Talk:Christian right

Separation of Church and State Section -- Needs to be Re-Done

The section on "Separation of Church and State" should be re-done. First, the Section is not (fully) written from a neutral standpoint. The Article section says at one point: "Christian Right believes in X, even though writings suggest not X." Writings suggest? Who says they suggest this? The writings could be open to multiple interpretations. The point should be re-phrased so that it is given from a more neutral standpoint. It should instead say that, scholar X or scholar Y, or that some people, believe the writings suggest otherwise. Second, the section says, "Because the Christian right does not believe in separation of Church and State..." This is ambiguous and, I fear, is also quite wrong. It is ambiguous because it fails to address that there are two things going on: Separation of Church and State as a matter of Constitutional Interpretation, and Separation of Church and State as a political belief. And if the claim is the Christian Right doesn't believe in it as a Constitutional Interpretation, that's a huge overstatement to make. The Christian Right is not suggesting it doesn't exist; it merely suggests that its scope is more limited than others believe. The Christian Right is not suggesting the Constitution would allow for the government to be run by Mullahs or Priests. And if the claim is about the Christian Right's political belief of not believing in separation of Church and State.. well, Really? So the Christian right wants to have a theocracy like you seen in Iran? A few extremists might hold this view, but it is not held by the Christian Right generally. The Christian Right believes the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in Courts and that prayer time should be allowed in public schools. To equate this with not believing in Separation of Church and State is making way too big of a leap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.165.9 (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That all this is your opinion just. Its not any less or more valid than anybody else's as you have absolutely no citations to back up any of your things. There have been various statements made that CaS separation is a myth by Christ right figures. You can't either deny that, do you?!? You mainly only seek to define what such disbelief means. You make delineations between different types of CaS separation disbelief out of thin-air. And you do this without any sources. Instead of such, you employ what they call I believe "non-sequitors". No one has here has made edits supporting a clear comparison of the Christ right with Muslim figures in the Mid-East to be exact. But just because they are not that, doesn't change their disbelief in the CaS separation.

Both of you faggots should can it. Really articles like this should probably be trashed mostly because it describes a fully abstract idea that is not founded well in any true scholerly research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.137.190.52 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a third party to the discussion but let me say this. In all candor, you "Anon" are a very rude person. You have no business telling anyone to do anything. No one solicited your opinion in the first place. And your use of slurs only further illustrates your lack of class. It shows a lack of courage to speak in such a way with an anonymous address. And invoking such intellectual terms as "scholarly research" are absolutely hilarious when one researches your own history and finds your anonymous address has made only one edit, this one above. Thus you lack any evidence to show that you have any understand of the words you type. You just are very fortunate that you weren't talking to me in the first place!4.252.212.184 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

disputed neutrality

I do not think this quote is npov "It promotes conservative or literal interpretations of the Bible as the basis for moral values, and enforcing such values by legislation.

Therefore, it opposes federal funding of science. They feel science often contradicts the Bible, especially fields that they feel violate the right to life"

The reason is it implies a conservative or literal interpretation of the bible leads to conservative politics. This needs proof. Alternatively a less ambitious project would be just to show, through citation, that the religious right believe that a conservative or literal translation of the bible mandates right wing policies. Also there needs to be a citation if you are to say they oppose federal funding for science (and have they done this repeatedly?). The last sentence is not npov.—Preceding unsigned comment added by128.163.161.87 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC) From the opening photo this articles trys to portray conservative christians as ignorant.This is proabably one of the worst articles I ve yet to see on wiki and needs to be torn down and started again.I cannot stress just how awful this article acutally is.It is an insult to those of who love jesus and dont side with democratic party.I cannot believe that this sort of garbage has been allowed to continue.Unless I can acutally see the christian point of view acuratetly portrayed in this article then it needs to go.Wikipedia is not a place for you to bash those you disagree with.Wikimakesmart (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)One might think that you don't need to talk in such a mannor.It is no good to spead such bad meanness.Plus this is only one website and while as it is popular, it is hardly the only and final word on most any subject. If you find this place not to your liking there are always other such similar places. Perhaps you might care for Conservapedia better? To be sure, it is not my place as a new person to welcome of bannish you from anywhere.However, I think this place needs to be where different person can agree on things as a group. That is what I mean when I caution you about your words.For me, I can say as a Christian, that in my opinion, this article is not as bad as you say it is.Perhaps you should even put your religion above your politics. Christ is more important than anything, inculding a election.Mixing the two can lead to bad things like you want, in my home country this has happen.Waitesson (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that comment was directed at me. My suggestions were merely honest suggestions for improvement. When I'm reading this article i want to know 1. what is their beliefs 2. what is their history and how did they evolve. 3. what is the theological and philisophical justification for their beliefs. 4. what are theological and philisophical critiques of their beliefs. Much of this is missing and I think these are the key questions that should organize the article. At the moment the article misses all the academic points of interest and merely paints them scandolously (obviously they are controversial and why they are should be covered in point 4). For me for example, I'm a christian from another country who tends left on the political spectrum and i went to this article trying to get some information on why american christian conservatives were against say free health care and cap and trade. Is it theological opposition? Is it philisophical? Is it deeply rooted traditions? I have heard mention of 1 thess 3:20 "those who do not work should not eat" to critique the social welfare state from a american conservative. Presumably a theological discussion would include this. Is there someone knowledgeable on this subject that can help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.229.151 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

backing up a claim

The claim that the religious right started not with roe verse wade, but with anti-segregation laws, is an interesting one. Is there more to back it up than one quote? Also some research on how the religious right developed after roe verse wade would be good. Also it is my understanding that the religious right technically goes back to the french revolution?

Before the revolution there were many. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality

A more detailed history would be good (there are more countries in the world than the usa :P). Also a summary of their theological basis would be good to as well as a summary of criticisms of their theology. I'm a little flakey on what i know about their theology but i believe it goes something like this:

theological opposition to the welfare state: "those who don't work should not eat" theological opposition to government programs: "giving should be private (scriptures..." theological opposition to labor unions, financial regulations: no idea lol etc.

then presumably the theological criticism would be based on tzedakah laws (where the law required giving to the poor, through pe'ah also through a 10% offering given every third year not to be confused with the tithe), verse where paul says there should be equality etc. you get the idea. Considering this is a christian issue i just think there should be theological summaries here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.161.87 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

On that one point, I am afraid you are being mistaken, sir or madam. It is not one quote, no. It is an entire book with quotes that are many from the leading "Christian right" figures of the day at the time. Look more carefully there maybe? The book, as I know it, has never been questioned in terms of the authentic / accuracy of the sourcing of the quotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.208.60 (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tithing as charity is not limited to only those who do not work but is also for the greater good of society. See in Deuteronomy, Christians are directed to not only give ten percent of their income, but to give their first and their best. This means Christians should strive to not only pay or take out tithes upon receiving your paycheck, but to always put God above your bills and other responsibilities.

So God is a directive to follow, not a specific charity. God in and of itself is a practice and belief. Extending such goes beyond that which we are able to appreciate the image. Tithing is not limited to humans. For we shall give unto other animals that sustain us but not unto other humans who seek to overcome.

Unbalanced

This page is unbalanced and the fact that it is a Christian or religious article should not make it immune to the Wikipedia principles. The Christian right movement is at the center of a great many controversies that are not mentioned here. Their leadership’s agenda is not addressed here. There are a great many people that not only disagree with their views but feel they are doing great harm to the United States and our citizens. Many people feel they are “manipulating” the politic system not the least of which is Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Americans United They do not just believe homosexuality is a “choice” and that homosexuals can be rehabilitated. They actively preach and work to inhibit gay citizen’s rights. These are just a few of the issues not addressed in this article. Someone needs to address these issues of imbalance.Slarabee (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The section on “Moral issues and general beliefs” could be changed to reflect more detailed attacks made at different times as well as mentioning the opposition to such campaigning. But the main purpose of the article is on who and when, rather than the detailed political issues, which are dealt with under, for example sodomy law, LGBT rights opposition and the List of LGBT rights by region articles. Billwilson5060 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Uniquely American...?

The first paragraph of the section "Movements Outside the United States" quotes from Micklethwait and Wooldridge (The Right Nation) saying that those things that characterize the Christian Right are "distinctly American." Placed in the larger context of the "Religious Right" this is certainly not true. Throughout the world there are today many reactionary social movements that reject progressive secularism (e.g. radical Islam). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.7.243 (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See Religious right as opposed to just Christian. Maybe there should be a link to that page either at that point or when the terminology is discussed near the top - at the moment the only one is in the list at the bottom. Billwilson5060 (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's been a fundamentalist revival under way in pretty much every world religion, true. However the "religious right" is indeed uniquely American; their particular ideology is not embraced by any meaningful groups anywhere outside of the United States. It shows especially in their promoting American nationalism and the world dominance of the United States; radical Islam, by contrast, tends to be hostile towards national entities and stresses the importance of a community of believers that transcends national boundaries. It also shows in their marriage to free market capitalism (see Prosperity Theology); islamists by contrast tend to be more on the left economically (see Iran's economic policies). In short, the religious right may be similar to other fundamentalist movements, but it's still a product of the United States (specifically the deep South), which is very unlike religious movements (Christian or non-Christian) in the rest of the world. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Christian Music

I personally see no reason why any mention of Contemporary Christian Music should be included in this article. The only connection CCM has to the article in terms of actual text is that, allegedly , "Contemporary Christian Music has a large influence on the youth of the Christian Right". That's it. The rest of the text talks about CCM itself. A hundred different things could influence the CR youth, so what?

Compare that to television, the other subject mentioned in the "Media" section of the article. There specific examples are given to show how the CR used television to further itself aims. Notice the contrast.

I could imagine a scenario where CCM deserves a mention here, if one could find a CCM artist who was active in the CR movement.TakeMyRollerCoaster (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

capitalization (Christian Right vs Christian right)

Minor style issue: the article needs to use either "Christian Right" or "Christian right" consistently. As it stands, the article is titled "Christian right", so that's how it should be throughout the article...
However, WP:TITLE#Lowercase says "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is almost always capitalized in English", and I believe it almost always is capitalized (confirmed by scanning through many pages of Google results), so I believe the article should be renamed "Christian Right". Comments?

I think it should be capitalized always as it is the title of a group. Hippychick 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippychickali (talk • contribs)

Basics Before Issues

Establish: Is this article the Christian right in the USA or Globally; Establish who constitutes the Christian right; Establish numbers (need to determine method/source to define the numbers) Zeke Canidae (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Primarily US, to a lesser extent Anglo-Saxon/English-speaking countries (Can, UK, Aus, NZ), to a far lesser extent the rest of the world -- the problem being that the further away you get from the US, culturally speaking, the less that generalisations can be made. Better to establish what the most reliable academic source is on the subject, and rely primarily upon their definitions and descriptions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian right and Israel

This site: [Israel] talks abut the relationship between Israel and Christian right.Agre22 (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)agre22

Strictly Protestant?

The article focuses mainly on the Evangelical Christian Right, particurally in the United States. What about right-wing Catholic movements? For instance, the French religious right is almost uniformly Catholic (Society of St. Pius X, Christine Boutin, Movement for France, and early movements like Cite catholique). Would anyone object to adding a French section, if we point out the prevailence of Catholicism. A similar argument could be made for the Polish religious right (LPR, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.119.71 (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an incredibly mixed bag. SSPX does not appear to be politically active, which is probably why it is not included. Movement for France does not appear to be overtly Christian (though its aideology appear to be congruent with Christian Right, so if evidence of Christian-affiliation can be given, I see no problem with inclusion). Cite catholique & Christian Democratic Party (France) (Boutin's party) could probably be added. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sex Education as a "Spectrum"

The article makes the following claim: "On the issue of sexual education in public school's, a spectrum of views exist, from advocating no sex education in public schools to advocating abstinence until marriage, to advocating complete modesty and chastity."

How is that a spectrum? Advocating abstinence only is, in fact, no sex education. Advocating "completely modesty and chastity" is no sex education. And how is "chastity" different from sexual abstinence? As for modesty, must one be also modest and self-effacing to be sexually inactive? If so aren't purity rings a form of boasting? Calendo (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendo (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands - Reformed Party & church-state

Netherlands section now says the Reformed Party opposes church state separation. The ideology section of its WP aricle says the contrary:

The party is a strict defender of the separation between church and state,[6] rejecting "both the state church and church state". Both church and state are believed to have distinct roles in society, while working towards the same goal, but despite this, the SGP advocates theocracy.[7] The SGP opposes freedom of religion, but advocates freedom of conscience instead, noting that "obedience to the law of God cannot be forced".[8]

AndersW (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The section on "Separation of Church and State" should be re-done.

First, the Section is not (fully) written from a neutral standpoint. The Article section says at one point: "Christian Right believes in X, even though writings suggest not X." Writings suggest? Who says they suggest this? The writings could be open to multiple interpretations. The point should be re-phrased so that it is given from a more neutral standpoint. It should instead say that, scholar X or scholar Y, or that some people, believe the writings suggest otherwise.

Second, the section says, "Because the Christian right does not believe in separation of Church and State..." This is ambiguous and, I fear, is also quite wrong. It is ambiguous because it fails to address that there are two things going on: Separation of Church and State as a matter of Constitutional Interpretation, and Separation of Church and State as a political belief. And if the claim is the Christian Right doesn't believe in it as a Constitutional Interpretation, that's a huge overstatement to make. The Christian Right is not suggesting it doesn't exist; it merely suggests that its scope is more limited than others believe. The Christian Right is not suggesting the Constitution would allow for the government to be run by Mullahs or Priests. And if the claim is about the Christian Right's political belief of not believing in separation of Church and State.. well, Really? So the Christian right wants to have a theocracy like you seen in Iran? A few extremists might hold this view, but it is not held by the Christian Right generally. The Christian Right believes the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in Courts and that prayer time should be allowed in public schools. To equate this with not believing in Separation of Church and State is making way too big of a leap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.165.9 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree on numerous counts. First of all, your examples really have noting to do with one's belief (or lack thereof) of a Separation of Church and State - the example(s) given are instead the most extreme possible outcome of such a situation; but not necessarily the one being promoted. Secondly, numerous of those labeled (self or by others) as part of the Christian Right have, on numerous occasions, called the Separation of Church and State a fiction. Searching Google alone (instead of relying on the numerous cites in the article that will lead you to such claims) for "separation of church and state a fiction" will lead you to many many results, numerous of which are relevant. Just a thought (or two) before you do any revisions that are highly contrary to dozens of references that can be provided to support the article's claim. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

How is intelligent design not a pseudoscience?

Since intelligent design is a pseudoscience, should it not be added to the article, wherever it is mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.67.83.100 (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot insert any claims without a reliable source to back them up. You've made multiple POV edits to the article with no citations, and that is not permitted by various polices. You may also wish to start with The Five Pillars and work your way through the other links I have provided as well, in order to gain a better understanding. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Side note: I definitely do appreciate the fact that you have started discussion about this looking for explanations instead of continuing to make changes. Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see how my other edits could be seen as POV, that's fine. But I can find cites for the pseudoscience claims, unless I misunderstand what constitutes a cite. Do you mean articles back up my claim? From Wikipedia itself you have the definition of pseudoscience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience which states:

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status"

Which ID fits exactly, "because it generates no testable hypotheses, and that’s because it refuses to specify, even vaguely, the capabilities or motivations of life’s designer." from http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/050927voices_pseudoscience.aspx. Stating the life was designed cannot be tested, and does not fit in any scientific methodology.

Or from merriam-webster "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudoscience).

"Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s..." from britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1081911/intelligent-design)

Irreducitly Complex is the central theme in Intelligent Design, which besides being proved untrue is stated in Wikipedia's own article as:

"Irreducible complexity (IC) is a [b]nonscientific[/b] argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity)

Are these the kind of cites you are referring to? Or to copy the source that the irreducible complexity ariticle cites:

Forrest, Barbara (May,2007) (PDF). Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc.. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf. Retrieved 2007-08-22. .

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.67.83.100 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, first a few tips. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end of the post. SineBot doesn't always get to the posts in time to sign them for you, and it makes it easier to know where one post ends and one starts.

Second, I have removed the majority of one set of text you copied and pasted above. Normally, it is not permitted to remove someone else's text from a talk page that isn't their own, but in the case of copyright issues, it is. The particular one I removed was removed because it was the bulk of the copyrighted content from the source you cited.

Give me a sec and I will formulate a response to see if I can help you along with this. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, on to some notes:

• You cant use Wikipedia as a citation. You must use a secondary reliable source for claims/statements of the nature you wish to add to the article. Click the link in this paragraph for an explanation about primary, secondary and tertiary reliable sources.
• This article is about the Cristian Right, so while your proposed addition may be entirely valid, it may not be appropriate in this article except as a "footnote" (not a literal one, but a figurative one, ie: a mention) in this article.
• You may wish to view the Intelligent Design article on Wikipedia for suitable references for the premises you wish to insert into this article
• You probably need to ensure that you balance your view with the proper weight for an article that is not about intelligent design - otherwise the article becomes about intelligent design.
• You cannot write such an inclusion in a way where the article becomes an attack page against the subject of the article. That can be a tough one to overcome, hence my earlier suggestion on reading The Five Pillars and related links there to get an understanding on that.
• The article is not about dismissing the claims of the Christian Right; it's about explaining the claims and explaining the criticism. The method of inclusion you used dismisses each section that should be devoted to explaining the Christian Right's beliefs.

Hope that helps get you started. One other note... this article is often in contention (hence it being on my watchlist even though it is not a topic I am particularly interested in). Because of that, the best way to add content is to start dialog here (like you did - again, thank you for that) and come to a consensus with the other editors who work on this article. I am sure that others will show up in the next day or two to provide suggestions and possibly more guidance or even counterpoints. Remember, Wikipedia is not about the truth - it's about verifiability, including (due to that) the ability to present opposing views (right or wrong) without biasing them with one's own beliefs. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many things that cannot be proven scientifically. You can't prove that you had lunch today by science! You have to look at the historical data. Jay72091 (talk) 1:44, 27 March 2012 CST

Strange paragraph

The two sentences of this paragraph seem to contradict each other: "The Christian Right also support economic conservative policies such as tax cuts and social conservative policies such as child tax credits.[52] It supports the idea that the government should interfere with the natural operations of the marketplace or the workplace as little as possible.[citation needed]" Wolfview (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe take off the second sentence, since it is uncited anyway.Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Erase this article

It is clearly not neutral and Im not sure why Dixiecrats are emphasized in this. They were not "right" and they were not soley Christian so it is pointless to emphasize such a thing in an article of the "Christian Right". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This article does not make sense.

"Right is a movement that has been difficult to define due to the heterogeneity of the movement." And yet there are numerous assumptions made throughout the article. This doesnt add up. Dunnbrian9 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It would appear to be a 'I cannot define it but I know it when I see it' thing. Conceptually, it would appear to be the juxtaposition of the (closely-related) phenomena of Christian religious chauvinism, social conservatism and right-wing authoritarianism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is nothing but propaganda

It should be modified or deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.188 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deleted, you may of course place it on WP:AFD - but I suggest you attempt to discuss your concerns here first and try to understand why this article exists. If you have suggestions to improve it, you may make them here. Please remember to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so as not to waste your fellow editors' time. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality Part 2

In order not to be biased, it needs to be clarified that Christian Rightist does not include all Christians AND Rightists and their values.Maklaver (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to start a new section. I've moved this conversation into a new section. New comments go after old ones, unless in direct response to someone else.

The comments you added were a commonly used attack phrase against the Christian Right, and were not cited to anyone. What you provided did not clarify such (which, btw, the article already clarifies in multiple places) - it instead directly stated that those in the Christian Right are neither Christian, nor right. You added "The words Christian and Right are not inclusive of each other, in that all Christians are not Rightist and all Rightists are not Christian, as the combined words would suggest. The Christian Right is neither Christian nor Right in the broad sense, although it shares some of the values of both." - that can easily be seen as a POV based attack, and is against numerous policies and guidelines. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Image removal

Hi all. This article says:

Because it does not believe in the separation of church and state, the Christian Right supports the presence of religious institutions within government. It also supports the presence and activities of religion in the public sphere. It supports the reduction of restrictions on government funding for religious charities and schools. However, some politically conservative churches refuse government funding because of their restrictions regarding acceptance of homosexuality and other issues. Others endorse President Bush's faith-based initiatives and accept funding.

Here we have a photograph of a bumper sticker asking people to "support faith-based missle defense systems" which is almost an exact quote from the article. I do think this article needs some sources, not removal of this image. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware, there is no such thing as a faith-based missle (sic) defense system. It is a hoax. This is an encyclopedia: not a joke. WP:FILE states: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic" (emph. mine). Nothing could be more trivial and irrelevant than this bumper sticker. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt, sorry, no I didn't know it was a joke. No hoax site I can find lists it. I didn't even know whether or not you were kidding until I found it in a book. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The bumper sticker would be better in an article on the Christian left, if it's saying (as it seems to to me) that prayer is a better defense against nuclear war than anti-missile systems. BigJim707 (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems more an attack on the Christian Right than anything. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Groups

I think the opening sentence could be a little more clear, if the expression "Christian right" includes both individual voters as well as organized groups. BigJim707 (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Tory party at prayer

I propose that this article be moved to the a specific American name, as its meaning outside the USA is just too imprecise.

This would remove the problem that the article has at the moment with the introduction. Articles are meant to be a about things not words. The current introduction is about a term so it ought to be moved onto Wiktionary.

When I say imprecise for example what does Christian right mean in the United Kingdom? As it is under the banned of Conservatism presumably it means the Church of England otherwise known as the Tory party at prayer.

In Northern Ireland what does the Christina right mean? In the Republic of Ireland what does it mean? What does it mean in Scotland? On thing for sure is that if it had a meaning in those countries it would not be the same meaning.

So as an initial suggestion I propose to move this article to: Christian organisations that support right wing politics in the United States -- PBS (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I partly agree with PBS: it's an American term and the short "other countries" section is not needed. There is no need to change the title, because the term is exclusively American in usage. For example, as Rogger says [The European right: a historical profile p 274] "in a Christian Germany a unified Christian Right was impossible." Geiko Müller-Fahrenholz (America's battle for God: a European Christian looks at civil religion 2007 - Page xviii ) says there is nothing quite like it in Europe. Curtis [Patriotism, Democracy, and Common Sense (2005) Page 126] says the Christian right "is a phenomenon that is very hard for Europeans to understand." Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I revised the Other Countries section and hope that meets the objections. Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It starts to address the issue but not really.

Does right mean to the right politically, or right as in correct? It is ambiguous.

It does not being to touch on the theological issues that are part of right and left in the church (if such terms are meaningful) for example was John Fry (regicide) on the right or the left of the religious divide? Were the Presbyterian to the right or the left in the English Civil War? Where do the Swiss members of the Réveil fit into this terminology? It seems to me that this is a very narrow article and the title should reflect this. -- PBS (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Race Section

This section should be completely overhauled. It consists of accusations of racism against members of the Christian Right and contains only one perspective.67.248.31.193 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Views, Eduation, Evolution

This seems like a contentious article, so I don't want to just wade in and start editing.... but withing the paragraph noted the following sentence:

"Many scientists, including evolutionary biologists do not believe there are weaknesses in evolutionary theory, and evolution theory is overwhelmingly supported by biologists and those in related fields in America." Is unfounded based on the supplied reference (which appears to me to be satire). I feel it should be removed or edited. Icomeau (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Proceed... – Lionel ^(talk) 02:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

The terms Christian right and religious right are often used interchangeably,^{By whom? For example is this true for the UK or AUS?} although the terms are not synonymous.^{Says who? where?} Religious right includes Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews.^{Says who? where?} For example, they cooperate in national and international projects through the World Congress of Families and United Nations NGO gatherings (Butler). Christian right, by contrast, refers only to conservative Christians, which can include those who are accepting of cooperation with other faiths and those who are not.^{Says who? where? For example in the UK the Church of England is often referred to as the Conservative/Tory Party at prayer in the UK.}

• Butler, Jennifer S. 2006. Born Again: The Christian right Globalized. University of Michigan Press; London: Pluto Press.

This opinion piece "Jerry Falwell lives ... in Poland The Poles are now investigating whether the Teletubbies are gay as US religious-right style politics spreads through Europe." in The Guardian in 2007 by Michelle Goldberg states that the World Congress of Families "World Congress of Families, an international gathering that brought stars of the American Christian right together with leading Polish politicians, Vatican officials and sundry other crusaders from all over the US, Europe, Latin America and Africa." No mention of "Muslims and Orthodox Jews".

It seems to me that the whole paragraph needs more citations and qualification of in the U.S. -- PBS (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Bob Jones University

No source has been provided to connect the case to the Christian right. The content violates WP:COATRACK. Instaurare (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

the statement is now sourced. The case greatly influenced the Christian right & as therefore closely related to this article. Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That source is better, but now it's WP:UNDUE. A sentence or two in a single book does not make this anywhere close to important enough for a timeline.. Instaurare (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet every individual anti-gay state amendment is significant? The event is widely recognized as an instrumental event in the beginning of the political movement ([1], [2]) and should be restored, with some of the other cruft removed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Restored per Rjensen's reasoning. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be helpful for those of us not as well-versed in this area to explain in the article why this court case is pertinent to the article subject. It may be obvious to some, or even most, but I'm not seeing the connection right now. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the links provided by User:Roscelese, and that information helped make the connection. Those citations, maybe with a note or quote, should be in the article to help readers understand why a court case about interracial dating helped start the movement, i.e., as a backlash to government involvement in a religious university (which appears to be the reasoning put forward in the citations). 72Dino (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The content as Artifex has placed it is still undue; the content in the article is longer than the source itself! Instaurare (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, Roscelese, your first source is not reliable because it is an opinion, and the second source is simply a rehashing of the opinion. Instaurare (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's trim this

Can anybody else see the fatal issues with this paragraph?

Criticism
It is sometimes debated whether Jesus Christ would be considered left or right within modern politics. Some claim that Jesus' concern with the poor and feeding the hungry, among other things, are attributes of the modern day left wing. While the dialogue of Jesus has some of the same talking points as the modern left, the right considers these subjects equally important but have different opinions as to the propriety of government involvement in such things as caring for the poor. The Christian right faces criticism for the politicization of the teachings of Jesus by labeling him as a conservative.

Let me count the ways...

• Weasel Words and unsupported attribution ('sometimes debated', 'some claim')
• Not related, or only tangentially related, to the subject of the article.
• Original research
• Contains cliches ('talking points', 'faces criticism')
• Attribution via synonym ('labeling', 'considers', 'have different opinions')
• And the only source for the entire paragraph is an opinion piece (the URL even has 'slant' in it, for gorshsakes!)

The Criticism section stands on its own quite nicely - this preface paragraph is not needed and doesn't work. Belchfire (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If our goal was to find some pretext for removing any mention of the idea that Jesus is claimed to be a conservative by the Christian right, then the above would be useful. Instead, our goal is to improve the article, which means looking for better sourcing. I'd suggest the latter, so let's consider:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/herman-cain-says-jesus-was-a-perfect-conservative-who-was-condemned-by-a-liberal-court/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/are-jesus-christs-views-liberal-or-conservative/

http://www.alan.com/2011/10/17/herman-cain-liberals-killed-conservative-jesus/

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/368914/december-16-2010/jesus-is-a-liberal-democrat

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/16/150568478/christian-conservatives-poverty-not-government-business

Given these, how would you improve that paragraph? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My first answer is that I would improve the article by removing the paragraph that doesn't fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Start by finding better sources. Herman Cain is just a single example and he doesn't speak for an entire generic movement that encompasses a big chunk of the American public. Steven Colbert is a comedy act. Liberaland is just Alan Colmes' personal opinion blog - completely unusable here for reasons I've already given. The npr piece is possibly suitable, depending on how it's used.

But before you spend your time looking for decent sources, ask yourself why the paragraph belongs at all. How is a hypothetical discussion of who Jesus Christ would vote for relevant to "Criticism of the Christian Right"? Even IF we could establish that (and we can't), you'll still be faced with the problem of relating it to the rest of article. Good luck with that.

Then there are all of the POV and style issues I pointed out above. Really, the whole paragraph needs to be scrapped. It's not Wikipedia content, it's just somebody's political cruft. Belchfire (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your descriptions of these sources are, to be quite frank, entirely inaccurate. Did you actually look at them? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I did. If you have different views, why don't you expound on them or explain why you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to call you a liar, but it's obvious that you didn't. For example, the Colbert video is itself an example of liberal criticism over right-wing Christianity trying to claim Jesus as a conservative and it contains a snippet of Bill O'Reilly claiming Jesus. Sure, it's a funny bit, but that doesn't stop it from being a reliable source. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Colbert is satire. His material fails WP:RS ab initio. Belchfire (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would quote where in the policy satire is identified as unacceptable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's self-evident. If you disagree, maybe you should start the Dispute Resolution process, or perhaps start a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. That could be epic - "Is Steven Colbert a reliable source on the political leanings of Jesus Christ". Yeah. Or you could chill for a little while and wait for other editors to chime in here. Belchfire (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously it's not self-evident, so if you can't point at where the rule supports your claim, I'm going to have to disregard your claim as self-evidently unsupported. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But you'll still need consensus with other editors, since this is just you and I going back-and-forth. Or you could "escalate" and pursue a ruling on Colbert as a RS. Your call. :-) Belchfire (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Or, in simpler words, I called your bluff and you flinched. The rules do not say what you want them to say, so there's no point pretending.

Speaking of pretense, you do realize that the issue isn't whether Colbert is an authority on Jesus but whether he's an example of a liberal critic of the Christian right's claims about Jesus' political views. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Waiting for other opinions and consensus. That's all it is. Be patient. Belchfire (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole "What would Jesus do?" theme is wildly speculative and tangential to the point of being UNDUE. The sourcing doesn't approach anything near scholarly. All in all, not encyclopedic.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your unsupported opinion, but the Cain articles alone are enough to refute your claim. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Days have passed without any further comment, so I've reinserted, added Cain's cite. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I love the idea of this section. It's interesting and important information. I haven't gotten down to the nitty gritty of the exact section included and it's sources. The NPR source alone is enough for me to think that we should include this section in here. In fact, I'm surprised we don't have an entire article on The politics of Jesus. There's even a book on the subject (extending beyond conservative and liberal politics. I wouldn't put the section directly under criticism though. Instead, I'd create a new sub-section "Political ideology of Jesus" (or something along that line). If a Politics of Jesus article is created, that can be linked using {{Main}}. Ryan Vesey 04:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to breaking it out a bit. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that most original research seems interesting and important to somebody, but it's still original research. If you can overcome that difficulty, knock yourselves out, guys. Belchfire-TALK 05:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of citations, I'm having trouble understanding where you're getting the idea that any of this is original research. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've given this some thought and concluded that WP:OR is a ridiculous claim. If anything, the notion that we should ask what political affiliation Jesus would have had is nearly as cliche as the WWJD bracelets. I personally don't understand it, but then again, I'm not Christian, so I don't have to. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the Republican Party

This change seems completely at odds with the lead, which clearly identifies the American Republican Party as being Christian right. I suggest that the link be restored. Any disagreement or other comments? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange, not even the editor who originally removed it disagrees. Guess it goes back in. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. And 10 hours is not enough to assert "consensus" by lack of objection. The Repuvblican party is not a religious organization, has members of all sorts of religions and atheists as members, and yi=our POV oushing on multiple articles is getting well past tiresome even in silly season. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. StillStanding apparently thinks all conservatives are alike and untrustworthy. (Actually, to be precise, I don't know what he thinks. He writes as if all conservatives are alike and untrustworthy.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)This is actually closer than I first thought. But it appears to just fail WP:CAT. A cat named category:Conservative Republicans would work better. Look at it this way, it would be the same as adding category:Democrat Party to category:Pro-abortion movement. I don't know what he thinks either--but please for gosh sakes noone ask him.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 12:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the lead, second paragraph, second sentence:

The Christian right is strongest in the South, where it replaced the core of the Republican Party.

This seems sufficient to include that link the the Republican Party at the bottom of the article. If you disagree, please feel free to explain. However, comments that are about me instead of the article are counterproductive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your input. I'm going to go ahead and restore this link, as there doesn't seem to be a good reason for its removal, and the lead directly supports its inclusion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Republican Party is not a religious political organization. To imply it is is flatly wrong. It's no different from the Democratic Party where they are not a religious organization either. This follows right along the idea of separation of Church and State. ViriiK (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Very disappointed Still that you choose to be disruptive. Against overwhelming opposition you revert anyway. As I posted before this fails WP:CAT. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, it's not disruptive to revert after two days without a plausible reason not to. Just as obviously, you are being uncivil and rather disruptive. That's ok; an RfC will clear this up. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

By all means. It was in the wrong section anyways and you didn't even read the heading. "Movements outside the United States". I didn't know that the Republican Party was established and conducted outside the United States? Nor did I know that the Republican Party was started by a bunch of Christians and not abolitionists. Thank you Still for helping me learn this lesson! ViriiK (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Help me out here: What country is the Christian Liberty Party in? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody answered my question, so I'm going to give the answer. It turns out that our "international" list already contains an American party. This means two things:

1. It needs to be outdented one level, so that it's not listed as non-American.
2. We need to include the major Christian right party in America.

Now, if you have a reason stronger than a false invocation of consensus, I'd like to hear it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you add the Republican party? Arzel (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Did you read any of the discussion above? The lead contains:

The Christian right is strongest in the South, where it replaced the core of the Republican Party.

There you have it. Now, are you going to offer some reason why we shouldn't list it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk)

Here's a reason for not including it: because the claim isn't supported by a preponderance of RS.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's flatly untrue. Try again. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For anyone with doubts, check out these citations.[3][4][5][6][7] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

All of those sources are opinion pieces, failing policy on presenting opinion on fact. Further, the second, fourth, and fifth ones never link 'Christian right' to the GOP and the 'World Socialist Web Site', run by a Trotskyist (ie. Marxist) organization and presenting a far-left (even from an international POV) point of views, is hardly a reliable, neutral source for the political affiliations of political parties. Opinion sources are not fact, nor should they be presented as such. Toa Nidhiki05 00:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how nicely I can say this, but your summary is entirely inaccurate. Just because you disagree with an article does not make it an opinion piece. To remind you, our article lead identifies the core of the GOP as the Christian right, so all of these citations are in addition to the ones supporting our lead. As such, what you said is not only false but irrelevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Toa is correct. None of the 5 references above is both published by a reliable source and is not an opinion column. I admit that more comments should be excised from the article than just the ones added by StillStanding, as there doesn't appear to be a source supporting the statement in the lead, either, but I'm not up to it at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's start with God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right. Published in 2010, it's recent enough to be relevant but not so new as to have no feedback. It's a 400 page hardcover from Oxford University Press, with positive reviews from historians. Large sections are available on Google Book Search, enough to show that it supports the contention that the Republican Party represents the Christian right in America, often in as many words. I'm going to suggest that it's a sufficient citation to restore the lead to its former contents. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems a reliable reference, unlike the ones you listed previously. I don't think it supports the statements as (previously) written, but it should support something similar. I suggest you wait for someone else to include it, especially since you've had 3 reverts today. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What's stopping you? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So, while I wait for the technicalities of revert counts to go away so I can do what we agreed to, I'm going to take advantage of this time to give anyone who objects a chance to explain in advance. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Who is we? ViriiK (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to know if you are stating that the Republican Party deploys a litmus test for all those who "register" as a Republican even vote for Republican to be a Christian? What about those who are Jews, Muslims, Jain, whatever? We're talking about a group that is likely to support Republican candidates but due to Separation of Church and State, 'they cannot endorse candidates' otherwise they compromise their religious listing. However they can endorse or oppose political issues which is a different spectrum such as those of marriage, abortion, whatever. ViriiK (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you have anything that's relevant to this issue? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you? Now, the Republican Party is not a Christian organization by any means whatsoever. To say it is is basically OR on your part regardless of whatever crap you want to bring out to "prove" your point. Their party platform does not advocate a religious platform on behalf of Christianity. In fact, the party platform says this We pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from government. ViriiK (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you know that Arthur Rubin is an insane stickler for sourcing. Nobody I've met on Wikipedia is as strict as he is. Despite this, he agrees that the source I found supports the effective restoration of the deleted part of the lead.

As for the two American parties in the list, the right answer is to outdent it one so that it's global as opposed to non-American. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't answer my question. Where in the Republican Party makes it a "Christian" organization? I used the Party Platform to disprove your point. Especially when you got Eric Cantor, a Jew, in a significant position. Same for Rubio, Ryan, etc which they're Catholics and those are not closely tied with the "Christian Right" since evangelicals are hugely composed of it. Santorum is an outlier due to his extreme positions that even the Pope Benedict does not take positions on. That Christian group you pointed to me was obviously a Christian group disregarding the Separation of Church and State which you can see here [8] vs [9] There is a stark difference between the two. One advocates a complete Christian platform whereas the other respects the freedom of religion of ALL AMERICANS. But of course. Let me prepare your automatic statement for you anyways since I know what your asinine response will be. "Your opinion is disregarded." ViriiK (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you can't remain civil, I won't spend any more time discussing this with you. Goodbye. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been civil the entire time here. The problem is you're disregarding people's discussions here constantly and keep wanting to inject your own BS which you know is false. As usual, you go trying to find something, anything to make it stick and then found ONLY 1 book which anyone can write in order to make a guilty by association connection here. Now, tell me. Where on the GOP's website does it say that they are a Christian organization? You can't find it so you need a book to try and make it stick. Now, if you want to cry about how I'm being uncivil, I don't care anymore. I will oppose your inclusion since A) it's in the wrong section and I already removed the other party also on the same reasoning B) it's 100% false and goes against the party platform of the Republican Party. Of course, you will disregard that party platform as usual. Another interesting tidbit. "However, some minor political parties have formed as vehicles for Christian Right activists:" Did you even read that in the first place? As usual, no, you didn't. Even in the beginning, the Republican Party was not formed as a platform to PUSH Christian Values but rather as an abolitionist movement. I could always assume that you will interpret that Republicans in the first place believed that all men should be free according to God. However that's only because of the influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Now the Christian Right attempts to formulate the policy in either parties anywhere in the United States on certain issues like abortion. The Republican Party isn't so "united" on the state level since it always varies on a state by state basis however on the Federal level, politicians as usual will do their thing as usual and play "favorites". Reid has the Sierra Club for example. ViriiK (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Really? Why don't you go try to convince an admin that "asinine response" is civil. Good luck with that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Because you give foolish responses and complete disregard people which that happens to be true in this discussion. Now, tell me where am I incorrect in any of the actual facts of the Republican Party especially the party platform? ViriiK (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC) There is no excuse for your incivility and I will not reward it by pretending to take your comments seriously. When you're calm and prepared to discuss this like a mature adult, you know where I'll be. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Again more nonsense that I don't care about. I've already proven my point and I've stated my opposition clearly to you which you are the one here acting like a 2 year old child completely disregarding other people here especially mine. Go ahead and cite incivility but you are the only here that is not acting civil. If you want to talk about the merits, go right for it which you are refusing to do so and focusing on accusations of incivility here. So what are you really arguing here? Pointing out people's "incivility" or talking about a ridiculous inclusion that is for the wrong reason. Go ahead and call for an RFC and see it get shot down like usual. ViriiK (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC) "Asinine". If you want your statements taken seriously, redact your insults and act like a mature adult. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Again, more asinine statements. Are you going to talk about the merits or act like a two year old? You are not an admin so I will not redact my statements for you and I have no intentions of starting. ViriiK (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Look, you can be as uncivil as you want or you can have my attention. You just can't have both, so you need to decide. Goodbye. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC) You see, there's this vicious cycle going on which I'm telling you the merits @ 05:51 and all you're doing is crying about "incivility" in order to distract from the point. I'm guessing I should go ahead and hat everything after 05:51 to that point in order to get you back on track. When you cease to stop acting like a two year old, then you are free to start telling me where I am wrong. ViriiK (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I removed the hatting because it violates WP:TPG. I recommend that you instead redact your incivility with slashtthroughs.I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And you know the answer. Now back to the point. See [10]. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Until you're civil, there will not be a conversation. Hatting and collapsing are not redacting. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm always civil. I'm just waiting for the merits to be discussed, see [11]. Now you are misrepresenting TPG so do not misrepresent "policy" (it's a guideline FYI). Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Children, children, children! Calm down, please. You're talking past each other and getting nowhere. You both make valid points, but your're not responding to each other's points. First of all, it's easy to see why Still considers the Republican party a Christian Right organization. The Christian Right, and in particular the loony fringe of that movement, does indeed exert a tremendous amount of influence in the party, especially in the Bible Belt states, and it is very difficult to say where one stops and the other ends. Still is not entirely mistaken in his views. On the other hand, his views don't really count here on WP, nor do those of any other editor. What counts is reliable independent secondary sources. Not editorials or polemics, and not the party's own statements, which are by necessity self-serving. What we need to see are multiple independent reliable sources, preferrably scholarly, stating that the GOP is a Christian Right organization. Without that, further discussion is pointless, especially if you're unwilling to listen to each other anyway. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that my views don't count. That's why Arthur and I agreed that the book, "God's Own Party", does count. Look for the discussion above. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That was my point anyways in the first place. It was just the One source that was a book talking about a faction or a group that influences policy albeit on a limited scale ie abortion being their biggest one and most effective one. Even using the Republican Party's platform, it does not state anywhere of an agenda of being a Christian Right organization. The party is a national one and it would be quite obvious if it declared itself to be one. Unless we've slipped into a bizarro world and there's a James Bond world within the Republican Party. Now in the 2000 election, it was quite obvious of how Bush used his christian backgrounds in order to garner votes which appeals to those people which is not unusual for either parties to do that. ViriiK (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Using the party platform does not help your case, considering who helped write it, and that it largely reflects the aims and principles of the Christian Right. The influence of the Religious Right in the party is certainy much more than "limited", and plenty of reliable sources can be found for that.

However, that's not the point being discussed. What we need are high quality souces stating unabiguously that the party is a Christian Right organization. Not editorials, not polemics, and not the party platform or other self-serving statements by the party itself. I'm not really interested in the TRUTH, but in what high-quality reliable independent sources have to say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, let's start with "God's Own Party". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually Dominus, that's inaccurate. Did you look at the party platform that was released from the RNC 2012? You can find it here [12] It isn't any secret of what the party platform is unlike Still is trying to imply here with the only source that he found here. Party platform literally defines the aim of the party even their goals unlike the American Liberty Party which they clearly make Christianity their party platform. So my primary source clearly contradicts his secondary source (which I doubt he's read it anyways, just the book description). ViriiK (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that, but it's going to take more than one source to justify the category. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, it won't. One good source suffices, and I'm really not interested in bringing out source after source unnecessarily. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Then try to reach WP:CONSENSUS which, at this point, appears quite against your tendentious position here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A good start would be for you to avoid misleading summaries and personal attacks. Your involvement so far has not been productive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be so kind as to state what precisely you consider to be a "personal attack" or "misleading edit summary"? Absent such, your prior post is extraordinarily non-utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you have anything to say about what sources we need? Anything else is irrelevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article it's really surprising that the Republican Party has been taken out of the lead and that there isn't a link to it under the section for parties (although maybe it should instead say "Parties favored by the Christian right"). The major role of the Christian right in the GOP is so well-established it could be argued it doesn't need any citation. It is treated as a given in any discussion of politics and the article itself here shows the strong link. The Republican Party's Wikipedia page also lists the Christian Right as one of its ideologies. The article could use more information on it, though, like a recent Pew study mentioned in this link that reports the GOP has the support of 71% of white evangelical Protestants, and that the 34% of the GOP is white evangelical Protestant versus 9% of the Democratic Party. Psalm84 (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point: the Christian right almost unanimously supports the GOP but the GOP includes more than just the Christian right. That makes it the party of the Christian right without being an exclusively Christian right party. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Although the Christian Right is (mostly) part of the Republican Party, that does not mean that the Republican Party is part of the Christian Right. Note for example that your nose is part of your face, but that does not mean that your face is part of your nose. TFD (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, our sources identify the Christian right as the core of the GOP. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If they are the "core" as you claim, why did they not get their nominee that they wanted? Therefore, they are not the core, they are simply an influential part of the party so they did get some influences in deciding the party platform. Another thing is that you are literally claiming that those people do not have their systems overlapping with other ideas such as the Club for Growth. See Factions in the Republican Party (United States). By the way, you only have one source, not plural sources. Opinion pieces do not count. ViriiK (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research, but I'm sticking with our sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please identify our sources and what edit they are supposed to support. TFD (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Still's pronoun trouble notwithstanding, unless we actually own these sources (and if so someone neglected to tell me) I believe Still is referring to a single hardbound book.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Still for pointing out that my stuff is "Original Research" although it isn't and based on actual facts. You are free to point out anything that I'm wrong on. Goes to show that you do not want to work with other editors here and want to push your singular source here. As for the source, he's basing his entire argument based on the book description. He admits to not having access to academic sources in the past. As for TFD's question, Still isn't trying to improve the article, he's trying to add the Republican Party to the list "Political parties of the Christian Right" although the problem is A) it's not the right section since they talk about movements OUTSIDE the United States B) The Republican Party is not a movement for Christian values nor was it founded based on that. It is true that the abolitionist movement was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs but that does not mean it is a Christian organization. C) He's saying that the two "organizations" are basically the same which they are not. The Republican Party is a national party across 50 states whereas the Christian Right or Social Conservatives if we are to use the correct label is concentrated to the Southeastern region of the United States / 12 states or so. So there are many groups of factions no differently from the Democratic Party. D) The Party Platform of the Republican Party has no advocacy of being a Christian movement except their expressing their defense of freedom of religion. ViriiK (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here's another pretty recent study from Gallup (2010):

All in all, 47% of Republicans in the U.S. today can be classified as highly religious whites, compared with 24% of independents and 19% of Democrats.

It also seems like the Christian right should be linked to the Tea Party, too. Here's an article on a study about it:

Nearly half of those who identify with the Tea Party movement are part of the religious right, according to a Public Religion Research Institute poll released today.

Eight out of ten Americans who identified with the Tea Party were Christians and 47 percent said they were part of the Christian conservative movement, the poll found.

But the grassroots movement remains a small part of the population overall. Christian conservatives make up 22 percent of the population but those who favor the Tea Party only comprise half of that, about 11 percent of the population.

Two other sources that may be used: The Religious Right: A Reference Handbook, Glenn H. Utter, John Woodrow Storey

In its introduction it discusses how religion has often played a role in American politics (like in abolitionism, Prohibition, and opposition to Communism). It argues that the 1960's and Carter's presidency influenced the religious right to get more active in politics in the 70's and that it largely supported the Republican Party.

This PBS show, God in America: "Of God and Caesar" also connects the religious right to the Republican Party since the 1970's. Psalm84 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Good sources. For what it's worth, ViriiK's arguments are easy to refute. A) It's the right section because, until Viriik changed it, it already contained another American party. B) The historical roots of the GOP are not relevant to what it is today, and has been since the 60's. C) No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying what our sources are saying, which is that the Christian right is the core of the GOP. D) The platform of the GOP follows Christian right "morality" across the board. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what's being argued here. Still is saying that the Republican Party is basically the Christian Right with a Christian platform. However, some minor political parties have formed as vehicles for Christian Right activists: Another thing is this article here is about the Social Conservatives which do obviously have influential power on the Republican Party but they do not always get their way such as Mitt Romney is not a Social Conservative and they worked extremely hard to get Santorum in instead. Especially the party platform as I've pointed out only has some influence such as abortion which has been a sticking point ever since Roe vs Wade but that's about as far as they'll go. With most Americans focused on the state of the economy, fiscal conservativism is now the core issue of the day as evident by the platform. I'm in no way denying that the Social Conservatives do have influence however they are certainly not the Republican Party but rather a faction that most likely supports candidates. However the NRLC do support Democratic candidates or incumbents who sport a pro-life agenda so social conservatives would then move onto other issues they vote on. Polls only analyze specific as evident by your links but people do vote on many different reasons. As for Still A) I never changed the section other than removing an erroneous listing which the American Liberty Party certainly did not operate outside the United States. You simply pointed out the error and I made the correction for you. Thank you for that one. B) Actually the historic roots are extremely relevant, you just simply want to deny it. The Liberty Party as you pointed out being an American Organization has their party platform purely based on a Christian platform. C) No, you are exactly saying that. D) Based on what? Are you stating your personal opinion here? I do not see any facts here. ViriiK (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A) That's not at all accurate. I moved the section out so that it covered the entire world, which fixed the problem without "accidentally" removing the place where the GOP resided previously. That's the correct solution; reflect a global view instead of dividing the world up into us vs. them. B) No, they're not. The article is about the Christian right, which has been the core of the GOP for the last half century. How things were before that is for another article. C) You should be careful not to pretend that I'm saying the opposite of what I'm saying. D) Based on our sources, as always.

As for your original research, I just don't see why I should bother refuting what's irrelevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

All of which are relevant anyways. A) You can claim whatever is inaccurate. However 6.4 is within Section 6 so therefore they are movements OUTSIDE the United States which the Liberty Party certainly did not operate outside the jurisidction of the United States. I can be proven wrong but I find that doubtful. Now you admit you moved the section which I did nothing of the sort. I removed an erroneous error which I thank you for that. B) Again, based on the book that you forked over $75 for which I doubt you did. You are obviously basing your entire argument based on the book description. Otherwise, I can look at my academic sources to peek into the book if you start listing pages from the book you're using as your source. However, they are not the core. If they were the core, Santorum would have been the nominee and the party platform would have reflected a great deal more than outside of abortion. Other than that, the Republican Party is pretty adamant of insisting on recognizing all American's right to freedom of religion in the party platform. C) No, I won't be. You're not an admin so you have no authority to declare where I should be careful on. Remember the part you're not an admin. D) No, it was your personal opinion. You provided no "sources" whatsoever and injected your own personal opinion. If you want to talk about the sources, start listing them and pointing out them. Until then, it is your opinion, nothing more. ViriiK (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm StillStanding (24/7), you have a source that could be read as saying 47% of the Tea Party are Christian Right and no doubt you can find another source that says the Tea Party is a major part of the Republican Party. But it adds up to that the Christian Right may be part of the Republican Party, not vice versa. TFD (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Call me "Still". The issue is whether the GOP is the party of the Christian right, not where it is exclusively composed of the Christian right. It comes down to is fixing the following:

Though many conservative and centre-right parties have electoral support from the Christian Right, most of these parties do not explicitly define themselves as "Christian". However, some minor political parties have formed as vehicles for Christian Right activists:

We could simply add, "and some major parties are formed around a Christian right core". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like, though, that you're offering your own opinion on how Christian the Republican party is based on your interpretation of Mitt Romney's nomination and the party platform. But as it's been said, Romney has had to backtrack on the liberal opinions he held in Massachusetts because of the Republican base, and many of those involve social issues. And there is far more in the Republican platform that speaks of faith than just the part about abortion. And what you're saying about Romney and the GOP platform again flies in the face of the general knowledge that the Christian right is a huge and powerful force in the Republican party and has been for decades.

The Republican Party and the Christian right are tightly linked. That is general knowledge. The Christian right isn't just one faction in it, it is one of the largest and most powerful if not the most powerful. While the Republican Party can't be called a Christian party, the strong link between the two should be stated outright, including in the lead. It doesn't seem to be encyclopedia standards at all to leave out such an important fact. The whole article which is full of the Republican connections supports that. Leaving off the Republican party and the Tea Party under the Party category doesn't make any sense. They shouldn't be listed as "Parties of the Christian right" but it would be easy enough to add another heading or change this one. On this page, "Parties of the Christian right" are under the "movements outside the U.S." section, while "Parties of the Christian left" have their own section on the CL page. They could have that here, with an additional heading of "Parties associated with the Christian right," with an explanation of the association. The U.S. Republican Party and the Tea Party could then be listed there. This is only summarizing what the rest of the article says. Psalm84 (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. My only comment is that, despite its name, the Tea Party is just a rebranding of the Republican Party, hence a faction within it, not a party of its own. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Then it could say something like this:

Parties associated with the Christian right

Republican Party (U.S.) - The Christian right is a significant block of the party, with estimates ranging from a third to a half of its members.

Tea Party movement (U.S.) - About half of the movement is estimated to be made up of the Christian right. Psalm84 (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be synthesis. ViriiK (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be pretty good. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I was just offering a suggestion as a starting point. The more pressing need I think is that the article leaves out the Republican Party in the most obvious places, even though it's called the "Christian RIGHT," its lead emphasizes the Christian right in the U.S., and most of it is about the Christian right's influence on Republican Party politics. What I suggested doesn't seem to be synthesis to me, but if you prefer, the straight numbers from the two polls involved about Republican Party membership could simply be stated. Another consideration here is that there is a lot of debatable information and conclusions being drawn in the article. Like the one source I mentioned brings up, is it really accurate to suggest that the Christian right wasn't involved in politics before the 1960's and 1970's? Looking over the article, there does seem to be conclusions being drawn that go beyond the sources or that are synthesis themselves.

My point about the lead, too, is that it should summarize what's found in the article, and without mentioning the Christian right's influence on the Republican Party, which the article is mostly about, it doesn't.Psalm84 (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a strange absence, indeed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, that is not correct. Right-wing movements like the Tea Party have existed since colonial times, and the Republicans (and their predecessors) have been largely successful in pulling them into their tent. TFD (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Right now, though, the Tea Party movement is still something that's somewhat separate. Psalm84 (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we disagree. The Republican party is a Christian right core around which other right-wing factions are wrapped. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a pro-(big)business party that needs to expand its base in order to be viable and today is appealing to among other groups a lower middle class constituency that holds to what it considers to be Christian values. It is no more run by them than the Democrats are run by progressives. TFD (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely a pro-business party, but the tail is wagging the dog. At this point, the only candidates who stood a chance in the primary were either Christian right or willing to pretend to be. The Christian right is also in control of the Tea Party movement, which has been in control of which Republicans get to run for Congress. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives but which are more powerful is a matter of opinion. It's wrong to say either, and it would be just opinion here without the sources saying so. Psalm84 (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't need to choose. We just need to make sure the article stays within what the sources support. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You see Psalm. Still has a bad habit of claiming sources says so without even showing the sources so it's best to assume without Still showing whatever these source he has, it is 100% personal opinion on his part. Plus he likes to speak in a different perspective by using "We" while intentionally excluding people like myself who are opposed to his asinine claim (it's actually his own personal opinion. He doesn't know the definition of asinine either anyways and it has to do with opinions. See: obstinate) and personal opinions. Another thing is he's yet to prove to me what pages in the book he claims to support his claim so I will state that he's A) he's never read the book B) he's using the book description. Now earlier, when I was talking about synthesis, it was quite obvious that you were drawing a conclusion from multiple sources in order to support a claim. Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot accept synthesis, see WP:SYNTHESIS. Thank you, Psalm. ViriiK (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about someone else's specific opinions. You yourself haven't explained how your opinions of the Republican party are supported by reliable sources. And unless you can actually say how my suggestion is synthesis I'm going to assume it's not. It should be easy to point it out if it is. But synthesis according to Wikipedia is drawing together information from more than one source to support a conclusion not expressed in any of the sources. Both sources mention the strong tie between the Republican party and the Christian right. WP:LEDE also says this:

The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects...

The evidence shows that the Republican Party is a very important part of the article and therefore should be mentioned in the lead. It also should be mentioned as a party influenced by the Christian right, although not as a party outside the U.S. that is Christian-based. If there's any evidence against these conclusions, and backed by WP guidelines, I would interested to see it. If not these changes should be made in order to improve this article. It is sub-par that the Republican Party isn't appropriately mentioned in some areas. Psalm84 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

However my "opinions" or facts are actually supported by other articles such as the factions article that I've already linked previously. You are free to prove me wrong which I will admit I am wrong if I see those evidence. The book however Still is trying to claim as his source is not proven to support his argument until I start seeing page numbers, not book description. After all, no one here is going to do his homework. Synthesis however is not allowed whatsoever so you are only limited to saying what each claim that you make is supported by individual or multiple sources. Now, what is the claim that you're trying to make here? Give me a statement that you are expressing to insert into the article. ViriiK (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

An editor's opinions can't be backed up just with the mention of other articles, though. They need to refer to specific passages. So what about the "Factions" article or other articles supports the specific things you've said, like about Mitt Romney, the party platform and about the religious part of the party being just Southern, etc. It would be easy to find sources that support other conclusions on all of those points. You will find many Christian right Republicans in rural Illinois and Ohio, for example.

On changes that should be made, here's a proposal for the lead:

In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition of numerous groups, chiefly made up of evangelicals with some politically-conservative Catholics[2] and Latter-day Saints.[3] It has been closely tied to the Republican Party since it arose in response to social changes in the 1960's and 1970's.

And this is an addition to the "Parties" section:

Parties associated with the Christian right

Republican Party (U.S.) - The Christian right is a significant block of the party. A 2012 Pew poll found that "white (non-Hispanic) evangelical Protestants comprise about a third (34%) of all Republican or Republican-leaning voters."

Tea Party movement (U.S.) - According to a 2010 Public Religion Research Institute poll, "Eight out of ten Americans who identified with the Tea Party were Christians and 47 percent said they were part of the Christian conservative movement." Psalm84 (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

(reply to email) - Was asked what books I had on this subject - Not interest in stating an opinion on the matter - I am simply a member of WikiProject Bibliographies and have listings of bibliographies that are on Google Books for most to read. Pls read these (they all have word/phases search option on the left side) - hope the books/info can solve the above stated problem.Moxy (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Corwin Smidt; Lyman Kellstedt; James Guth (10 September 2009). The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics. Oxford Handbooks Online. p. 269. ISBN 978-0-19-532652-9.
• Daniel K. Williams (12 July 2012). God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-992906-1.
• Paul A. Djupe; Laura R. Olson (2003). Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics. Infobase Publishing. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-4381-3020-0.
• Chip Berlet; Matthew N. Lyons (2 November 2000). Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Guilford Press. p. 229. ISBN 978-1-57230-562-5.
• Duane Murray Oldfield (1996). The Right and the Righteous: The Christian Right Confronts the Republican Party. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-8476-8190-7.
• Mildred A. Schwartz (2006). Party Movements in the United States And Canada: Strategies of Persistence. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-3968-6.
• John Clifford Green; Mark J. Rozell; Clyde Wilcox (2003). The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 978-0-87840-392-9.
• DENNIS JOHNSON (22 August 2008). Routledge Handbook of Political Management. Taylor & Francis US. pp. 240–. ISBN 978-0-415-96225-4.
• Steven G. Brint; Jean Reith Schroedel (1 August 2009). Evangelicals and Democracy in America: Religion and politics. Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN 978-0-87154-068-3.

and you forget Jimmy Carter

Who was specifically the recipient of "Christian right" votes in 1976? In fact they were the backbone of his victory in 1976 per all the polls. Collect (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned it in the above discussion because one of the sources I looked at mentioned it. It says many on the Christian right were very disappointed with the positions Carter took and that was partly why they shifted their support to Reagan and Republicans. Mentioning that would probably be a good addition to the article too. Psalm84 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From "The Religious Right: A Reference Handbook," by Glenn H. Utter, John Woodrow Storey:

The outcome of the 1976 Presidential election brought hope to many religious conservatives, because Jimmy Carter was an acknowledged "born-again" Southern Baptist from the Deep South, a Georgian with whom many on the religious right could easily identify...

The book goes on to say that Carter disappointed religious conservatives on the ERA, federally subsidized abortions, school prayer and a proposal to tax Christian schools. It also quotes Tim LaHaye: "'Between 1976 and 1980, I watched a professing Christian become President of the United States then surround himself with a host of humanistic cabinet ministers' who 'nearly destroyed our country.'" Psalm84 (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff. I'd like to fix the lead first, though. Oh, and restore the GOP to the list. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just trolling, no reference is made to sources, and no suggestion is made about how to improve the article. Collect is knowledgable about this subject, but I will explain it for the benefit of others. Jimmy Carter appealed to Christian fundamentalists, but disappointed them, after which Jerry Falwell and others organized many of them into the "Christian Right", which became one of the core groups supporting the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What is just trolling? Maybe you're talking about Collect's remark? If you are, it still could be an improvement to the article to mention that Christian conservatives were disappointed by Carter. Psalm84 (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And I suggest that the POV pusher is you .... the GOP is made up, like all centrist parties of the world, of a great many individuals and trying to argue that any such group thus represents the whole of the party is inane. It is this sort of categorisation which causes a great many problems on Wikipedia, and thus ought well be avoided. Collect (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My response was to TFD, who said "this is just trolling." I was asking what this editor meant by his comment since it wasn't clear.

And ultimately, it is the facts that matter here, and the reliable sources about them. That is what policy says to follow, not personal viewpoints. If you have reliable sources on the factions of the Republican party and how the Christian right fits into the picture, or want to find some, then they certainly should be included here too.

My concern is improving the article. Another thing it should probably include is some mention about how black Protestants tend to be Democrat since that seems to be missing too from the article.Psalm84 (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And I suggest that you drop the incivility and personal attacks entirely. There's no room here for a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Comment on the article or I will hat you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to start a new section about the proposed changes to the article and see what comments are made. For right now just keeping a focus on the facts about the Christian right might keep the discussion on the topic. Psalm84 (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If you hat him I will revert it. You know full well that you shouldn't do that from the numerous AN discussions that have been held about it. Incivility is not grounds to remove comments. If you want it removed, discuss it with Collect. But you have no right to hat it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you won't, because WP:TPO says:

• Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages), the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to hide this material as described above. It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion.

I'm insisting that Collect stay on topic, and that means avoiding attacks on other editors. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You either don't understand policy on this matter or are trying to misuse policy to get your way; an 'off-topic post' is clearly defined as a post not relating at all to the article or improving it. For example, if a conspiracy theorist posted rants on the September 11 attacks page, it could be hatted or removed. This does not apply to Collect's comment, as it directly relates to the article, and per WP:RUC you are not allowed to hat or remove it. End of story. Toa Nidhiki05 17:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Trolling is off-topic. So far, two other editors have recognized this entire section as the result of Collect's trolling. There's good reason for this conclusion. Consider how Collect calls the Republican party "centrist". Such absurd statements are intended to get a reaction. In this case, the reaction will be hatting. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And if you react like that I will revert it. You have no policy to support you and you know it, so stop pretending like you do. Toa Nidhiki05 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting everyone to your plans to violate policy. Should you act on those plans, your alert will serve to establish premeditation and motive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me - you are the one that wants to violate it by inappropriately threatening to hat a comment, not me. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed article changes (from the previous two discussions)

• Some mention in the lead that the Christian right is an influential part of the Republican Party.

In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition of numerous groups, chiefly made up of evangelicals with some politically-conservative Catholics[2] and Latter-day Saints.[3] It has been closely tied to the Republican Party since it arose in response to social changes in the 1960's and 1970's.

• Some mention under a "Parties" list that the Christian right is closely tied to the Republican Party in the U.S. The Tea Party movement is also mentioned.

Parties associated with the Christian right

Republican Party (U.S.) - The Christian right is a significant block of the party. A 2012 Pew poll found that "white (non-Hispanic) evangelical Protestants comprise about a third (34%) of all Republican or Republican-leaning voters."

Tea Party movement (U.S.) - According to a 2010 Public Religion Research Institute poll, "Eight out of ten Americans who identified with the Tea Party were Christians and 47 percent said they were part of the Christian conservative movement."

• Also some mention of how the Christian right responded to Jimmy Carter's presidency.

• Mention of black Protestants being overwhelmingly Democratic, and maybe also mention of mainline Protestants, and white and Hispanic Catholic differences. There is some mention of them in polls and there may be more about them in other sources. Psalm84 (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

For the first two, neither of your examples is exactly how I'd do it, but both are improvements over the status quo, so I support their inclusion, along with necessary citations. I likewise agree with the last two, although we'll need to say it carefully and source it carefully. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first two don't have to be the way they are. They could be changed too, although I agree that right now they are an improvement over the current article. More information could be added later, too. But where do think they're lacking? On the other two, they will need careful wording, and probably the last one needs some more research. Psalm84 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Mostly details. Given a clear source, I'd change "closely tied to" to something like "forms the core of". The second part isn't bad as is. I'd rather move good, well-cited versions into place, then worry about tightening them up or sharpening them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From how I see it on the first passage, I think a stronger wording, closer to what you say, is possible. But the passage the way I have it doesn't need any sourcing since it is simply summarizing what's in the article, which is why I put it that way. I do think, as you say, that it can be argued that the Christian right is the core of the party, but that seems to be something that also needs careful wording. It's also something that can be argued against, too, since other types of Republicans have a lot of influence too. The Christian right does seem to be the largest group, though. Using quotations about the Christian right's influence from some sources, like the book on the Christian right that you mentioned, might work well. I was just looking at that on Google and it has a lot of information that would work well in the article. It makes discusses how the party platform changed in 1980 to reflect the values of the Christian right. That would be something notable to add. Psalm84 (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Put simply, I agree. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The first two proposed changes could probably go into the article as is, for a start. I also just added a line about the 1980 Republican Party platform changing due to the Christian right influence. That seems important to this history. Psalm84 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes you've made so far. I'm tempted to implement the first two proposed changes myself, but it might be better if you did it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear you like those changes. I think the first two proposed changes can be done, too. I'll do them. There are good reasons for them and no one has objected to them. If someone does, they can always be discussed here. Psalm84 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a citation to support the mention of the GOP as a party of the Christian right:

The Republican Party has become the creature of the religious right. So the religious right is no longer a fringe element knocking on the door of the powers that be; it is, for instance in today's Congress, the "powers that be."

Looks pretty clear to me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

absurd silly season POV. The GOP also has atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, and so on. Your proposal is violative of every precept of the Five Pillars. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you have anything civil and relevant to add? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, total crap. Lets poll the number of self-identified white protestants in the democratic party. This is a statistically majority white christian country. They're the majority in both parties, and including the Republican party only implies something that isn't. Naapple (Talk) 18:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Same question. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of adding a link to Frank Schaeffer's interview in a footnote?[13] It does not support the text, and is not a reliable source for facts. In any case, we are not supposed to take sides on different interpretations of the subject, but present views in proportion to their weight. TFD (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I added it because it supports the text. If you'd like to suggest additional citations, I'm quite open to them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I want you to understand that I didn't mean that comment as "go find some citations and don't bug me until you do". I meant that it's actually hard to find citations for certain types of facts. It turns out that nobody is motivated to write that the sky is blue, precisely because it's so obvious. The Republican/evangelical connection suffers from this as well. Here are a bunch of possible sources I dug up. Let's talk about which ones would be helpful in supporting statements linking the GOP and Christian right:

1. http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v17n2/evangelical-demographics.html
2. http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/santorum-stands-out-as-the-future-anointed-one-of-the-christian-right/2012/08/29/d1b8ea42-f1eb-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html
5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100004.html
6. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-20068954.html
7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/05/mega-donors-bankrolling-religious-right_n_1735337.html
8. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/02/06/republican-party-and-religious-right-heading-for-a-split
9. http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/10115-the-religious-right-and-the-gop-joined-at-the-hip-but-whos-calling-the-shots
10. http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2012/apr/16/letter-religious-right-has-overtaken-the-of-the/
11. http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150413782/the-nation-how-santorum-moved-the-kgop-primary-right
12. http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/religious-right-taints-message-republican-party
13. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/iowa-caucuses-2012-al-jazeera-christian-right_n_1146598.html
14. http://www.amazon.com/The-Hijacking-Jesus-Religious-Christianity/dp/1560259566
15. http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Is-Not-Republican-Religious/dp/1560257636/ref=pd_sim_b_1
16. http://www.amazon.com/With-God-Our-Side-Religious/dp/0767922573/ref=pd_sim_b_5

As you can see, they vary in directness, quality and neutrality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why the sky is blue:

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/blue-sky/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/sky.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071031201452AAwbqie

http://news.discovery.com/earth/no-seriously-why-is-the-sky-blue.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_sky_blue

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Skyblue.shtml

http://www.why-is-the-sky-blue.tv/why-is-the-sky-blue.htm

Naapple (Talk) 20:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anoyne noticed that ISS's "wall o sources" are pretty much all opnion articles. I'm not sure about the books as I haven't read them, but for someone to suggest using a source that they themselves have not read is troublesome.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that your contribution here is unproductive? I certainly have. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

LGR has a valid point (opinion sources /= fact) so I would suggest you back off. Toa Nidhiki05 21:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And I would suggest that you actually look at the sources instead of accepting LGR's opinion about them being opinion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you assume I haven't read them - are you a telepath or something? You don't know what I have or haven't done - rather, you are trying to distract from a legitimate point made by LGR that opinion sources are not fact. Instead of responding civilly, you insulted him. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I am a telepath, but I try not to mention it because, you know, it freaks people out. Of course, I don't even need my telepathy to infer that you took LGR's word for it instead of seeing for yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This edit is completely unproductive. Why don't you spend your time and energy disseminating through all those references instead? Naapple (Talk) 23:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't take a telepath to see that in at least one of the URL's you cited the is the word opinion. It would take some Cognitive dissonance to argue that such a URL would be valid as a RS.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

How similar is "at least one" to "all"? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From the hijacking book, top of page 14:

Political science professor Kenneth Wald of the University of Florida put it in an even more concrete way: "The Religious Right has been institutionalized within the Republican Party".

Now, this is a pretty clear statement from an academic source, not a political opinion. Moreover, per WP:UNDUE, it represents the mainstream view and should be represented as such. There is no doubt among our sources that the Christian right is the core of the Republican party. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so a political science professor believes that. That is still his opinion. Not fact. If you want to use it, you can say this professor advocates this view, which is fine. But his opinion isn't fact. Toa Nidhiki05 01:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are entirely mistaken. This is not an opinion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A political science professor said something, not backed up by a study or research (I'm assuming, you didn't give any sort of background to the quote). How is that not his opinion? You haven't given any sort of way he backs up the claim, so I have to assume it is his opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

When an expert in a field speaks, that's a reliable source regarding facts, not an opinion. You do not understand what an opinion is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Expert opinion =/ fact. Expert opinion is expert opinion, it doesn't magically become fact because an expert said it. It is still opinion unless it is backed up by research, a study, etc. Toa Nidhiki05 01:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, you're wrong.

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

— [{WP:SPS]]

If it's explicitly an opinion, then it needs to be quoted as such, but if it's an "expert opinion", it does magically become a WP:VERIFIABLE fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is an opinion, there isn't any sort of backing for it. If this is indeed the correct interpretation of policy, than it needs to be changed - expert opinion or statement is not fact and should not be treated as such. Opinion is opinion, fact is fact - the two are not identical. I maintain the proper and logical application of policy would be that an opinion by a political scientist, of which we will refer to as 'x', is appropriate to cite that an expert said 'x'. An opinion of a non-expert individual, which we will refer to as 'y', is not as good as 'x' and thus is less reliable and notable. 'x' would also be better to use than 'y', but just because 'x' was said by an expert does not make it fact. It makes it an opinion from an expert. Toa Nidhiki05 23:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Education and rural population

I think there is some info that is missing our readers may find interesting in the demographics of the "Christian right". Is it worth mentioning that those from the Christian Right are "generally" from rural areas and less educated then there counterparts. Not sure how this could be said tactfully.Moxy (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• John A. Clark; Charles L. Prysby (10 September 2004). Southern Political Party Activists: Patterns of Conflict and Change, 1991-2001. University Press of Kentucky. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-8131-3742-1.
• Nicole Mellow (9 April 2008). The State of Disunion: Regional Sources of Modern American Partisanship. JHU Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-8018-9646-0.
• Ellen Reese (29 July 2005). Backlash against Welfare Mothers: Past and Present. University of California Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-0-520-24462-7.

Actually, conservatives tend to be more educated than liberals. And those with a 4 year degree are more likely to be a Republican. If you don't have a high school diploma you are 95% likely to vote dem though. Still, you're welcome to actually pull a quotation from one of those sources. No one here is doing your work for you. Naapple (Talk) 20:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats way off, but anyways we are talking about the specific subset of the "Christian right" not conservatives as a whole (pls read references). Not asking for someone to do the work I am asking for opinions on how to mention this well documented and studied fact. Think a simple sentence like I said above would be find - "Those from the Christian Right tend to be from rural areas and are less educated then there conservative counterparts (ref here from above).Moxy (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Right and the Republican party are not the same thing. In fact liberals tend to be better educated than conservatives and receiving more education makes one more liberal. TFD (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's entirely false. Naapple (Talk) 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Best to read-up on a topics and reply with sources not just personal opinions. No guess work pls (refs below). So back to main topic ...what and how should we say this.Moxy (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Robert Wuthnow (1 January 1990). The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith since World War II. Princeton University Press. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-691-02057-0.
• Rhys H. Williams (1997). Cultural Wars in American Politics: Critical Reviews of a Popular Myth. Transaction Publishers. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-202-30564-6. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
• Peter H. Schuck; James Q. Wilson (7 April 2009). Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation. PublicAffairs. p. 290. ISBN 978-1-58648-695-2.

I see a bunch of books without any quotes.

But hey, here's this: http://inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/does-college-make-you-liberal/

Go read the chart and the explanation. Higher income earners are more likely to be republican (no surprise there) and thus more likely educated (another shocker: higher educated people tend to earn more money). Naapple (Talk) 22:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's an actual quote if you didn't bother clicking the link: As the chart shows, 14 percent of strong Democrats did not finish high school, compared to 9 percent of strong Republicans. Conversely, 16 percent of strong Democrats hold a bachelor’s degree, compared to 24 percent of strong Republicans. The same disparity holds when considering those who identify as not strong Republicans and Democrats. Naapple (Talk) 22:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I take it you did not read any of the scholarly refs provided above. Not sure how to tell you but the source is not reliable as per WP:BLOGS and your guessing again - Quote "thus more likely educated". If you would like I can provide more info on the topic so you can familiarizes yourself with the many studies about this topic. Anyways not here to debate about liberals and conservatives - here about the Christian right. Moxy (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I haven't read any of the books as I'm not doing your work for you. If there's some material you want to include from those books then go for it. In any case, my info above is in direct response to the subject: Education and Rural Population; in that this attempt to list the Christian Right as less educated is inaccurate and without basis, in regards to the attempt that the GOP be listed as a Christian Right party. If you can refute that without linking a wall of book references, then do it. Naapple (Talk) 22:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Very odd to enter a debate when not willing to read a few pages of text to understand the other-sides view by way of citations. As for refuting your clam(s) its be done 3 times now (just have to click a link above and educate yourself on your opponents position). So I guess I will think of the appropriate text and add it with the refs. There is no rush as I see you guys here are in the middle of previous debate so I will wait till next week or so.Moxy (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't his job to prove your argument - it is yours, and you have yet to do so. Toa Nidhiki05 21:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow lots of hostility here - Never asked anyone to do anything - Pls keep in-mind that this is a collaborative environment and its polite to talk about issues that may be contentious in nature before adding them. I believe the points I have raised have been proven by the references above (that can be clicked on and read). The only rebuttal thus far is from a blog that talks about the hard core members of each political party. If you refute the references above that's fine - but would be best to state why you believe decades of research is in question. Is Oxford University not reliable? Are the authors not reputable? As mentioned before there is no rush and talking things out is best - I will wait a bit before adding the info see if anyone has any valid arguments supported by valid references. Also think best not to add anything till the debate that is already going on here should be solved first.Moxy (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

When you come into a board and basically call a chunk of the population uneducated, you're bound to get a response. I hadn't noticed you included page numbers on the second set of references, so I checked out the most recent one and read the entire page. Could you clarify exactly where this alleged evidence is and post it here?

Also, the reference I grabbed is from a PhD, who so happens to cite publicly collected data for his information. I could just as easily skip his article and grab the relevant information from source instead. I think you're trying to make a link between CRs and people in rural areas, and then using this to justify that since CRs are from rural areas, they must be uneducated. I should point out that this is OR, not to mention is probably a logic fallacy and is generally untrue. I'll point out that you made a deal out of me saying "thus more likely educated" when I was in fact paraphrasing the article, and yet you've done essentially the same thing now making a link between the CR and rural living, while I've made a link between general Republicans and the CR. Needless to say, this is a tricky topic, and I doubt you'll find a reference somewhere that clearly dictates that persons of the Christian Right are generally less educated than democrats.

I do agree that this easier handled after the DRN and have no problem with it being put off. That said I'm not saying that if someone really wants to edit this section anyway that they can't or shouldn't. Naapple (Talk) 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets show you book by book so you can refute the actual work over guessing its "OR" and "probably a logic fallacy". Calling years of study OR leads me to believe your not familiar with the concept of original research. The one blog ref you have provided is about "hard core members" of each party - not about the "Christian right" that have members in both parties. So let look at the "University Press of Kentucky" publication first, because it mentions just this fact about the "Christian right" being involed in both parties and the fact that they are from poorer and less-educated background.

• John A. Clark; Charles L. Prysby (10 September 2004). Southern Political Party Activists: Patterns of Conflict and Change, 1991-2001. University Press of Kentucky. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-8131-3742-1. Christian Right supporters come from the poorer and less-educated members of their parties, especially among Democrats (regardless of race)'

Then we have the reference from "Johns Hopkins University"

• Nicole Mellow (9 April 2008). The State of Disunion: Regional Sources of Modern American Partisanship. JHU Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-8018-9646-0. 'Early surveys showed that supporters of the religious right tended to be residents of rural areas and were typically less-educated, white, fundamentalist Christians living in the South...' .Moxy (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It would also be nice if people could provided sources for statements like "If you don't have a high school diploma you are 95% likely to vote dem though". We need to see people are not making this up as they go.Moxy (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Naaple, your source discusses support for the two parties not liberals and conservatives. Also, note that more people identify as Democrats than Republicans. A recent paper says, "Most studies of ideology, such as Gerber et al. (2010), and that individuals who are more educated are more likely to express leftist preferences, going back to the work of Kaiser and Lilly (1975) and McClintock and Turner (1967)."[14] However income level, which has a direct relation with education, also has a direct relation with voting for mainstream conservatives, such as John McCain and Mitt Romney. In any case, we are discussing the Christian Right, not mainstream conservatism. TFD (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over Christian right and the Republican Party (threads 27, 28 and 29) at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

Dispute from threads 27 "Removal of the Republican Party," 28 "and you forget Jimmy Carter," and 29 "Proposed article changes (from the previous two discussions)" over mention of the Republican Party in the article is being discussed at DRN. Psalm84 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution has failed. It's up to us to deal with this dispute ourselves. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It just started. Naapple (Talk) 19:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And you're one of the people who ended it.

"No one is questioning Psalm, it's someone else..."

Good job! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This may come as shocking, but the DRN is not all about you. Psalms brought it up to discuss the whole GOP-CR link. That's what's being discussed. If you don't want to participate then it's your loss, not mine. Naapple (Talk) 19:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's actually your fault, not your loss. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You of your own free will have chosen not to participate. LGR was right, this is textbook cognitive dissonance. Naapple (Talk) 19:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of my own free will, I chose to recognize the bad faith on your part. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I support I'm StillStanding's right not to participate in the DR.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN results

The discussion seems to have reached certain inescapable conclusions:

While the editors involved clearly have proposed these changes in good faith, it is also clear that this is simply a point of view that could be viewed by many as fringe in some form and not main stream by academic experts, but has been formed from bits and peices of quotes that are attempting to stitch together these assumptions. This is not appropriate and none of the sources (with the exception of biased parties and/or partisan opinion) make these specific claims. There seems to be some use of expert opinion to source fact without attribution and could be seen as further reasoning to exclude this information. [15]

While your sources did not prove your assertions and in some cases were counter to what you believed, I appreciate your ability to keep going when others simply didn't bother. I commend you for this [16]

Noting the closer also cited WP:FRINGE

A Wikipedia article about a fringe view (or organization) should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

1. The article is about the Christian Right and is not about the Republican Party
2. The timeline is not about the Christian Right but is a catchall of material some related and some unrelated to the Christian Right and some with the aim of attaching the Republican Party to the article
3. Some sources have clearly been misused in the attempt to attach the Republican Party to the article
4. Some material is totally unrelated to the topic Christian Right

Also note that all articles relating to the American Presidential Campaign are under Community Probation, and claims which refer to the current campaign would place this article in that category.

Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor

As a start, I am removing the material found to be unrelated to the topic of the article or which is attempting to link the Republican Party as a group to the Christian Right. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this material from DRN is not a genuine consensus and is not binding upon the editors of this article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You refused to participate in the process. The close was unambiguous. Please do not try testing the resolve of those who actually follow Wikipedia dispute processes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect across the board, but thanks for your suggestions. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From the DRN ...when others simply didn't bother is referring to you. I suspect the community would frown upon you editing this information back into the article after you refeused to participate in the process.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To remind you, DRN is not binding, but reliable sources are. The article suffered from weak sourcing, which is unfortunate but fixable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And note the ArbCom dicta that folks who refuse to participate in dispute resolution are likely to find they erred. I would note the "source" you added for G. W. Bush speaking at Bob Jones University does not even mention the event! That is a gross misuse of a source, and a violation of WP:BLP (using a source to say something it absolutely does not say). Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not WP:BLP; it's not controvsial that Bush spoke there, even if not named in that source. However, people have been banned from Wikipedia for "gross misuse of sources" alone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And I support that. Good thing I'm not grossly misusing sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rebuilding the article.

Let's start with the composition of the Christian right. A good source is http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/chr_rght.htm

At the end of the 1980s, it was commonly assumed that the Christian Right consisted entirely of evangelical Protestants. Polls from that period suggested that evangelical Protestants comprised the majority of adherents, but many members of the Christian Right were not evangelical Protestants, and many evangelical Protestants were not members of the Christian Right. More precisely, the Christian Right drew support from politically conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists.

[...] It may be helpful, then, to think of the Christian Right as the large shaded area in the middle of two overlapping circles. The shaded area consists of (1) evangelicals who cared enough about the political goals of the Christian Right to leave their pews and get out the vote and (2) non-evangelicals who cared enough about the political goals of the Christian Right to work with evangelicals.

I'd say this is a good starting point. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Calling Jews, Atheists and Mormons "evangelical Christian" is sufficiently WP:FRINGE as to be utterly risable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you do not show an understanding of the material. I would suggest that you re-read it again, more carefully, but I'm not sure that it would overcome your mental block. Thanks for trying, though. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(EC) @Collect: With due respect, the article isn't making any such claim: it carefully makes a distinction between "Christian Right" (which is supported by a number of Jews, atheists and Mormons) and "evangelical Christian". What it *does* say is that the majority of supporters or adherents of the "Christian Right" are drawn from "evangelical Protestants" (with many other supporters, though not the most, being from these other groups that are mentioned). Alfietucker (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Risable claims do not get into Wikipedia real articles. No one would ever accept that Jews, atheists and Mormons are "evangelical Christians". WP:FRINGE is a mild term for any such claims. Period. Note the source is not in a "peer-reviewed journal" and is an essay to guide student discussions at best, and I doubt any peer-reviewed journal would say one can class non-evangelical Christians as evangelical Christians. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Collect - for the last time, nobody is claiming that Jews, atheists and Mormons are "evangelical Christians". Try to take this on board, or you risk appearing to be raising a straw man. Alfietucker (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Collect - you're pushing it. The claim here is that (some) Jews, Mormons, and atheists are part of the Christian right. It seems absurd enough, but it's not impossible, if the source is reliable (which I haven't attempted to verify). I've previously noted SS as being unable or unwilling to understand simple English; if you persist here, I would need to make the sote about you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Some new material was removed, with the edit comment claiming "Removing lede mention from outdated source with no page nos, pointless, irrelevant George Bush Bob Jones information."

What concerns me is that the comment is somewhere between misleading and false. The book is indeed from 1996, which young people might view as the deep past (Toa is 17). However, what it says is no less true today, as shown by more recent sources. I would simply supplement the 1996 book with a 2012 one: http://books.google.com/books?id=lqf3KBaqgI8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. I believe this addresses any issue of age.

As for page numbers, I used direct quotes and provided a link to Google Books, so anyone who wants to know what page these words came from can trivially search. I would call this claim misleading. If policy demanded that we include pages, these could be included; it's not an excuse to remove the material.

Finally, the passage on Bob Jones University was removed due to a lack of citations. I restored it with a citation. I have no idea what "pointless, irrelevant" is supposed to mean. Frankly, even the title of the source makes it clear that it's entirely relevant: "Into the Wilderness: Ronald Reagan, Bob Jones University, and the Political Education of the Christian Right". Note that Toa somehow confused Bush with Reagan.

In short, I believe that Toa's revert was hasty, counterproductive and indefensible. On this basis, I feel compelled to revert it, which I believe will bring me up to 2RR for the day. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your source for George W. Bush "speaking" at BJU does not even mention Bush! Deliberate misuse and abuse of sources is not something to do lightly. I read the actual article -- the point of the article was the dispute between Reagan and the "Christian Right" while you seem to think the title links the two! And per the DRN close, using WP:FRINGE sourcing is not the way for you to proceed -- the removal of such fringe sources is required by clear consensus here and at the dispute review noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The citation I provided was to confirm the connection between BJU and the CR. Now that you've articulated Toa's unclear edit comment, I understand that you also want a citation for Bush's visit in 2000. That's easy. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And now you use SYNTH to connect the two claims from two sources? And your "name" for the second source is not in that source ... Bob Jones Racist is not the name of the article cited (which is Bob Jones University ends ban on interracial dating), nor in the article cited, but only in the html address you searched for -- but not in the "real" html address http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/bob.jones/index.html. Sorry -- SYNTH is also contrary to policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what SYNTH means. Seriously, I don't think you do. The Bush citation is sufficient to support the content. The CR citation was intended to support inclusion in the article. Two purposes, two citations; no synthesis. As for the URL, I'll be glad to update it to a more neutral one. I just used the one I found. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking a break to allow for feedback

Collect's big purge was bold, but I didn't simply revert it, although I could have. Instead, I tried to discuss it with him, and turned it into an opportunity to improve the level of scholarship in this article. I've added citations, included direct quotes and removed what cannot currently be supported. The biggest casualty has been the timeline, which is quite accurate but would preferably be sourced to avoid charges of undue synthesis.

It would not shock me if someone decided to revert the work I just did, but I'd suggest that it would be counterproductive to do so. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The content is coherent, informative and seems to be well researched, I made some minor copyedits and a few more may be helpful.

I would actually suggest expanding the Media section to include subsections for some of the major media outlets used by the Christian right (CBN, Fox, 700 Club), perhaps a short paragraph on each. – MrX

ETA: When I commented, I did not realize the full extent of Still's edits. However, looking at the previous version, I'm left with the impression of an article stripped of most of its context and meaning. With the picture on the right, it almost seemed like an homage to Jerry Falwell. – MrX 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reverts and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality are pretty obvious to others. That you consider the idea of dispute resolution to be beneath contempt is a problem for you as an editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should self-revert all the changes you made. You may be aware that this article just went through a major DR, and was changed to reflect the results of it. You chose not to be a part of the process. Even if you had, you would not be permitted to simply make changes to reflect your own position, but the fact that you declined to be part of the process, makes this all the more relevant. Despite failing to be part of the process, I don't support keeping you out of this process, but I think you should propose any changes on this page, and get consensus before implementing them. If they are good and supportable, they will be supported.

If there hadn't been an edit after yours, which I can't quite figure out, I would have reverted you, and asked that you get consensus.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any specific objections? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the objections to the information put in the media section? It seems factual and neutral as far as I can tell. Is it really controversial that the Christian right uses the media to advance their causes? – MrX 14:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I realize this isn't the place to make policy, but I think we should consider some policy. You used the term "counterproductive". I'll give an example of counterproductive. Participating in a DR is hard work, and if you participate, you might feel morally obligated to accept the resolution. Far easier to renege, and then make whatever edits you want. So your ideal decision is to ignore DR, then do what you want. As a project, why would we want to encourage that? There ought to be a penalty for refusing to engage in DR. I think prohibiting such people form editing is too harsh a penalty, but I'd support requiring such people to get a consensus before making an edit to the article, for some prescribed period of time (say, a year.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My specific objections are to the process. You found a way to game the system. The edits may be fine, but that's not the point. It is tough enough to get editors to contribute to DR productively. What if more follow your lead and realize the best option is to simply ignore DR. This talk page is not the place to debate DR process, so I'll stop soon, but I'd be appreciative if you could share your thoughts. Why on earth should anybody participate in DR, if they see that your approach works?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do not think anyone should bother with WP:DRN. It doesn't work; no actual resolution of the dispute occurs, except sometimes by coincidence. In any case, if you have no objections to this content, then I'm not sure the discussion belongs on this page. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I support your right not to be involved, but I urge you to let others reach their own conclusions. I was "kicking the tires" on a potential proposal (which I agree belongs elsewhere). I wondered if there was an obvious objection to it, but you haven't identified one, so maybe I'll take the next step. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I was simply sharing the conclusions I've reached, not insisting that you agree.

I'm not clear on what your potential proposal is, so I can't comment on it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why even go through the bother of proposing a policy? Just create a new section below (or at ANI) and propose a topic ban and see what the community says.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, Sphilbrick, but could you please explain why you removed the mention of the GOP in the lead? It has two strong citations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary? (It says, see talk page)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit to lede

I removed:

The Christian right plays a "powerful role" within the Republican Party, which it is "intertwined with".

I looked at the google book source, and did not see support for the claim that "it is 'intertwined with'". I may have missed it, feel free to point it out. I'm not convinced that a single mention in a non-scholarly source is adequate for such a strong statement; we can debate that, but let's start by confirming whether the claim is even supported by the source.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

References

To be fair, it's not a strong statement at all. The intimate connection between the Christian Right and the GOP is common knowledge and strongly supported by any number of sources. I chose these two; I can come up with many more. So can you, really.

As for the quote, it's from page 2. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the word "interwined" on page two. Can you show me where? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did find the phrase on page 56, but it doesn't support your sentence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, not 56, 2. If you're having trouble finding it with your eyes, just use the search box on the left side. The exact sentence is "The Republican party's identity will be intertwined with that of the Christian Right for the foreseeable future." Do you see it now?

Anyhow, I was originally going to use http://www.thenation.com/article/168533/whos-afraid-secular-government#, but chose the book instead. If you'd like, we can use all three sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of sources is a recurring problem here -- with claims made which are not in the source provided, and (see the DRN discussion) cases where a source says the opposite to what is claimed. And the use of editorial opinion as a substitute for fact where living people are concerned is a major problem as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what your general comments have to do with this specific issue. In particular, the sources I used directly support the passage in the lead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My page 2 starts, "ality, and women's right." Are we looking at the same material? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see the sentence now. Not sure why the search for "intertwined" missed it.

As you note, the full sentence includes "The Republican party's identity will be intertwined..." (emphasis added). In other words, a prediction by the author. Very different than the "factual" statement you used. In addition, the book was written in 1996 about events in 1992. It may or may not be an accurate summarization about the events of a short period of time, but you are using this narrow time period to make broad claims about a much longer period of time. If you'd like to argue that one author talks about the influence in one election cycle, and makes personal predictions about the future, we can debate how much weight that deserves in a timeline section of the article, but it isn't supportive of such broad pronouncements.

There are other problems in the lede as well. A well-written lede is a summarization of the most important aspects of the article. As such, an external quote in the lede is a red flag. Not prohibited, but there ought to be a good reason why an external quote is in the lede. The support from "Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists" certainly is a relevant issue belonging in the article, but it doesn't sound like so important that it belongs in the lede. The sentence I removed is a more important point (if properly supported) but would be better used as a quote in the main article, then summarized in the lede.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the confusion came from the fact that the pages were returned out of order. It looks like an honest mistake on your part so I'm not going to worry about it.

Now, as for article organization, sure, I'm all for improving it. What section do you think the GOP connection belongs in, in addition to the lead? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I have a suggestion in response to my own question. We could put the quoted version under the "Partisan activity of churches" section after renaming it to "Partisan political activity". We could then put a paraphrase in the lead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't confused, the pages weren't out of order, and I make many mistakes, but I don't recall one today, other than the decision to engage in this discussion. In a section below, you mention "losing track" so maybe you missed my statement that the quote doesn't support your point. I put it up in the section where the point was being discussed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that you quoted " intertwined with", a prediction about the future, and skipped over the preceding sentence, which says "The Christian Right does not fit neatly into the Republican Party...". In a section below you say "not the part that's important". If the material you quoted isn't important, we are probably done here, although we might consider whether the observation actually made by the author deserves inclusion. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely true that the CR doesn't fit neatly, as it's concerned about social issues, not fiscal ones, which is what the GOP is primarily about. Despite his concerns, an uneasy compromise has been reached. For example, if you look at the FRC's platform, you'll find that it's all about sex and drugs and morality, but also includes low taxes. That's the big tent at work.

Now, back to the quote:

The Republican party's identity will be intertwined with that of the Christian Right for the foreseeable future.

This states that the GOP's identity is currently intertwined with that of the CR. The prediction is secondary, but happens to also be true. The 2012 book makes that clear, but doesn't have punchy quotes. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take your silence here as agreement. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That is one of the most inane posts in the entire history of Wikipedia. Silence is not consent. And "silence for five hours" is an absurd concept of "silence" in any case. The edit you seek to make is contrary to reliable sources and is not borne out by the source you choose to misuse. Sorry Still --- your position is tendentious and untenable. Collect (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've shown that the edit is supported by three strong sources, so I don't know what you're talking about here.

There was some confusion on SPhilbrick's part about the "intertwined" statement. I clarified it for them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Five hours. And you insist on your interpretation of sources which is not borne out by the others reading the sources, not borne out by the words in the sources, and only borne out by your assertion that it is the WP:TRUTH. I think a clue should be given: Wikipedia does not use what editors know to be the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU LIKE BOLD, BUT IF YOU WANT ME TO SHOUT, I CAN DO THAT. NOW, IT HAPPENS THAT YOUR SUMMARY IS NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY ACCURATE. WE HAVE SOURCES THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE LEAD BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THOSE SOURCES. AS A HELPFUL (AND LOUD) EDITOR, IT IS MY JOB TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND, WHICH I HAVE DONE. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU DO NOT CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND ABOUT HOW THESE SOURCES SUPPORT THE LEAD? ALSO, IF YOU DON'T MIND, HOW ABOUT WE BOTH STICK TO NORMAL LEVELS OF EMPHASIS, OK? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a reason the bold button is there. Calm down.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear in context that I was calm and was instead pointing out Collect's abuse of bold. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Except, he didn bold everything with caps. You took it to the extreme and that was just disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Weight musing

I'm going to do a little OR here, but I am not proposing this go into the article, I just want a little perspective on the source. The Amazon book rank of The Right and the Righteous is 616,200. Per this graph, a sales rank of 500,000 corresponds to a sale per week of one book (by Amazon). A rough rule of thumb is that total sales are 6 times Amazon sales. So if we assume a rank of 500,000 instead of 600,000, this book might be selling six copies a week. I do not wish to suggest that a book can be fully dismissed, simply because the sales count is so low, but it does raise wp:weight issues.

I am fully supportive of keeping this source as one of many, but think we should avoid over-reliance on a book that just barely exists. Just in case this argument jumps up and bites me, I want to be clear that it is context sensitive. If one is talking about a more obscure topic, say, Scrimshaw techniques, I would expect that the authoritative books on the subject might be low selling. In a happy coincidence, I picked this subject more or less at random, but there is a book Scrimshaw Techniques, which has a sale rank of 668,670. If a book on religion and politics, which has a naturally large potential audience, is barely outselling a book on scrimshaw, it is my opinion that this book isn't making its case very effectively. Doesn't mean it should be excluded, but it suggests that we need a broader array of sources.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm losing track here. You asked for a page number and I got it for you. You suggested moving the quote into a section while keeping a paraphrase in the lead, and I agreed but haven't finished coming up with a mutually agreeable plan. Can we please resolve these issues before we move on? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I was making the abstract point, that quotes generally belong in the main article, with the lede used for summarization. (I have no idea whether this point has broad support, but I think it makes sense and a very cursory review of FA articles supports it) That was before I found the quote, and see that it doesn't (IMO) support your point, which point I made in the relevant section. Then I decided to make a different point, which I made in a different section.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think you understood the quote. Yes, it was speaking of the future, but that's not the part that's important. What's important is that it acknowledged that CR and GOP were already intertwined. Switching points only confused things. 17:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you making that point here? I created a separate section to talk about a separate issue. If you want to discuss the "intertwining" issue, please discuss it in the section above. It is confusing to see your comment in this section relating to a point made above. (Or maybe you are making a very subtle "interwtwining joke?)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Duck season

Apparently, it's open season on the Christian Right. Now we have another editor making massive deletions without bothering to talk about them here.[17] Interestingly, the stated reasons are false or misleading, but I'm not going to engage in an edit war. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. If you are looking for articles to improve, then Time travel might be relevant.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to Darkness Shines' edits, they make perfect sense to me. He/she removed unsourced content, juxtapositioned statements that seem to be synth vios, and the a reference purported to support the idea that Fox News is the preferred news network for the Christian right. While that is almost certainly true, it does fail verification based on the source provided. – MrX 16:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing unsourced crap and other crap which has no place in this article is hardly "massive deletions" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You're deleting so much, so quickly that there's no chance to respond. Let me give you an example of why this is a problem.

Take this edit, which had the comment "Reference does not call this school Christian right, I guess it was here just for Bush. Pure SYNTH)"

Well, the reference you deleted didn't say it was Christian Right; the reference you left did. So your comment wasn't false, just completely misleading.

As for Bush, I think you simply didn't read the reference that you deleted. It explains that the consequence of the Bush visit is that BJU had to change its policies. I suspect the article said as much at some point, but it got lost in the haste to delete things. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You took two sources to make shit up. That is SYNTH, which is why it was removed. Bush going to talk at that school has naught to do with this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, no, that's not what WP:SYNTH says: read it. One source was there to show that BJU belongs in an article about the CR. Full stop. Another source is to confirm that Bush spoke there and to support the missing sentence about the consequence of his visit. If SYNTH meant what you thought it did, we couldn't have any articles with more than one source. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You took two sources to make shit up. One which says the school is CR, the other to say Bush spoke there, implying that Bush is CR, so yes it is synth. I also note a fair few citations to books are missing page numbers, that is an obvious issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, no, that's not what WP:SYNTH says: read it. One source was there to show that BJU belongs in an article about the CR. Full stop. Another source is to confirm that Bush spoke there and to support the missing sentence about the consequence of his visit. If SYNTH meant what you thought it did, we couldn't have any articles with more than one source. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You said:

Now we have another editor making massive deletions without bothering to talk about them here

Have you read WP:BRD? Someone BOLDly added "Later that year, Ronald Reagan was elected President with broad support from the Christian right" , then Darkness Shines REVERTed it, and now we can discuss it. Or you can propose an alternative process, in which material can be added by anyone at anytime, but never removed unless thoroughly discussed first, but that proposal belongs elsewhere.

Remind me, please: when did someone "boldly" add it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, four days ago.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Then it's not BRD. It's B[...]RD. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious. If it was added a year ago, the point would still stand. I grant that material that has remained in an article for multiple years deserves mention, if not before, then contemporaneously, but the notion that a four day old edit is settled is ...laughable. (I checked your edit history to see if you were brand-new. Nope, so not sure how you missed this.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There may well be reason to question this content, but it's neither so old that it has a from 1492 nor so new that BRD applies. It should be discussed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Section Partisan activity of churches

First reference in this section is a deadlink. Second source does not mention Cr[18] it is about a priest who told his flock to vote for the other guy. The third is about some of said flock being excommunicated[19] by said priest for voting for the wrong guy. Forth is an Op-Ed[20], which BTW fails verification, It does not mention "The Alliance Defense Fund started the Pulpit Freedom Initiative" it does mention "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" however, same thing? But as a source it is junk as it can be used for opinions only. The last source contradicts the Op-Ed, according to it was the Alliance Defending Freedom which began Pulpit Freedom Sunday[21] But I fail to see what any of this has to do with the CR, given not one of the sources used actually use the term. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll check out the citations, but the subject is relevant because the Christian Right explicitly denies separation of church and state.[22] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The more I read from you, the more concerned I get. The article is flawed. It says "The separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution." No, that's a common myth. IIRC Jefferson coined the phrase, but it isn't in the Constitution. What the Constitution says is different. Moreover, the article doesn't support the claim.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, we have an article on the subject Separation of church and state.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That is from an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source and is about Romney, not the Christian Right. It says that he believes ""some" Americans have taken the separation of church and state too far, "well beyond its original meaning."" There is nothing about him wanting to establish a Church. Note that England and Wales has a state church but that does not mean that the parties that have governed the UK are Christian right. TFD (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, we have Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#The_First_Amendment, which has citations that confirm precisely what you denied. Step one is understanding the issues. Step two is lining up the citations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The amendment says, ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Romney is not suggesting that the LDS or any other church become established. Government will not appoint bishops, citizens will not be taxed to pay for the church, laws will not be passed enforcing church doctrine, and there will be no eccesiastical courts, in other words, no established church. TFD (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't "confirm precisely what you denied", although I can see how you would make that mistake. You also seem to be conflating "Partisan activity of churches" with "Separation of Church and State". They aren't the same issue, do you understand the difference?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Remember, you brought up the following line:

"The separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution."

You then denied that it was true, yet the link I posted shows otherwise. Looks pretty clear to me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are some facts:

1. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.
2. Many people think it does, which is why I said it is a myth
3. Jefferson used the phrase in a letter
4. Some Supreme Court decisions, such as Reynolds v. United States quote Jefferson

Do you disagree with any of these? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that a key word is "enshrined". What does this word mean to you?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, this isn't complicated. The section I linked to explains it quite well:

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.

In short, you quoted that statement about the first amendment and proceeded to argue against something totally different. However unintentionally, you created a straw man. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Massachusetts had an "established church" until 1833 -- which was after the First Amendment was adopted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Most states had established churches. The prohibition was against Congress, but the 14th amendment has been interpreted as extending the restriction to states. TFD (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

IOW "separation of church and state" only applied to the federal government until the 14th Amendment - right? Collect (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, "separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution", just as the article said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although it was not until 1940 that the Supreme Court decided this in Cantwell v. Connecticut. TFD (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, and not unusual. Consider that, until Roe v. Wade, the 14th Amendment was not understood as supporting the right to an abortion. It's common for interpretations to come long after the original text was written (but don't tell Scalia).

Anyhow, we're getting slightly off track here. The key point is that the quote in the article is entirely correct so we need to move on already. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No -- what has been shown is that you are stretching the wording as far as possible when it is clear that the meaning of "separation of church and state" was "enshrined" nowhere in the Constitution until after the 14th Amendment was passed. And possibly, as TFD notes, not until 1940. SPhilbrick is on very solid ground on this. Collect (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no logical way to arrive at that conclusion without ignoring the evidence given above. Separation was enshrined in the 1st amendment, broadened in the 14th. You appear to be dragging your feet here, as you did earlier. Remember when three editors had to tell you to stop it already? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no logical way to arrive at your conclusion. "Enshrined" is an incorrect word. The first amendment was (re)interpreted to include "separation of church and state", possibly around 1940. After that time, it was perhaps "enshrined" in the Constitution. If the source says otherwise, it is unreliable (WP:FRINGE) as contrary to the weight of scholarship. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, any sources that disagree with you, as by explicitly using the word "enshrined" in this context are unreliable, whereas you are perfectly reliable.[23][24][25][26][27][28]

Sorry, Arthur, but when it comes to choosing between you and our sources, it's never you. Don't take it personally; policy demands that we ignore what you "know" to be WP:TRUTH and instead go with the experts. Now, I'm sure some of these sources aren't going to pass muster (do we really trust Mitt Romney on constitutional law?) but there are so many here that your statement is refuted past any semblance of reality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If there's a conflict between (almost all) constitutional scholars experts and news media, then the news media is unreliable for that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you were a constitutional scholar. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. <redacted personal attack>. I could call a few Constitutional scholars to verify, but I've read enough works of Constitutional scholarship to recognize that "separation of church and state" was not the original intent of the 1st Amendment, nor was it recognized as a consequence of the 1st Amendment until recently. Can you provide an example of a court case or scholar establishing "separation of church and (Federal) state" as a consequence of the 1st Amendmeent before 1861? (1940 seems more likely, but 1861 seems necessary for it to be "enshrined".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to gently point out that you just moved the bar again, so I'm not going to play. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. Does this mean you will stop editing here? --Mollskman (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. [29] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You're perfectly welcome to restrict him from your user talk page. But I didn't move the bar. You still need to find a scholarly source on "separation of church and state" which says it is "enshrined" in the First Amendment. I'm trying to avoid saying that you don't understand English, but if "separation of church and state" in law followed the First Amendement by at least 70-odd, if not 140-odd, years, it would be irrational to say it was "enshrined". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Still's claim was that the religious right denied the separation of church and state and provided a link to an article entitled, "Mitt Romney: Church State Separation Taken Too Far By Some". It is possible to object to the interpretation of some amendments of the constitution without objecting to the individual amendments themselves. Liberals for example objected to the recent interpretation of the First Amendment to include corporations. Romney's complaint is actually consistent with the views of the supreme courts of Canada and Australia on similar constitutional provisions. TFD (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The UK still has a state church, so a similar lack of church/state separation in Commonwealth nations should not surprise us. However, despite Arthur's new demand for scholarly sources (after he couldn't refute the ordinary reliable ones I threw at him), America isn't like that. It's taken some time for us to understand the full consequences of separation, but there's no going back to the old days.

Focusing on the article, I would suggest that Mitt Romney is not a genuine member of the religious right. It's not just me saying it, but the religious right itself, which accounts for his poor reception. Keep in mind that I don't want the article to focus on this; I'm just explaining my reasoning.

If we look instead at the candidates of the religious right -- Bachmann, Santorum, Perry and (especially) Paul -- you'll find plenty of statements directly denying separation of church and state. And if you look at religious right organizations, such as the FRC, you'll find the same.

Either of us can come up with citations; I'm just talking it out for now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Can we keep discussions together? There's a new section below, talking about something else, but ISS is spilling this discussion down there, which I will close. As for this discussion, I've seen ZERO sources supporting the notion that separation of church and state is "enshrined" in the First Amendment. It is so obviously wrong, I wonder if ISS has a unique meaning of the word "enshrined". I asked before, I'll ask again, what do you think it means?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Separation of Church and State" by Darien McWhirter (Oryx books 1994) [30] states on page 7

Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court spent very little time on the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The Court decided that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government. State and local governments were free to do whatever they wanted, limited only by the bills of rights contained in state constitutions. Most of the governmental activities that touched people's lives were carried on by state governments, not by the federal government

In short - the First Amendment was not construed as meaning anything other than a ban on a national established church. And that the Fourteenth Amendment was primarily used to overturn state laws absolutely unrelated to religion:

For example, the Court overturned a New York law that limited bakers to a 60-hour work week. Other laws declared unconstitutional had attempted to protect a worker's right to join a labor union.

The modern SCOTUS position is thus shown as post-WW II for the "separation" claim being absolute. This should be dispositive of the claims by Still24 Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no question that ISS is wrong (and this should be the nail in the coffin). I was merely entertaining the possibility that ISS has a non-standard understanding of the word "enshrined", to see if I could understand why ISS persists with the claim, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Because he likes a good WP:Battleground  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Section Electoral activity

Need a little help with this one. First ref goes to the family research council[31] not a poll so fails verification. Second ref goes to the CSM[32] but mentions "Social conservatives", "the conservative group Family Research Council" and "conservative Christian" no mention of the Christian right that I can see. Also does not mention any polls which it is what the source is meant to be supporting. The last source is a deadlink.[33] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The FRC is a major Christian right organization. There are citations in that article to confirm this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Major? cite? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant to this section
padding
Ask a constitutional scholar. :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Off topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Let me help you understand. When I gave you multiple reliable sources on the whole "enshrined" thing, you spoke of mysterious constitutional scholars who would refute these sources, but never provided any. A little bit later, you asked for citations, which I found ironic. That's why my comment had a smiley. I hope you understand my humor now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Well, you did not give "multiple reliable sources" for "enshrined". Even if you did, we are allowed to ignore "reliable" statements which are obviously false, given verifiable facts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Not one bit of what you just said is true and anyone capable of glancing earlier in the page can see this for themselves. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Let editors see for themselves whose statements are supported by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Failure to BRD by Belchfire

Belchfire recently removed a new section on , claiming "removing unsourced and poorly sourced material". The truth is that it had two strong citations -- one from Focus on the Family, the other from the American Psychological Association. It was well-written, neutral and contained no claims that are controversial. So, on the whole, Belchfire's edit comment claim seems to have no merit. Removal of this material serves only to harm the article by making it less comprehensive.

Belchfire failed to follow BRD by opening up a section to explain his revert and allow discussion, so I'm cleaning up after his mistake. I'd like him to justify the revert here, or for someone else to do that for him. Obviously, if nobody ever does, we're going to wind up including the material, so this should motivate you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)