Jump to content

Talk:Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

The fact that you don't like the comparison doesn't make it less relevant to compare this manifesto to previous conservative manifestos.

70.30.251.170 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add regarding the comment accompanying your reversion ("Removed misleading links. Whatever your thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration it is entirely unrelated to the 1960's Civil Rights movement. Link appropriate LGBT, or "choice" rights pages if necessary") that it is in fact your thoughts that you are adding to the article by removing these links. Please refer to the wikipedia NPOV policy before making further changes. The Manhattan Declaration and the article are most undeniably linked to the issues of civil rights and liberties, and to minority rights (both of LGBT individuals, and of conservative christians). 70.30.251.170 (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite sentence?

[edit]

someone should rewrite this sentence: "The document calls for civil disobedience against laws which contradict Christian doctrines." It makes it sound as if the document makes a general call to disobey laws "which contradict Christian doctrines; this isn't precisely what the document calls for. I don't have time to think through a more precise restatement right now... Teaforthetillerman (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go and reworked it as a qualifier to the freedom of religion part, and made specific its scope. Such a general call (which it did previously read like) isn't anywhere near what the document calls for . Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also?

[edit]

The See also section has a link to Civil rights movement. Early in the description in the article text, however, there is a link to pro-life movement, which is the relevant subset of the civil rights movement. As categorization tries to use the most specific category in an analogous case, would it be preferable to remove the broader link? I acknowledge that this is a See also section, and not categorization, so it is only an analogy. However, having the three See alsos which would be left would dovetail nicely and elegantly with the three prongs of the document. Comments? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of conscience, religious liberty, defense of marriage and civil disobedience in defense of these do not fall under pro-life. I think the broader link is apropos. Mamalujo (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you understood my concern. The document has essentially three points, pro-life, marriage, and conscience freedom. The see alsos have Christianity and abortion, Christianity and homosexuality, and Freedom of religion in the US. Those match up reasonably well to the thrusts of the document, with Civil Rights being in some sense redundant, arguably.
However, after consideration I note that the pro-life concern also includes the elderly, etc, so the civil rights blanket being championed goes beyond just abortion. In the end thus I see that my concern is not so well founded. It seems reasonable to keep the link in. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The solution might be to write Christianity and euthanasia. The euthanasia articles barely touch on religion, especially modern. Tomertalk 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The euthanasia article (it more substantially forked recently) used to have a substantial amount of info on religious positions on the subject, but an editor their who feels he owns the article deleted all of that material, as well as material which noted the Anglo-American euthanasia movement's advocacy of involuntary euthanasia in the early and mid 20th century. Mamalujo (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I lack the expertise to do so, having gotten waylaid by self-interested concerns in the years since I stood for over a decade on the sidewalk holding posters of severed baby heads in protest outside the local PP, but...Sofixit? Tomertalk 10:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions

[edit]

Do we need something other than primary sources to include these exceptions? In other words, is it necessary for some other source to acknowledge or take note of the fact that these individuals refuse to sign, or is it enough that they are notable people and have written about why they are refusing to sign? Ἀλήθεια 23:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary sources are OK for the opinion of the sources' authors; if they are notable, it might be reasonable to include their take. To be fair, I haven't heard of any of them, but I will defer to others to deem them non-notable. I may clean up their mention a little in the meantime. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HRC Responds to Misleading Claims by Organizations Seeking to Discriminate

[edit]

This HRC Back Story should be referenced in the article.
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/11/hrc-responds-to-misleading-claims-by-organizations-seeking-to-discriminate/
Native94080 (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Christian Order, 2010 Jan

[edit]

Why remove the quotation that was quoted in this periodical, which highlighted the plight of the unborn, the disabled, and elderly? This is the key part of the Declaration, and should be here so one signing should know what they are doing. It is not "Cherrypicking". It is a terse summory of the essential enclosure of the Declaration, brought to our attention by The Christian Order. I request you undo the edit or place in the quote yourself. Why, then, quote the end (their summary) of the Declaration? This is doing the same thing, as you accuse me, so what is your yard-stick? Their summary is not as clear as the one picked out by Christian Order.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit you refer to, and I apologize for my edit summary: it was not meant toward you or any one particular editor, rather it was a general principle. I found this new paragraph near the end of the preamble of the document, and it clearly is meant to give an overview/summary of the whole thing.
In the previous quotes (here), the first was a "whereas", a "finding of fact" type of statement laying the groundwork for the meat of the declaration itself, the affirmation in the current quote. The second is a detailed development of the third point of the declaration, freedom of religion. A specific detail without any context as to why this particular one is singled out. So I think my edit an improvement.
However, if there is a particular quote that is consistently referred to in good sources, we can add it. Long quotes should be used sparingly, however; better would be sourced commentary about the points in the declaration.
Apologies again, I can see how one might think I was singling out the previous content. I was not. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 22:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, I was thinking of the would-be-signee. That quote, as sourced by the Editors or the Christian Order, who spend a lot of time reading and sourcing, I feel extreemly apt for the enquiring on-looker. And that quote above all puts the finger on the crux of the matter:

It lists those severely threatened, it mentions marriage and lists those things that threaten it, it mentions freedom of religion and refers to compelings. It contains all the elements that the Declaration stands for, in a quoting form rather than an outling form. (An outling form, at this stage, can be seen as taking liberties).

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand exactly your train of thought, so feel free to correct me if necessary. By saying "I was thinking of the would-be-signee. That quote [...] I feel [is] extreemly apt for the enquiring on-looker.", it sounds to me like you are concerned about writing the article so as to influence the reader to take interest or even sign the declaration. Now regardless of whether that is your intention or not, it is not Wikipedia's job to do that; indeed it specifically should not do so.
I do think that if one can source (to 3rd party sources commenting about the declaration, not the declaration itself) the acknowledgement of those threats and that the declatration was a response to them, I think that would be a positive contribution to the article. Most commentary I have seen gives short shrift to actually stating the threats, or is so polemical so as to be a poor source for the article. But I actually think this would help the article, if the sources were good.
A question (feel free to take to my talk page): who are "the Editors", and "the Christian Order"? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Article page would benefit with a list of the marginalised and threatened that the Christian Churches are defending:

1. The lives of the unborn.

2. The disabled.

3. The elderly.

4. The institution of Marriage, and the things that are threatening it.

5. Freedom of Religion and the rights of conscience.

An outline of The Pledge.

An outline of rendering to "Caesar" and to God.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See if you can find a third party source naming these as motivation. You may wish to google John Allen with regards to the declaration -- he writes a lot about things like this and I recall a few pieces mentioning it. He is a good source and if he described the motivations in such detail, it would work nicely. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did do that. But is not the truth of this self-evident?

I have written on article pages, and used to historical dissertation (corrected spelling) and also written the Jung associate page: Father Victor White. I don't know how many credentials you want?

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I wasn't more clear. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a message board, so Allen will be very unlikely to answer you on the Talk page of the article about him (if I were him, I wouldn't touch that page with a 10 foot pole). Neither is it a repository for primary source material (that would be Wikisource, I think). You need to find sources outside the project that talk about the declaration. If nobody discusses the points you wish to make, then by definition they are not notable and should not be included. I really do not understand your question about credentials, the issue here not of credentials but of reliable sources and, after that, neutral point of view. In this case the first one is the stumbling block at this time. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left an outline of my request on John J. Allen talk page.

Perhaps I have'nt made myself clear. What I envisage is a list of what the Declaration says of itself, not what I say.

I thought the Christian Order was such.

What I want is a better article page.

The best source is the Declaration itself, speaking of itself. Perhaps, at this stage, a month after, it is the only source.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to wonder if I made a mistake putting in any quotes at all from the declaration itself.
Let me be clear. Large-scale quoting of a primary source as the source for its own article is not recommended. One could argue, and I would be sympathetic to it, that there should not even be the one quote in there either. But I made a editorial decision to borrow a small snippet of the dclaration itself which best gives the overview/summary of the whole document. The reason why even this could be challenged is that it is my personal editorial judgement as to what the summary of the declaration is, and not a writer with reliable editorial oversight saying it, and thus another editor could come by and say no, that is not the best quote but rather this is. My motivation for having the one quote at all is that it is one less than was there previously, and yet (IMO) the reader here comes away with a better idea about the crux of the declaration even with one fewer quotes.
So where are we? Given that we keep quotes of itself to a minimum, we need to look for other reputable news sources which say "the declaration points out these issues ... as its motivation". This is an article about the declaration. It is not supposed to be a rehashing of it.
You seem to have an interest in the Christian Order periodical. Could I ask you to offer a link to something in it which is commentary on the declaration, or in lieu of that, a direct, properly attributed quote from it doing such? While I do not consider it the highest quality source, with proper attribution it could be used.
I encourage you to delete the request on the Allen talkpage. Wikipedia is not a forum or a message board, and that page is solely for use in improving the article about him. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.

This is why I suggested just listing the things that the Declaration was talking about without need for saying anything. Shurly that would be acceptable, to everyone, no matter what one thinks of the Declaration itself.

If we are worried about the substances of the Declaration, then why have the article page in the first place?

I will delete my comment.

I do not know anything about Christian Order, other than it is a very direct and straight publication, and long standing.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I question the neutrality of the article. For example, it assumes that marriage is threatened; this is a view of the conservatives, but not general consensus. The Dec. certainly does not speak for itself in an encyclopedic sense; that would be simple acceptance of a controversial subject, namely, whether the authors speak for the Church generally; whether their fears reflect true dangers, and whether their alliance reflects a political, not ecclesial, congeries. Overall, there should be a section for the Christian dissent: especially, mention that the Greek Orthodox bishops have declined to endorse this document. A mention of the issues of dissent should include false ecumenism, use of the Church for political ends, and something about ecclesiology. Cyranorox (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Civil rights and liberties" category

[edit]

I deleted this because, as I have explained elsewhere, we are not, as editors, bound to take everyone's self-description on faith. No proof exists that anyone is being persecuted for their opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage; the document may very well stand as an ecumenical statement against those two things, but that does not make this a religious liberty issue, any more than "My religion won't let me serve black people, why are you suing my restaurant?" would be a religious liberty issue. Roscelese (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of groups that purport to advocate for civil liberties and people have all kinds of opinions about that, but you can't just delete the category because you don't agree with the groups concept of racial or religious civil liberties. Otherwise, radical Muslim editors might remove issues dealing with Jewish civil liberties, or someone might do the same with regard to the civil liberties of Catholics. Your same logic could be used by someone who opposes LGBT views of civil liberties. Plainly, the declaration states that it supports the defense of religious liberties and myriad reliable souces have reported that. We can't go about second guessing this with editor's opinions. Mamalujo (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of any "Jewish civil liberties" movements that seek to protect Jewish servers at McDonalds from being fired because they won't serve treyf, or any "Catholic civil liberties" movements that argue that a Catholic justice of the peace shouldn't have to marry a person who's been divorced.
As I have already said, it's perfectly legitimate to say "the declaration states that it supports the defense of religious liberties," but that is not the same thing as labeling it a civil rights document. One is relaying what the declaration says about itself, and one is giving Wikipedia's purportedly neutral stamp of approval to that opinion. Roscelese (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This category is actually easy to justify. A major component of the declaration is about abortion. This is a topic obviously concerning civil rights and liberties, although different people may quibble about whose rights and liberties, and whether they are being supported or denied. So the category is clearly reasonable. I am not claiming it has to be categorized such, but am of the opinion it is preferable to do so.
A general word of advice about the article topic. While it does make some high level historical claims as background, at the end it is not a historical document in that regard, but rather a statement of position, or positions. So contrary to the first sentence of this section, we can fully expect the declaration to speak for itself. The hypotheticalness or current counterfactualness of the premises of the positions stated do not preclude discussing the positions themselves. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, though, abortion-related pages aren't generally put in the civil rights category or given a "see also" to the civil rights movement. Perhaps that's something to discuss at Talk:Abortion and such pages, but I think starting here is extremely disingenuous. Roscelese (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus appears to be for keeping the category. You should note that the declaration isn't just about abortion or traditional marriage, it also specifically supports religious liberties, i.e. the rights of religious individual groups to teach their traditional teachings about what behavior is moral and the like. I'll make the appropriate edit. Mamalujo (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at this point it really seems as though both of you are wildly flailing around for reasons to keep this category. I've already explained why User:Baccyak4H's reasoning fails on a purely technical level, and can also go into why it would be problematic on a moral level. As for you, violations of "the rights of religious individual groups to teach their traditional teachings about what behavior is moral and the like" are certainly a civil rights issue; however, if you'll actually take the trouble to read the document, it doesn't really concern itself much with that.
For example, the specific cases they list? People fired...because they refused to do the jobs they were hired for. Spaces granted tax exemptions on the condition of their being open to the public, losing those tax exemptions...because they refused to accomodate the public. "Charitable" organizations shutting down...voluntarily, because keeping gay people as second-class citizens was more important to them than finding caring homes for children. You may think the right to refuse to work and still keep your job (or tax exemption) is a civil right, but this is not the page to fight that. Go to Talk:Civil and political rights.
Know what else the declaration talks about? American hate crime laws supposedly threatening religious freedom. You may think the right to murder another person is free exercise of religion, but this is not the page to fight that. Go to Talk:Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
And I'm sure you noticed how once the document gets into "compromising the proclamation of the gospel," examples are rather, shall we say, thin on the ground. Now, freedom of religion is a civil right - but this document clearly isn't about freedom of religion. (Just ask affirming Christians.)
I mean, I can see ways in which we could link this page to the civil rights movement and to civil rights and liberties - what category do we keep George Wallace in, again?
I've reverted your edits, and will list this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the hope of building a consensus that isn't based on specious appeals to whatever excuse is the nearest at hand at any given moment. Please refrain from edit-warring. Roscelese (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What happened here? Did people forget about this discussion? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC which didn't attract a lot of people (see "Talk" sections below, since I'm the one who filed it and I didn't yet know how to format it properly). The category stayed and was eventually changed to the more specific "Freedom of religion" category. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure

[edit]

Please see User:Roscelese/Canvassing incident. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing signers

[edit]

Currently most or all of the signers given can be sourced to the web page of the delaration itself, but most are only sourced to there. I am concerned that this leaves the inclusion or exclusion decision up to the whims of editors here, i.e., "This guy is really important" "No he is not"..... etc. Currently the content about people speaking out about not signing are sourced, and I would like to brainstorm on whether the sourcing criterion for signers should also be third-party sources. Thoughts? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I did not see the links in the section heading, the second one has quite a few names. I suggest we at least move the links out of the heading into the section body where appropriate. This may not be as big an issue as I first thought. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Manhattan Declaration

[edit]

Current dispute is over whether the document belongs in the "Civil rights and liberties" category or merits a "see also" link to the civil rights movement. Roscelese (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only relationship this article currently appears to have with 'Civil rights and liberties' is that some people feel that it is their right to refuse those of others. Certainly it belongs alongside articles about slavery, the KKK, and similar movements against the rights of others. That said, even the two similar articles that I mention are not grouped - so it does not appear that such a categorisation has in the past been evenly applied.
This document as it currently stands seems to be somewhat less than evenly balanced - especially in the introductory text. The first two non-primary references I reviewed (5 and 6, linking to the Associated Press and the Washington Post, respectively) both mention prominently a criticism by the 'movement' of President Obama; this is entirely absent from the article, which thus seeks to ignore the political undertones of this 'declaration'.
It is also unclear why this article refers so often to the primary source, and contains so little of the obvious criticisms that have been made of this call to create a religious state. Ambiguosity (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Manhattan Declaration

[edit]

Current dispute is over whether the document belongs in the "Civil rights and liberties" category or merits a "see also" link to the civil rights movement. Roscelese (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

categories

[edit]

I'm not seeing the big deal about the discrimination thing. Prejudice and homophobia are maybe POV, but the framers aren't saying it's not discrimination-- they just think there's a compelling government interest for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.234.137 (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

I see that there is criticism from various religious groups, but what about criticism from civil rights groups? Do they have anything to say about this document? Ben Standeven (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably - sorry, I was going to expand that section and kind of wandered away to do other things. I'll add a few just to get it started. Roscelese (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improper material from self published websites

[edit]

Inappropriate material from self published sites has been repeatedly reinserted into this article. The offending material is as follows:

In addition, secular progressive and civil rights organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign and People for the American Way have criticized the document's positions and rhetoric.[15] Harry Knox, HRC's Religion and Faith Program Director and a Methodist pastor, commented, "It is deeply cynical for the authors of this document to paint themselves as victims because they cannot have a free hand to discriminate, including with taxpayer dollars."[16]

The first assertion is sourced to the "People for the American Way" website. The second is to the "Human Rights Campaign" website, both self-published sites. Wikipedia policy regarding [[WP:SELFPUB|self published sites]:]

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  • 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  • 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  • 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  • 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

[emphasis added]

These sources fail in each of the italicized areas and so cannot be used. 1) The information is not about the organizations, themselves, 2) it involves claims about third parties, i.e. the Manhattan Declaration and its signatories, 3) it involves claims which ar not directly related to the sources. It should be removed on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Mamalujo (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that the policy is "usually," not "only." These organizations' websites could certainly also be cited in the articles about them, but in the Manhattan Declaration article, they are still being cited to support a fact about the organizations, themselves - ie. "HRC has made this statement." Likewise, articles all over Wikipedia would have to be overhauled if attributed criticism were designated as "claims about a third party." A claim about a third party would be if we stated, as fact, that the Manhattan Declaration creators made it in the hope of discriminating with taxpayer dollars, with only the HRC press release as a source. But "HRC says this about the Manhattan Declaration" is a statement about HRC.
You're welcome to take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard if you think it's me who's misinterpreting the policy, but if you're going to do that, I suggest you also remove the quote from the Declaration, as it makes non-expert claims about Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail. That way, it wouldn't look as though you were only trying to remove content critical of the Declaration. I'm sure you wouldn't want that. Roscelese (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does say "usually", but beyond that it does clearly fail to meet the 5 requirements. The statements are about a third party, not about themselves. Not only are they statements about a third party, they are controversial statements about a third party - that they are "discriminating" and doing so with "taxpayer dollars". Mamalujo (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, I disagree that that's what the policy means by "claims about third parties." You're welcome to take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard if you think it's me who's misinterpreting the policy, but if you're going to do that, I suggest you also remove the quote from the Declaration, as it makes non-expert claims about Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail. That way, it wouldn't look as though you were only trying to remove content critical of the Declaration. I'm sure you wouldn't want that. Roscelese (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is inappropriate. If I make one criticism in my Google Pages page, does it end up in Wikipedia? We need secondary sources to establish notability. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the irony in your acting self-righteous here while trying to push self-published criticism into another article to the point of being blocked for edit warring. Luckily, more or less the same responses appear in sources like the Washington Post and the Arizona Republic, so I'll see what I can do with those; perhaps those editors more familiar with niche religious papers that they consider RS can see if any criticism along the lines of the Sproul comments appears there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(harshness deleted), but there is a difference in notability between random individuals and professional news agencies. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not winning yourself any credit by making personal attacks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. But I ask you to recognize that you have been too harsh at times. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOLD edits by Mamalujo

[edit]

You've made a BOLD edit and it's been reverted; please try now to gain consensus. That's what we do here; having strong political opinions doesn't magically exempt you from the rules.

Anyway. Among the problems with your edit:

  1. The existence of legal protections for people who don't want to perform abortions or same-sex marriages are extremely verifiable. A fact doesn't turn into a "claim" just because it's mentioned in an editorial; otherwise we'd be talking about editorials that "claim" Barack Obama is the American president (or maybe I shouldn't use that as an example, knowing you and other conspiracy-theory-loving editors) or that "claim" that Texas is a state.
  2. I've left the removal of the sentence about anti-abortion terrorism, since it isn't the central focus of the piece, but I've also added material from the piece that contextualizes its inclusion in the paragraph on King. We could also talk about the piece's pointing out the document's conflation of civil and religious.
  3. If you're worried about undue weight, I recommend that you demonstrate good faith by removing the extensive promotional material in the article or finding reliable secondary sources that back it up, rather than removing material from reliable secondary sources because you personally disagree with it.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

References to Watergate in section on Charles Colson are unnecesary, and just a part from bias against evangelicals by wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.207.187.233 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're unnecessary, but they're not indicative of bias - check out all the WP users who have removed the information while one user kept trying to put it in. Instead of fantasizing conspiracy theories, consider making improvements. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times editorial

[edit]

I'm really not sure what there is to object to here. The language in question is repeatedly identified as subjective - an editorial, described, criticized - and accurately sums up the argument that the editorial is making. The text makes no sense without the adjective, and the disruptive user has made no attempt to offer a substitute. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Opinion request made in reference to this has been removed as there has been no thorough talk page discussion as required as a prerequisite to all forms of mediated content dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that LA times criticizes the paranoid tone of the document implies that the tone was that way. We have to keep distance. Furthermore, "paranoid" is not the most appropriate term to sum up the comment as the expression has not been found in the context. 87.163.194.115 (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What term would you choose to summarize the LA Times's exposition of the document's spreading of baseless fears? (is "fearmongering" good?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia should not evaluate this document. –87.163.213.201 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing it's not then - the LA Times is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to summarize the LAT editorial to the point of putting words in the mouth of its editorial board. Also, I thought "Criticism" sections were deprecated. Has that changed? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you should mention it because I was just thinking about integrating the crit section into the rest of the article. What would y'all think of putting the first two paragraphs under "Excerpt", the third under "Civil disobedience," and the fourth under "Signatories"? Re LA Times, I'm just concerned about giving it undue weight by going into more detail instead of summarizing. How would you suggest expanding it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't suggest expanding it—I would suggest cutting it by at least 75%. By policy, I could have deleted the entire criticism section. Dispersing bits of criticism throughout the article is also not a good idea—it would turn the article into some sort of "he said, she said" nonsense which is not at all encyclopedic. My suggestion is to rename the Criticism section to Reactions and add commentary not of the predictable knee-jerk liberal variety we have there now. The verbiage from the LAT and that hyphenated–person should be drastically reduced. A Googlebooks search got more than a thousand hits, so we no longer need to rely on editorials and blogs written a week after the Declaration was issued. There's even an article about the MD in the Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought . . . If anyone want to know what an encyclopedic approach looks like, they might want to look at it: p. 187. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could definitely get behind an overhaul of reactions that was more geared towards; the article's been comparatively minimally edited since the document was issued, and it's certainly possible that there are sources available now that weren't then. The article you link should of course not be our model (far from being encyclopedic, it pretty much reproduces the entire document through a combination of paraphrase and quotation, with a couple of additional self-promotional phrases thrown in), and from a quick look through Google Books, I find a lot of obviously poor sources; but perhaps you've found something that's usable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese, your dismissal of the encyclopedia article I linked to as "far from being encyclopedic" and a look at your edits on this article (your edit-warring with Mamalujo and all the back-and-forth about Categories) tell me that you and I have very different conceptions of what a Wikipedia article (or any encyclopedia article) should look like. There's a good reason why Criticism sections and the "he said, she said" approach are deprecated—they are not encyclopedic. I don't want to follow in Mamalujo's footsteps, so I intend to fade into the background to continue my usual gnomish editing. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself. If you change your mind, and have any good sources, I'm here to help. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, it would be helpful to use the sources we already have in an objective manner, without linking the declaration to paranoia. The phrase cannot hide that bad intention. –87.163.213.201 (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could write something like claiming the use of allegedly strong, irresponsible and dangerous words. Any objections?–87.163.213.201 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the 'criticisms' section of this article is way too limited and too late in the article to reflect the level of criticism that has clearly been levelled at this document from allies as well as enemies. This is an instance in which claim and counter-claim may more properly be aligned throughout the article, especially when said claim is based almost exclusively on primary sources. Ambiguosity (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

The M.D. is about three things -- the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. The first sentence of the lead makes that clear, but the remainder of the lead gives undue weight to marriage and shortchanges the other two related concerns. The marriage sentence should probably come out. Or the lead should be expanded to summarize the life and liberty arguments of the M.D. Cloonmore (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the demosnewspond site to which this article links for a count of signatories has been abandoned. Is there an archive of this? Ambiguosity (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ambiguosity: Do you mean the counter on the MD site? The site itself is still up, though you're right that the counter doesn't appear to be functioning. Using an archived version would defeat the purpose of having an up-to-date number of signatories anyway. We could just keep the "as of" from the last time it was checked, or better, use the coverage of a real source noting how many people had signed it at the most recent date when anyone cared about this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese: My apologies for misquoting the site's name in my previous comment; the article's first citation directs the reader to a sub-page of demossnewspond (double s). The reader who visits that page - or indeed the site - is presented with "BUY THIS DOMAIN", and 'related links' that this particular reader is in no hurry to visit. Are we talking about different sites? If so, should Reference 1 be removed or replaced with a source that contains the counter? I don't know that the lack of current interest is necessarily relevant to ensuring that links are usable - ideally (thought probably not realistically), the reader in 2030 see the same information as today's reader. If there is something that can be done today to assist in that goal, I assume that it would be better to do it than not - but am happy to be corrected, as someone who is quite new to editing activities and policies. Ambiguosity (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see now which source you're referring to (not the one with the counter). We should definitely remove that one, yes. What I meant re: current interest was that a continual updating of the signature count and an "as of" tag, now that this has passed from the public eye with little discernible effect, is not preferable to a source for a number from a news organ, even if that number is not continually updating. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading information

[edit]

When Metropolitan Jonah signed the Declaration he was Metropolitan of Washington and Head of The Orthodox Church in America. It is not correct to describe him as former Metropolitan which he became only by his resignation in 2012. --131.220.75.127 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manhattan_Declaration:_A_Call_of_Christian_Conscience&oldid=1208764848"