throwing Wiccans or Satanists out of the military, for that matter. He merely objected to the official sanction they had received from the Army brass.--Pravknight 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversial 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, 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."

According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with Dominionism. 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, "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement." 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. 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. Weyrich has rejected allegations that he advocates theocracy saying, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry" and dismisses the claim that the Christian right wishes to transform America into a theocracy.

This section needs serious reworking because as I see it. As it is currently written it's setting up a straw man argument even if it's cited. It needs either to be junked competely or reworked.

--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)

Right to serve in the military? You added {{dubious}} to "Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the [[Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment|Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment]". The sentance is talking about free expression of religion. The second part of the sentance ("and bar them from serving the military altogether") talks about "right to serve", but it is separate from the First Ammendment statement. Are you sure you read the sentance carefully? Guettarda 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The section is about Wiccans in the US military, not about Wiccans in society. It is entirely possible that Weyrich wishes Wiccans could not practice their religion as civilians, but that is not the context here, and no evidence is presented outside the FCF press release.-choster 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at what the article says, and compare that to what Weyrich says. The article says "Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and bar them from serving the military altogether." Read the source cited in the article 'Satanic' Army Unworthy of Representing United States. There, Weyrich says: "Until the Army withdraws all official support and approval from witchcraft, no Christian should enlist or re-enlist in the Army, and Christian parents should not allow their children to join the Army," said Paul M. Weyrich, President of the Free Congress Foundation, one of the organizations calling for the boycott. "An Army that sponsors satanic rituals is unworthy of representing the United States of America," Weyrich continued. 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."[9]

"Until the Army withdraws all official support and approval from witchcraft, no Christian should enlist or re-enlist in the Army" is clearly is intended to deny Wiccans their right to practice their religion (as protected by the First Amendment). "Satanic Army Unworthy of Representing United States" clearly indicates Weyrich would bar them altogether from serving the military. What's the issue again? FeloniousMonk 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not at all see how "'Until the Army withdraws all official support and approval from witchcraft, no Christian should enlist or re-enlist in the Army' is clearly is intended to deny Wiccans their right to practice their religion (as protected by the First Amendment)" means to deny freedom of worship to Wiccans. As I noted in #Free exercise of religion in the military, SCOTUS ruled in Goldman that an an Orthodox Jew, a rabbi no less, could not "freely exercise" his religion while in the military, because the practice contravened regulations. In the same sense, Weyrich persuading Congress to have Wiccans practices by military personnel banned (with the effect that those who practice them would be expelled from the Army) under some new might be denying them free exercise of religion, but would not be the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment. That is my only point of contention.-choster 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

choster, Orthodox Jews are welcome in the military and do serve. They are not expected to denounce their beliefs only modify them to the point that they do not interfere with their service. That is different from Weyrich's statements about Wiccans. He does not want Wiccans to be recognized as a religion by the military, period. FloNight 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The only relevant points here are whether Weyrich has spoken out against Wiccans serving in the military. The source proivided shows he has [10] Goldman is a non sequitur. To show its relevancy you'd have show that Wiccan's practices contravene Army regulations, something that is not likely considering the Army has already provided accomodation for Wiccan's to practice their faith, which is what prompted Weyrich's campaign against Wiccans serving, as the source above again shows. FeloniousMonk 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Left on user:talk

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)

You're free to ask for whatever you wish. Your proximity to the subject creates conflict-of-interest concerns. One hopes you can see the issue here.

As for answering your question, your interpretation of the Establishment Clause and the omment re the ADL's "interpretation" of that clause, pretty much indicate that reponding would be akin to banging my head into a brick wall. •Jim62sch• 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest. Please. I know his views better than you do, and I haven't hesitated to challenge his views when I've had a difference of opinion. If I think my family members or my friends are wrong, I don't hesitate to say so.

If what TheocracyWatch says were factual and not a bunch of straw men arguements, then I wouldn't debate the issue. That's not the case. Anti-Weyrich polemics belong on an OPINION page, blog, etc., not in a Web encyclopedia that makes presenting a dispassionate neutral POV its trademark.

Let's say you have a personal friend and rumors are flying around about that person, and you know that they are not true. Would you defend your friend or sit idlely by?

The problem with the Secular Left today, as I see it, is it has become so alienated from traditional Christianity that it might as well be like the blind man and the elephant. TheocracyWatch doesn't even understand traditional Christianity, but rather they seem to be hunting shadows from what I can see.

I think there is a definite POV bias here. The language that you have restored is biased and POV. If I were to write something like that in a story I would write for the Daily Local News, I would get taken to the woodshed for lack of attribution and for treating opinions as facts.

He believes in the separation of church and state, but NOT the ADL's interpretation therof. The claims need proper attribution, and SHOULD NOT be treated as facts. The problem with "separation of church and state" part is that it's subjective, as is the entire portion of the article that you are defending.

Let me show you how I handled a case where I had to cover someone who I despised, and compare it with how Mr. Weyrich has been treated here.

[11] [12]

The way I handled these two controversies is the way I think it should be done. Fair, balanced and even.

I only care about accuracy, and what you changed isn't accurate.

<wiki>User:Pravknight--68.45.161.241 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>

Semantics?

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.

You missed the talk page because the First Amendment doesn't apply to the military in any way, shape or form per judicial decisions. For the likes of me, I fail to see why this section is even relevant.

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

He never said they should be discharged. Stop taking things out of context.

, 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]

Here's the problem, Dominionism advocates replacing the U.S. Constititution with Old Testament biblical law, and it has never been demonstrated that Mr. Weyrich or his foundation have ever advocated doing just that. In other words it's a canard, and what I was doing was making that a matter of their opinion, not a matter of fact because it's not factual.

TheocracyWatch's information quotes Mr. Weyrich and other Christian right leaders out of context, and lacks a good understanding of theology to begin with. What is said here is not any different than my editing the TheocracyWatch article to say that it wants to establish a Soviet-style atheistic state.

[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]

Referring to the Christian Right as the "Theocratic right" is editorializing and giving undue weight to TheocracyWatch's ideology. The fact Joan Bokaer is on the faculty at Cornell doesn't make her or her organization a paragon of objectivity; especially, considering most faculties are either liberal or Marxist, at least in the Humanities.

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.

I object to saying the threaten "the separation of church and state" because the issue really is the ADL's interpretation of the separation of church and state. Mr. Weyrich, and I've had personal discussions with him while I attended Holy Transfiguration Melkite Church,[13] believes in the institutional separation of Church and State, but that religion shouldn't be excluded from government in the radical fashion advocated by the ADL, etc.

[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]

Why do you object to including information where Mr. Weyrich explains that he wouldn't be part of a movement that would turn America into an Iran-style theocracy? Is it because you want readers to think he's an extremist, or because you might have an agenda to marginalize him?

--Pravknight 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide some references to support your interpretation of matters? Specifically

• Excluding people from the military on the basis of religion is pretty notable. Do you deny that he has expressed that view?
• "Discharged" is your word - the section says "removed"; if not "removed", what else does he want of the army?
• "According to TheocracyWatch and the ADL..." - do you deny that they said as much? If not, why do you want to information kept out of the article?
• The term "theocratic right" is widespread and not limited to the groups mentioned. Do you have any reliable sources which refute the claims, please add them.
• "Threatens the separation..." - you are free to object to that characterisation, but that's between you and the ADL. Please take it up with them, don't try to fight your battles by proxy by trying to whitewash this article. Guettarda 07:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Not in my view. Your version clearly, at least to me and four or five other editors here, promotes an overly-deferential version of controversial statements by Weyrich; in other words, a whitewashed version of events that glosses-over Weyrich's controversial statements. It will not stand nor woll your constant edit warring promoting Weyrich's pov. FeloniousMonk 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Whitewashing? There's nothing to whitewash, except for your interpretation of Mr. Weyrich's remarks. If you can attribute criticism of the witchcraft remarks to a third-party source, then I will back down on that issue, just as long as it accurately portrays

I'm not looking at whitewashing anything, but I'm doing what I always do in journalism, assume a neutral tone. Felonius, what you wrote here is a polemic that lacks a neutral tone of voice.

I'm not promoting Weyrich's POV. I'm simply ensuring the article is fair by attributing the comments to those who made them instead of editorializing about the "Theocratic right" because that's a subjective statement. What the separation of Church and State actually means is a disputed issue. Consequently, leaving it the way it's written advances a radical Left-wing perspective because the ADL and TheocracyWatch advocate a radical Leftist interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Their entitled to their opinions, but unless we say the ADL's interpretation of the establishment clause, you are taking an opinion as fact. Everything here is purely subjective.

In legal spheres there are the accommodationists who believe the Establishment Clause only bars the legislation of theological issues, not moral ones

I see an extreme Left-wing bias on the part of the editors, and I see an effort here to smear Mr. Weyrich by spinning a radical Leftist tinge to the article. The NPOV rule be damned because it obviously doesn't equal being neutral. Neutrality seems to equal Leftism here on Wikipedia.

As I recall, you deleted a section that I posted criticizing TheocracyWatch and Joan Bokaer for associating with a known Communist. I cited it and everything.

In journalism, all disputed points of view must be properly attributed, not treated as facts. The POV is coming from the Left here. I don't oppose including criticisms of Mr. Weyrich, but I do oppose treating a Left-wing POV as objective fact.

Explain something here, why do you keep deleting the reference to Mr. Weyrich's saying he would never allow himself to be part of a movement that would transform America into an Iran-style theocracy. How do you know you aren't simply interpreting Weyrich's comments to fit your personal biases, instead of accurately representing what he actually meant?

I always thought that was what good reporting was about: accurately representing what a person says or believes. We call misrepresenting what a person says or believes one thing: slander.

The NPOV rule means that fairness and accuracy must be maintained at all times, and neither Leftist or Rightist language should be used, except when attributed. Felonius, I deal with controversial issues on an almost daily basis in a mainstream newspaper where I have to walk the fine line between two sides of an issue. I believe in integrity in reporting, and it's something I'm known for in controversial issues. I'm applying good journalistic ethics here.

I would ask you again to stop editorializing, and injecting opinion that is more based upon emotion than on fact. I object to the use of the term "theocratic right" because the definition of theocracy you (plural)are using is unclear and debateable; besides it's a polemic, not a fact.

Felonius, you and your friends have continued this edit war. I was content with CBerlet's edit from several weeks back, and I thought you agreed to it too. Obviously not. I can't count the number of times where I have asked for constructive dialogue, but it has been refused.

I am not about to give up. We either work together to develop agreeable language, or I will appeal

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)

Missing sentence in the Witchcraft section

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)

NPOV template

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)

I don't. I guess Pravknight will need to answer this. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:49, 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)

That is your opinion, and not a given. The template is not warranted because of your insistance upon reverting to biased and POV wording is the position of at least four other editors beside myself. Your objections are based on your flawed understanding of WP:NPOV and dedication to defending Weyrich, making your use of the template here a misapplication and a violation of WP:POINT. You've made your arguments for your case, and they haven't found any traction despite being viewed by a number of different contributors, it's time for you to find a more constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia and move along. FeloniousMonk 23:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The biased, POV wording was your introduction. I guess a Left-wing POV is NPOV then, right?

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 am not going to back down, and I'm not leaving. Besides, I didn't add the template. Someone else did. I suggest you work things out here to our mutual satisfaction, or I will take affirmative steps. I will continue disputing TheocracyWatch and ADL's reliability and verifiability.--Pravknight 00:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration with the Arbitration Committee. Let them decide.--Pravknight 22:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, you should have read WP:DR first. Arbitration is the last step, not the first. FeloniousMonk 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Felonius this has been going on for weeks. I really don't care what you think. I think its warranted. Besides, I think you should remember that propaganda has no place on Wikipedia. I've tried, but you aren't interested in negotiating.

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)

Negotiating over which propaganda you should be allowed to insert? The current version (unless you've edited in the interim) is as NPOV as it gets. That you wish to create a hagiography is clear, and as I told you before, your personal ties to Weyrich are problematic. By the way, the message you left for Bauer was hardly accurate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:10, 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)

Jim62sch is right, I forgot you admitted an intimate connection to Weyrich [17][18]. Read WP:AUTO, which covers editing articles in which you are personally connected: "Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned. Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. Contribute on the talk page instead. Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself." You should probably read again WP:NPOV and WP:POV. Considering your personal connection to Weyrich and the pro-Weyrich bias apparent in your rhetoric [19] [20] [21] and edits [22] [23] [24] [25], my opinion is you should limit your participation to the talk page, not editing the article. FeloniousMonk 03:01, 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)

As I asked before - if this is the case, please support this with references so it can be worked into the article. As for the rest of it - even if it were true, it's utterly irrelevant what the political affiliations of Wikipedia editors are - all that matters is whether they can write in a manner than satisfies WP:NPOV. Guettarda 04:15, 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)

Actually, Pravknight better hope his accusations are factual. Additionally, he should lay off the ad homs. I'm not even sure how someone being a Marxist is inherently bad, other than in noting that even a Marxist system is probably not tenable. And by-the-way Pravknight, a Stalinist and a Marxist are not the same things -- Stalinism (like Leninism) is a very specialized form of Marxism, developed from a Georgian-Russian perspective, that uses (and misuses) the key words and ideas Marxism as a means to a political/cult-of-personality end. If you're going to comment on Political Science, make sure you know what you're on about.

Also, why does it seem that you'rte still waging the "there's a commie under every bed" war of 40 to 50 years ago? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:36, 23 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)

WP:RS

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)

You are not trying to resolve this. You are lecturing. You are a newer editor. Has it occurred to you that more experienced editors might understand the policies better than you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am stating my case. The pro-atheist POV is telling. If you want to rework the article with DIRECT attributions, and NO innuendos or personal interpretations, I'll do accept it. In some respect, I'm sure they know the rules better than I, but the application and interpretation of those rules is the kicker.

When was the last time any of you proposed alternative wording to me, instead of doing what you have been doing? Right now the article is inaccurate.

Joan Bokaer is not anymore reliable in my perspective than David Horowitz likely is in yours. Attribute it because reading between the lines is editorializing. I've been in journalism, now, for over 5 years. I think I know a thing or two about ethics in reporting.

--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)

Using WP:V and WP:RS, please explain how that is. The Anti-Defamation League and TheocracyWatch are perfectly acceptable sources, particularly as primary sources on what they themselves say, which is how they are being used here. FeloniousMonk 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's your interpretation Felonious, and I disagree with it. The ADL and TheocracyWatch have partisan agendas, and their claims cannot be independently verified. They are not verifiable sources, and I've already said a million times that Weyrich's theology opposes Reconstructionist thought, and it seems facts don't matter here.

WP:RS:"Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page."

Until you provide Third-party, nonideological evidence supporting their claims, I will continue to question your interpretation of the rule.

WP:NPOV#Undue weight

WP:NPOV--"Fairness of tone

"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."

The current wording violates the above guidelines.

Explain to me why you are so opposed to including rebuttals from Weyrich, and perjoratively referring to the Christian Right as the "Theocratic" Right.

I know for a fact, conservative groups aren't allowed as primary sources on Left-leaning pages on Wikipedia. Were I to cite Mr. Weyrich or The Family Research Council on a lefty page, it likely would be removed.

I would ask for a third-party examination of your interpretation of the rules, someone who unlike User:KillerChihauahua, User:Jim62sch, and User:Guettarda who are not listed on your friend list on your talk page, someone who really doesn't care about politics.

Why can't you see the fact these groups are partisan and non-objective?

The article relating to "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual" is a hit piece, not an objective examination of what Weyrich actually wrote?

Lastly, why are you so opposed to including information balancing that section out, giving Weyrich the chance to rebut those allegations? It's a question of fairness, and that's why I question your ability to edit in good faith.

Let's cut the divisiveness here and work together. I will stop questioning your ability to edit on good faith when you demonstrate your willingness to come half way instead of stubbornly refusing to give proper attribution to their ideas. The terms "theocratic right" and "threaten the separation of church and state" are serious editorializations, not fact.

We need to agree upon alternate wordings, and comments from your friends who have sworn to rush to your aid on your talk page don't cut the muster as far as I'm concnerned. Such a gang-up strategy is uncivil. WP:Civil.--Pravknight 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Per your request for a third party, would you consider User:Slimvirgin acceptable? She wrote most of WP:RS? JoshuaZ 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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 was asked for an opinion here. The ADL is certainly regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with Theocracy Watch, so it would depend how well established it is, who runs it (whether they have relevant academic or professional backgrounds, and a decent number of staff), and which article it's being used in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

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:

• Paul Weyrich: The Man Who Framed the Republican Party
• RELIGIOUS GROUPS URGING BOYCOTT OF ARMY OVER WICCANS
• Religious groups urge Christians not to join Army until witchcraft rituals banned - Associated Press - Dallas Morning News, June 11, 1999 article reprinted on a Wiccan site.
• Religious groups urge Christians to boycott Army over Wiccans same article, different url

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)

Suggestion?

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)

I think Pravknight's objections arise from the fact he misunderstands two significant things here. One, whether Weyrich believes in dominionism or accepts the label is not the point or a standard for inclusion of whether other parties say he is a dominionist. WP:NPOV calls for all significant and verifiable viewpoints to be presented, which the view that he is a dominionist certainly qualifies given the sources. Two, not all forms of dominionism are Calvinist. FeloniousMonk 15:28, 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.

"According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with Dominionism.[4]

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."

I'm trying to tighten it up a bit.

This gives proper attribution to whose belief is being presented. It's not the same as saying The American Medical Association lists cancer and car crashes as leading causes of death in Americans ages x-y. Because TheocracyWatch is a partisan organization despite the fact it hides behind the Cornell mantle.

[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]

Why do you insist upon continually removing Weyrich's having said in a documented article that he would not personally be part of a movement that would transform America into an Iran-style theocracy? I think it is key to showing just how abhorrent Weyrich considers the idea of a theocracy.

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."

And Katherine Yurica's credibility is? I already saw Chris Arabia banished from the Chip Berlet article because of credibility issues. Problem, Mr. Weyrich and most of his staff members at the Free Congress Foundation are Catholics, so what does that have to do with evangelicals?

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."

It's already been established who published it further up. Think inverted pyramid. Important general stuff at the top, specifics at the bottom.

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)

Most of what you have to say is irrelevant. Your letter from Weyrich is impossible to verify and couldn't be used as a source here even if it were verified. For Dominionism to be mentioned, it needs a reliable source. A reliable source exists. If Weyrich has denied the accusation, then you can supply a source for a denial. We cannot, as per WP:NPOV take one of these assertions and declare it to be True and declare the other one False and discard it. That isn't the way that Wikipedia works. Guettarda 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Yurica Report is a blog and therefore not a reliable source. TheocracyWatch's underlying pages violates WP:CITE. There aren't any citations given for why they consider Weyrich a Dominionist, and it's content is unverifiable. Guettarda, why do you insist upon giving a group that 1)doesn't cite its sources, 2)applies the term Dominionist without explanation of Mr. Weyrich's connection with the ideology and 3)relies upon hearsay as a reliable source?

This is original research unsupported by third-party sources. WP:NOR

Content such as this diminishes Wikipedia's credibility. Do you believe uncited sources are reliable or credible?

Again, there hasn't been one shred of an effort to back up these claims.[[User:Pravknight|Pravknight]]--~~~~

Huh? A blog by a notable/verifiable person is a reliable source. TheocracyWatch is a reliable source. As I have said before, if you are unhappy with the slant of the article, provide some sourced material which disagrees with it. Your hate-filled attacks on Berlet and others are not a substitute for content. Stop being disruptive. Guettarda 21:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. FeloniousMonk 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

One, the Yurica Report is not a blog [32], but a report that subscribers receive. It is perfectly acceptable as a primary source per WP:RS and WP:V for what Katherine Yurica says/writes. Two, TheocracyWatch writes extensively as to why they consider Weyrich a Dominionist[33], as does the Anti Defamation League[34]. There is no shortage of sources for this viewpoint, it is not original research. Three, if you were actually interested in improving the article and not just gutting criticism of your personal friend Weyrich, you'd be looking for better sources then, not using the existing ones as justification for deleting a significant viewpoint, I'd think.

I'm sorry to be so blunt with you, but after several weeks of trying to educate you on how WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV work together at this article and following your user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight, I have to say that you simply either do not get WP:V, WP:RS or are letting your personal relationship with Paul Weyrich cloud your ability to contribute here neutrally. Considering your admissions of being related to Weyrich here [35] [36] and those made at your RFC, taken with your ongoing disruption of this article you really shouldn't be editing this topic. FeloniousMonk 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: user conduct RFC

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight FeloniousMonk 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pravknight's most recent objection

RE: [37], what are the specific cites you object to here this time, Pravknight? FeloniousMonk 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the templates - they are spurious. The section is heavily referenced. This is just disruption. Guettarda 21:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. FeloniousMonk 21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, I simply was trying to give your argument a stronger source, and your sources simply are unreliable. Your argument about "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual", which rests upon a blogger. It's a quote of a quote. Hardly solid verifiable evidence. You need a reliable source, not some argument dreamed up by a blogger, whose citation on Wikipedia violates WP:RS.

Additionally, CRESP is not an official organ of Cornell University: "CRESP is an independent, not-for-profit agency, with limited affiliation with Cornell University. CRESP and its programs are operating independent of Cornell University, except for designated joint programs and mutual interest programs."[38]

There isn't ONE page on the entire TheocracyWatch Web site that illustrates Mr. Weyrich's connection with the Dominionist ideology, no explanation therof, etc.

Considering your Wikiquote: "I am opposed to irrationalism, be it in the form of organized religion, miracle healers or postmodernism."[39], your reasoning behind your actions becomes clear. And Weyrich represents, what? Organized religion.

If anyone's actions should be examined. It's your own. You may be an administrator, but your behavior has been one of flagrant disregard for the rules and a selective interpretation of those rules. WP:CITE,WP:WTA (an unsigned comment from Pravknight 15:49, 28 August 2006)

The sources in the article, Anti Defamation League, CRESP's TheocracyWatch and Yurica Report are perfectly acceptable per WP:V and WP:RS. Again, the Yurica Report is not a blog as you claim, but a report for subscribers: [40] Show specifically how they are not acceptable per WP:V and WP:RS or drop it. Simply repeating over and over that they are not does make it so and likely to increase your exposure at your RFC. Regarding CRESP, "CRESP is an...with limited affiliation with Cornell University."[41] means that CRESP is affiliated with Cornell University. FeloniousMonk 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You claim the sources do not support the statement that TheocracyWatch and the Anti Defamation League view Weyrich as a dominionist. OK, let's look at them:

1. The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party a public information project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University: A New Manifesto and An Old Platform: "We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them," claims a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation. Called The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement and written by Eric Heubeck in 2001, this manifesto illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement. [42]
2. The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party, a public information project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University: "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual, Conquering by Stealth and Deception How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power": "The Despoiling of America is the closeted manual that reveals how the right wing in American politics can get and keep power. It was created under the tutelage of Paul Weyrich, the man who founded the Free Congress Foundation. Conservative leaders consider Weyrich to be the "most powerful man in American politics today." There is no question of his immense influence in conservative circles. He is also considered the founder of the Heritage Foundation , a conservative think tank made possible with funding from Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon-Scaife. Weyrich served as the Founding President from 1973-1974." [43]
3. Religion in America’s Public Square: Are We Crossing the Line? from an address by Abraham H. Foxman National Director of the Anti-Defamation League: "Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation described it this way: "For the first time, virtually all of the social issues groups are singing off the same sheet of music… when we are working together, we are a mighty force that can’t be ignored." If their agenda was hidden 15 years ago, today it is in full public view. Just take a look at their Web sites, where they document in considerable detail an agenda on a wide range of issues: judicial nominations, same-sex marriage, and faith-based issues – and an agenda that, let us be clear, goes well beyond legitimate engagement in controversial social and political issues to a fundamental usurpation of all that America represents" [44]

I think it's clear for the above that both TheocracyWatch and the Anti Defamation League view Weyrich as a dominionist. Not that is a dominionist, but that they view Weyrich as a dominionist. The passage in the article is accurate and supported. FeloniousMonk 23:33, 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]

Sadly you're still not getting WP:V and WP:NPOV. Yurica, TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League don't have to make a case that Weyrich is a dominionist for their opinions to be included here in the project; their opinions simply have to be published (verifiable: WP:V) and notable (significant: WP:NPOV). That is all that is necessary for it to be included here by our policies, and why I've repeatedly suggested you fail to understand policy. As editors we do not and cannot determine the truth of the various opinions we cite, we can only determine whether they are verifiable and notable, that is all. FeloniousMonk 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

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)

We do: Katherine Yurica publishes an article saying that in her opinion Paul Weyrich is a dominionist. TheocracyWatch, a third-party observer of dominionism, cites Yurica's claim that Weyrich is a dominionist, and goes on to make similar connections themselves. Now you have a primary source, Yurica, and a secondary source, TheocracyWatch, making this claim. Each is presented in the article as an attribution to the relevant view-holder. Next you have a third source, the Anti-Defamation League, an impeccable source, making the same claim. All three are acceptable sources per WP:RS. It's looking like you fail to understand how WP:NOR, as well as WP:V and WP:RS, applies here. FeloniousMonk 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My point seems to have gone over your head. I was referring to the first section about the Weyrich/Wicca stuff as originial research.

My objection to Yurica is she doesn't provide any sources for her arguments, nor does TheocracyWatch. A primary source would be Weyrich himself. Yurica provides not even analysis, but rather projects her prejudices onto the text. She's a very poor scholar. The ADL and Mr. Foxman are partisans, not objective researchers.

I asked numerous times for the language used to be treated as opinions of the opinion holders not as facts. But as I've previously observed, facts don't matter to you.

You ruled me out of order for restoring David Horowitz's claims that Chip Berlet supported the Hoxha regime, yet the sourcing for FrontPageMag is on par with Yurica, TheocracyWatch, etc.

Partisan sources don't cut the muster. The ADL is an impeccable source by who's standard of truth?

FM, your choice of words are partisan and non-objective.--68.45.161.241 04:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers Freepers, what do Berlet and Hoxha have to do with didly? FM's words are partisan, or his sourses are in your opinion? I don't think it can be his words.

Also, why the visceral, pathological hatred of the ADL? Seems your own bias is showing. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So dogmatic acceptance of the ADL's perspective = objectivity. That's laughable. If you are insinuating that I hate Jews, then you seem to not know that Torah.org is one of my favorite Web sites. [46]--Pravknight 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)