Talk:Paul Weyrich/Archive 2

Deleting comments of others
Deleting the talk page comments of others is specifically against policy, Pravknight, I suggest you reconsider your method of participating here. FeloniousMonk 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies, it was not intentional. Besides accusing me of being disruptive is violates WP:NPA, WP:AFG. The template is warranted by the fact the citations you have provided are not backed up and at minimum the language used is POV. WP:CITE,WP:WTA.--Pravknight 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well WP:AGF also says "unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary." I'd say the evidence documented at your RFC would constitute "evidence to the contrary" to most reasonable viewers. As far as your use or misuse of the templates here, a number of others don't agree with you that the template is warranted, that the sources provided are insufficient or flawed, or that the language used to describe the viewpoints found in those sources is indeed not neutral. I really suggest you try rereading the WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies again without any preconceived notions of fairness, then reconsider your position here. Reasonable new editors seldom finding themselves this far into Wikipedia's dispute resolution process this soon, and would indicate to them that they may not be in the right on some points, an idea you've refused to countenance, instead preferring to blame others, including me. Exhausting community's patience with hubris and personal attacks is not a likely method to get your changes accepted. With your incomplete understanding and application of policy, even if I stopped contributing here, others would not let your deletions and flawed notions about sources stand. FeloniousMonk 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is FM, I've read and re-read those same policies over and over and over, and I don't see how they support your position. I've posted the relevant rules right here on this talk page, and you refuse to acknowledge you are in error.

Oh, please FeloniousMonk. I think you fail to understand the NPOV rule and ought to reread it. The only reason you set up a request for comment page about me was I had you beaten.WP:BITE.--68.45.161.241 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When did this become a competition? Anyway, thanks for the fodder.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The principle of "assume good faith" does not mean "assume good faith even when the person has proven that they aren't acting in good faith". I can't imagine how saying that a section which has citations lacks citations is a good faith action. In addition, adding a "citation needed" tag to a statement which is immediately followed by a supporting quote is not a good faith action. In addition, adding a "citation needed" tag to a statement which you have yourself admitted to be true is not a good faith action. As for citing WP:NPA - it isn't a personal attack to name your actions. But keep it in mind the next time you choose to attack other Wikipedia editors.

And, as to my original point - do you have any intention of producing any citations to support your POV? Guettarda 17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a section where Weyrich explicitly says he wouldn't be part of any movement that would convert America into an Iran-style theocracy. I guess that's not good enough. What are you all afraid of?

Besides, the factual accuracy of the underlying TheocracyWatch material deserves a disclaimer, and removing the POV tag is simply disengenous.

The entire series of articles related to "Dominionism" amounts to POV pushing, and looks more like the Daily Kos or the American Atheists' website than a supposedly objective article.

All I have to say is the cabal has a double standard when it comes to its interpretation of the NPOV rule. --Pravknight 15:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet again you refuse to provide a single citation to support your assertions. If you refuse to produce citations to support your POV, your re-tagging the article is simply disruptive.  Guettarda 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of the 'disputed' template
As seen at Requests for comment/Pravknight and elsewhere there's strong consensus among regular contributors to both the project and this article in particular that Pravknight's objections to this article's content are baseless, resting on a flawed understanding of the WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS policies. The general conclusion is that his original placement of the "disputed" template was baseless and his subsequent repeated insistence on it remaining in the article is a misuse of the template, motivated more by a personal conviction to support his friend Weyrich than a real concern over the quality of Wikipedia's articles. There is also consensus that due to his self-admitted personal connection to Weyrich and the nature of his participation at this article Pravknight is too closely connected to the subject here to edit this article directly, per WP:AUTO. This being the case, I'm removing the misused template and reminding Pravknight to abide by WP:AUTO and not edit the article again. FeloniousMonk 16:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of Weasel Tag and a lesson in passive voice
PK tagged the following paragraph as being in passive voice, He was, shall we say, uh, wrong. The following is passive voice, PK: Note the difference? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 20:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are closely associated with Dominionism.[4][5] TheocracyWatch lists both as leading examples of "dominionism in action," citing "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation,"....
 * The close association of both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation with Dominionism has been pointed out by TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League. The listing of both as  leading examples of "dominionism in action," was made by TheocracyWatch in a citation drawn from the The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement, which is referred to as "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation," and which is stated to illuminate “the tactics of the dominionist movement."  This document has been noted to be "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual," and has been considered by others to be a virtual playbook for how power can be gotten and kept by the "theocratic right".  Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation have been identified by the Anti-Defamation League as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations by whom the separation of church and state is threatened.  These allegations of theocratic advocacy have been rejected by Weyrich who has said, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry"


 * FeloniousMonk, perhaps you should learn how not to write using the passive voice. I've noticed your writing style uses lots of it. Maybe you should read the following citation.

You miss the point, I never posted the disputed template on the article. Someone else did. Besides, I have tried repeatedly to negotiate appropriate agreeable wording, yet you insist upon keeping your partisan edits in place. The grammar stinks, and that's an objective observation made by a professional copy editor. If I remove passive voice, it's because its like chalk on the blackboard for me as a professional.

Per WP:WTA, you give TheocracyWatch undue weight, and I should remind you of the following:
 * "Not encyclopedic:


 * X is a terrorist group.
 * Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
 * After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

1)According to x, y is closely associated with z. Seems to fit the bill to me. WP:WEASEL also discourages appeals to authority, such as your sentence, "According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League, both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are closely linked with Dominionism."

2)This sentence is passive voice. An active voice revision would be: "TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defemation League both closely associate Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation with Dominionism." It removes the weaselly appeal to authority, which is POV.
 * WP:WEASEL"In typical sentences of this form, e.g. "it has been said he has had a shady past", the writer is able to utilize the passive voice to effectively construct a very convincing-sounding instance of a doubly fallacious appeal to authority, not bothering to lend any credibility to the authority in question or even assert its existence, for that matter. Another example of passive voice: "[Noun] is thought to be [noun/adjective]."

Rewrite your work in active voice. Editors should exercise their judgment when they feel a tag is necessary.

Allow me to point out the passive voice. The close association of both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation with Dominionism has been pointed out by TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League.
 * First of all, the verb combination "has been" is passive voice per

"The Elements of Style." Professional copy editors would have a field day with that one. It violates the WP:WTA guideline.


 * "Point out, note, observe


 * These words are often used to elevate one side in a dispute by bestowing extra weight on its arguments. Sometimes these words are used to give unproven, unprovable, or subjective statements a gloss of authority:
 * 'Critics of contingent fees point out that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers without giving any benefit to the vast majority of clients.'"

Here's the active voice version per WP:WTA:"TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League allege Weyrich an the Free Congress Foundation have close ties with Dominionism. As I have said all along, neither group provides citations or concrete evidence for their connection. In a neutral fashion, it can neither be proven nor disproven, and therefore "alleged" is appropriate.

The listing of both as leading examples of "dominionism in action," was made by TheocracyWatch in a citation drawn from the The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement, which is referred to as "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation," and which is stated to illuminate “the tactics of the dominionist movement."


 * This is wordy to the bones and uses almost 50 words.

Here's an active voice version There's too much info in this one sentence. (Break it into two sentences.):"TheocracyWatch lists both as leading examples of "Dominionism in action" on its website. It cites a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation entitled, The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement, as evidence of the Dominionist movement's tactics.

This document has been noted to be "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual," and has been considered by others to be a virtual playbook for how power can be gotten and kept by the "theocratic right".

Again, this is wordy. Noted by whom else? "Noted" is a no-no per WP:WTA Additionally, "has been considered by others"(Who or whom?) seems to violate WP:WEASEL
 * "It has been said that ..."."

TheocracyWatch and other groups, such as x, consider the document "a virtual playbook" for how the "theocratic right" can get and keep power. (Much shorter and to the point.

Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation have been identified by the Anti-Defamation League as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations by whom the separation of church and state is threatened.


 * Again, "have been" is passive voice, as is "by whom".

Active voice revision:"Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman argues Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation as "part of and alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations" that threaten the separation of church and state.

(Using the verb argues complies with WP:WTA, and properly attributes a perspective where disagreement exists. Citing Foxman properly attributes where the claim comes from because the citation references one of his speeches.)

These allegations of theocratic advocacy have been rejected by Weyrich who has said, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry"

Again, this is passive voice.

Active voice revision. "Weyrich rejects the theocratic charges saying it is "breathtaking in its bigotry." Allegations plural disagrees with the word statement, which is singular. The passive voice argument stands because the entire paragraph is poorly written.--Pravknight 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Active vs. Passive Voice
It seems that a tutorial on passive vs. active voice is in order. Here are just a few websites where you can bone up:      

At the moment, it's a yawner.--68.45.161.241 21:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, it looks just like what I wrote above, no?
 * On a personal note, I've yet to discern what the fuss is about passive voice, other than that it is allegedly more difficult to read.  I have no sympathy for that argument.  In fact, the passive voice exists for a reason in IE languages.  I shudder to think of a world in which all language is limited to the active voice as doing so would destroy the efficacy of the active voice and would reduce all writing to a variation on the Dick and Jane books.
 * Additionally, active voice is very often dishonest, albeit unintentionally. For example, my employer uses the phrase "we will mail you a check in 2-4 weeks" as part of its effort to write actively.  However, this is untrue as another agency mails the check. Apparently it was considered better not to muddy the matter by actually naming the agency that mails the checks.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a bit of a difference between conversational English and formal written English. Wikipedia should be the later. If I wrote the kind of crappy English that FM posted here in an article, my newspaper editor would have me for breakfast.
 * Active voice is objective, and this is an encyclopedia, not a personal conversation. Passive voice is dull and boring. YAWN. That's why English teachers and newspaper editors discourage its use. NPOV also covers word choices. 50-word sentences, now that's a bit absurd.


 * I ought to remind you folks of WP:OWN.
 * You folks seem to only follow the rules/guidelines when it suits your POV.--Pravknight 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've never claimed my english is satisfactory, much less perfect. Among the editors in the press that I know, the most important thing in their eyes is getting the facts straight and to at least try to leave bias arising from personal feelings out. Both are areas in which you've come up short, . Most professional editors would recognize that a reporter writing about a personal friend can easily be a conflict of interest. Perhaps you need a new editor. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless Pravknight writes for one of the top papers (NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, etc.,), I don't really seem him as font of information on this subject. My experience with small-town papers is that they are poorly written exhibitions of active-voice run amok.  Additionally, the real reaon passive is disliked is one I already explained -- it's too hard to read.  Boo-hoo, sob.
 * This of course, is deep, "There's a bit of a difference between conversational English and formal written English." -- no kidding, really? This is in violation of WP:NPA, "If I wrote the kind of crappy English that FM posted here...", and this really depends on the teacher, no? "That's why English teachers ... discourage its use."  Good profs at the college level do not disourage it, knowing full well that there is purpose to its use.  As for this, "Active voice is objective", that is utter bullshit -- in fact active voice is the voice of choice for propagfanda statements and political rhetoric simply because it is easier for the hoi polloi to understand.
 * 50 word sentences? Obviously PK never read Hegel.  ;)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

People don't like citing things properly around here
KillerChihauhua suggested the American Atheists citation if you look things over. FM, what's wrong? I thought if a viewpoint was WP:V and WP:RS, it has to stay. It's accurate to say American Atheists believe what you say Weyrich said. I posted that citation because one was needed, and KillerChihuahua had brought it to my attention.

BTW, TheocracyWatch and CRESP both have ties with innumerable Marxist organzations via United for Peace and Justice. American Athiests is hardly any more shady than TheocracyWatch. Besides, its citations pale in comparison to the following anti-Christian Right site, which even I consider reputatable and fair.

Here's one part of NPOV that FM has demonstrated that he has no time for and probably thinks I'm violating policy to cite it for him:
 * "Fairness of tone

If we're going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."

That's where word choices come into play, and NPOV also means using neutral language that doesn't take one's own POV. That's why WP:WTA says passive voice should be avoided along with unattributed opinions. Weyrich's own comments don't count because he doesn't explicitly say what you interpret what he's saying. In my business, we say find someone or a group who represents your argument.

The problem here is your WP:WEASEL writing your interpretation of what Weyrich said without proper citation for who holds that interpretation of Weyrich's comments.--Pravknight 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's clear from the evidence at Requests for comment/Pravknight that the editor with a problem with WP:RS and WP:V, as well as WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA, is not me, Jimsch62, or anyone other than you. Care to explain to us how deleting the cite to a primary source of Weyrich's own words, his article, and replacing it with a link to the American Atheists website is not an attempt to poison the well by making it seem as if the issue is being driven by atheists, not Weyrich's own call for a boycott? Please. As Weyrich's personal friend per WP:AUTO you shouldn't even be editing this article, much less edit warring, adding bias, and attempting to bowdlerize it. FeloniousMonk 03:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Weyrich, as a traditionalist Catholic, has been organizing Protestant Christian Right activists for decades, and is a leading ideologue who has helped promote the concept of dominionism, no matter what his theological or eschatological belief about the End Times.--Cberlet 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, lets cut to the chase here. Define Dominionism. From what I can see, it's sort of like the Left's version of Commie pinko. So why does religion so frighten you? If I believe Updegraph v. Commonwealth (1824), then America was founded by Dominionists. My own state constitution in Pennsylvania probably would be considered Dominionist by your definition.

" WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution." From our preamble under the 1968 constitution.
 * If Paul ever hired me to write for him, I would simply say the Dominionist charges simply are a smokescreen for the extreme Left's efforts to disguise their goal of a Soviet-style atheistic state in America. Do you believe Christians should be second-class citizens and allow a hostile anti-religious government to tell us how we must believe?
 * Nothing is more hillarious than hearing that I as an Orthodox Catholic Christian want to impose my values upon you [pl.], when it's been the radicals on the Left who have imposed their hedonistic, libertine sense of right and wrong upon us since the end of World War II. Secularists such as Jefferson or Franklin were a tiny minority during their lifetimes, and their views weren't taken with a sense of infallibility during their lifetimes. Justice Joseph Story and Updegraph v. Commonwealth comes to mind.
 * Chip, with all due respect to your scholarship. I think you hardly are an unbiased source. You aren't a theologian now are you?
 * What I take personally is the underlying charge that we want to restore stonings, capital punishment for adultery or homosexual acts, etc.? That's a canard, and I doubt such views have wide acceptance outside of a fringe group.
 * From what I know of Weyrich's views throughout our five-year friendship is he believes government is powerless to legislate matters such as Christ's divinity or core matters of theology. However, that doesn't in his opinion translate to barring America's traditional civil religion, or Christianity's important place in society.
 * I know what radical secularism does to religious people or has done, it uses the plenipotentiary power of the state to crush them. I love the French Revolution becuase the incredibly enlightened, tolerant and loving

revolutionaries beheaded my ancestor, whose sole crime was being a Catholic cleric in France.
 * More blood and butchery has been inflicted in the name of militant church-state separationism since 1789 than the Inquisition, Crusades, Witchburnings and religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries combined.
 * My gosh, your secularist friends now aren't simply content with eliminating religion from government, they now are picking on Catholic families who want to display statues of the Virgin Mary on their front lawn. I'm sure you are proud of that. Maybe you ought to try to understand our perspective from our perspective instead of passing judgment on us.
 * Maybe you ought to read up on the divisions within conservative Evangelicalism over the Reconstructionist's theology.


 * I ask you not to take this personally, but I have been growing sick of the anti-Christian bigotry of so-called scholars on the Left for years.

Maybe the "hate watchers" ought to stop judging other people from on high, and look at themselves in the mirror. Psychology says people react the most viscerally to those things they see in other people that subconsciously remind them of the things they hate most about themselves. --Pravknight 05:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to provide cites for any of this drivel? Assuming you can do so properly. The Mary bit just seems too farfetched -- but maybe things are different in Downingtown, or Ridley Park or wherever. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't too farfetched for a Jewish Democratic state legislator who is introducing legislation against the homeowners associations. Considering that I broke the story, I think I know a thing or two about the situation in Upper Uwchlan Twp. Watch it man. WP:NPA--Pravknight 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A lesson in the First Amendment and the military
Here's why the transition into the Weyrich quote about Witchcraft is patently false and inaccurate. THE FIRST AMENDMENT's religious freedom clause DOES NOT apply to the military under caselaw. Two other editors pointed that out over a month ago. see above. It has to go.

"U.S. Supreme Court: Goldman v. Weinberger Though he had left the military, Goldman still felt strongly about his right to wear a yarmulke in the armed services. He appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it. The Court heard oral argument in Goldman v. Weinberger (Caspar Weinberger was named lead defendant because he was then secretary of defense) in January 1986.

During oral argument, Goldman said, “I recall the time box with the red and green lights. I am a very analytical person and I’m not sure the oral-argument process before the Court was a great process for getting at the truth.” Lewin, who has argued 27 cases before the Supreme Court, recalls that several of the justices appeared hostile, including then Justice (now Chief Justice) William Rehnquist.

The Court didn’t take long to issue its decision, which it did in March 1986. The result was a narrow 5-4 loss for Goldman. Writing the main opinion, Rehnquist emphasized that “courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest.”

“The desirability of dress regulations in the military is decided by the appropriate military officials, and they are under no constitutional mandate to abandon their considered professional judgment,” Rehnquist continued.

He added that “the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate such practices in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by the dress regulations.” Chief Justice Warren Burger joined Rehnquist’s opinion.

Justice John Paul Stevens authored a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Byron White and Lewis Powell. Stevens appeared more sensitive to Goldman’s religious- freedom claims, writing that he presented “an especially attractive case for an exemption from the uniform regulations.” He also noted that there apparently was a “retaliatory motive” against Goldman in the case.

However, Stevens voted against Goldman, primarily because he believed that the rigid dress code served the interest of “uniform treatment for the members of all religious faiths.”

Justices William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, Sandra Day O’Connor and Thurgood Marshall dissented. All but Marshall wrote separate opinions.

Blackmun blasted the Court’s ruling for following a new standard of review that he termed “subrational-basis standard — absolute, uncritical deference to the professional judgment of military authorities.”

“I find it totally implausible the suggestion that the overarching group identity of the Air Force would be threatened if Orthodox Jews were allowed to wear yarmulkes with their uniforms,” Brennan wrote.

In his conclusion, Brennan said the decision was devastating for “patriotic Orthodox Jews.” He wrote that “we must hope that Congress will correct this wrong.”

Congress did “correct the wrong” by enacting a provision in 1987 called in some circles the Religious Apparel Amendment. Lewin helped draft the language of the bill that Congress eventually adopted. The federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 774, provides for a general rule that “a member of the armed forces may wear an item of religious apparel while wearing the uniform of the member’s armed force.”

Significance of Court’s decision Legal experts see the Goldman v. Weinberger decision primarily as a case standing for the general principle that First Amendment rights are circumscribed in the military.

“When you put this case together with O’Lone (O’Lone v. Shabazz, a 1987 case about religious freedom in prison), you see that free expression is tempered in certain contexts,” said Robert O’Neil, founder of the Virginia-based Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. “It reflects something that I find in the Native American cases — a reluctance on the Court’s part to give credibility to non-Christian faiths.”

O’Neil said that despite the statute passed by Congress overruling the decision, the spirit of the Goldman decision, characterized by deference to the military, lives on.

“My sense is that broad deference to the military is alive and well and would be so even without the heightened sense of awareness as a result of Afghanistan and the war in Iraq,” says O’Neil.

Lewin sees the case as granting “extreme deference” to the military.

Recollections For his part, S. Simcha Goldman has had and continues to have a successful and fulfilling career and life. After leaving the Air Force shortly after filing his lawsuit, he continued to practice psychology. He ran a residential drug-treatment program for 11 years.

He currently works for a nonprofit comprehensive mental health agency and has a small private practice that focuses on marital and relationship counseling. Proudly, he says he’s “collecting grandchildren,” with “ten so far.”

Goldman does not regret his decision to go to court against the Air Force. “The experience itself and the impact it had on my family and me were very meaningful in my life.”

“First Amendment rights are very important,” he says. “Although people share much in common, they also differ significantly. At times, it can be a challenge to maintain a democracy without creating a ‘tyranny of the majority’ or of the minority. If our society isn’t constantly vigilant in clearly defining our constitutional freedoms as questions and challenges are raised, the goals of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ for all of our citizens I believe will be ultimately endangered.”

Goldman adds: “I think that America is still coming to grips with how to have a rule of law and realize cultural and religious diversity.”

Goldman should be remembered for his devotion to his religious faith and his commitment to waging a First Amendment battle all the way to the Supreme Court. His battle eventually led to a federal law that provided more protection for religious liberty for those in the armed services.

“On the one hand I was happy that Congress recognized (that) the minority religious need reasonable accommodation even by the Armed Forces,” Goldman said. “On the other hand, I was still disappointed because since it was a statutory, rather than a constitutional right, the statute could be changed, if Congress wished.”  --Pravknight 21:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many quotes
Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. There are too many quotes in this article. These need to be summarized and the quotes moved to Wikiquote. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request
I am not an official mediator, but I will try to help.

My observations so far:

Pravknight, you are new here. You don't understand our policies, nor the reasoning that goes into them. "Don't bite the newbies" in particular is intended to advise patience while you learn our policies. However, if you insist you have nothing to learn, our patience will be quickly exhausted.

There is a legitimate concern that you are in violation of WP:AUTO. While that policy does not absolutely forbid your editing this article, you should tread lightly and not argue that the policy does not apply.

You do not understand our policy on reliable sources. Rest assured you will not get far trying to argue that the ADL is not a reliable source. I'd advise you to stop wasting your time on that issue.

While the debate has been heated on both sides, in general you are violating "No personal attacks" and "Assume good faith" more than your opponents. Again, people are still talking to you because you are a newbie and they don't want to bite you, but you will find the conversation much more productive if you cool it.

You have been warned several times that your behaviour is unacceptable and even been blocked for 24 hours already. If you continue in this manner you may lose your right to edit Wikipedia. I presume that is not your intent, and rest assured it is not our intent either. However, if you continue to assume that it is all FeloniousMonk's fault, or that there is some kind of cabal against you, you will have to leave. --Ideogram 06:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Ideogram. Thanks for your offer and I welcome your efforts. FeloniousMonk 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Slant of article
The Controversy section has an anti-Weyrich slant. It's written in a format which amounts to an argument that Weyrich is wrong and/or bad, because of his views.

The section would be better if called Criticism of Weyrich.

Better yet, it should actually report on the controvery by alternating critics' views and supporters' views. For example:


 * Weyrich opposes Wiccans in the military, on the following grounds (and then list his grounds, not just the boycott statement).
 * Critics (and name a few) object to the boycott, on the follownig grounds (such as having Wiccans in the military is their constitutional right, etc.)

Also, if Katherine Yurica says Weyrich is a Dominionist (and IF this is well-referenced information), then it certainly belongs in the report. But at first glance it looks to me like the "four immoral principles of Dominionism" are being used against Weyrich.

Anyway, Wikipedia should not take sides. I can get along with anyone here if they agree to this principle. --Uncle Ed 18:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. (See the undue weight provision of the NPOV policy.)

Preoccupation with homosexuality

 * Homosexuals tend to be preoccupied with sex

We need a text reference to this quote. Not everyone has the ability or time to listen to a radio interview. NPR: Conservative Groups Call for Accountability on Foley

I don't think they quote should be removed just because we can't see it in black and white. If a Wikipedian says he listened to the audio clip of the interview, I'll trust that. But the ref needs to be tweaked.

I do however object to an Admin heavily involved with editing this article, being in any way involved in adverse action against another contributor to the article. FeloniousMonk should either act as an admin (and not edit here), or act as a regular contributor (and avoid exercisng authority). --Uncle Ed 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The original source supports the quote, if you bother listening to it. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to see it's relevance within the scope of the larger article. I thought you don't believe in poisoning the well FeloniousMonk. If you are going to admonish me for doing so, then be consistent and not do so yourself. Besides you, who in significant repute is making a stink over his comments?


 * Besides, there are numerous studies of gay men, such as the Evelyn Hooker study that show gay men sexualize things even more than heterosexual men. I might remind you that man-adolescent boy homosexuality has been the cultural norm throughout societies over the centuries:Greece, Rome, Turkey, China, Japan etc.


 * What he said was factually correct, although perhaps foolish for him to have uttered in public the way he did. I feel like contacting him and saying something to him personally about the whole episode. --Pravknight 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, isn't this a WP:NPA vio? "Besides you, who in significant repute is making a stink over his comments?" Of course, it lacks coherence, but I believe an ad hom was the aim (this, by the way is an ad rem comment).
 * I note that Ed Poor is your new friend. Seems that controversial editors make good bed-fellows.  Quite the formidable pair.
 * BTW, if I recall correctly, those studies you mention have been rather controversial and hotly disputed, yes?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deception and objective truth
Yurica's POV is that the Heubeck article promotes the use of deception. I just skimmed it and if there was anything in it promoting deception, I may have overlooked it. I did however find a quote about exalting "objective truth", which I have added to the article.

Note, however, that I do not want the article to say that Yurica is wrong. That would violate NPOV - something I've never advocated. The article should remain neutral on the question of whether Weyrich or Heubeck advoacate deception.

It should balance Yurica's interpretation of the Heubeck article (her POV) with the opposing POV (if there are no facts) or the facts if there are any. --Uncle Ed 19:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk and Ed Poor
I note there is a history of conflict between you two. I have no authority here, but I hope both of you will speak very carefully if you hope to work together. --Ideogram 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that Ed may be wikistalking FM. JoshuaZ 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had noticed that too. Not exactly the first time though.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed that as well - first he turns up at the RFC, now here, happily engaging in personal attacks. Guettarda 21:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but both of you are wikistalking me. And (to quote FM himself) it's not a personal attack to describe someone's behavior accurately. Your comment, however, is a personal attack, because it assumes motive or feeling: happily engaging.


 * Now that we've disposed of that, can we please get back to discussing the article?


 * FM just deleted one of my comments on the article - then thought better of it. I think it relates to a reversion of an article edit I made.


 * Yurica's take on The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement is never mentioned in the article, only Yurica wrote that Weyrich guided Heubeck in writing it. Since whether Weyrich or Heubeck advoacate deception in it is not a material issue here, your comment strikes me as a pretext for adding more Weyrich's pov under the guise of "balance" at the expense of NPOV.
 * Deception and objective truth - oops, it is mentioned


 * I repeat: Yurica's POV is that the Heubeck article promotes the use of deception.
 * In the article (as FM just realized): Katherine Yurica has written that Weyrich guided Eric Heubeck in writing The Integration of Theory and Practice, the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan published in 2001 by the foundation,[16] which she says calls for the use of deception, misinformation and divisiveness to allow conservative evangelical Christian Republicans to gain and keep control of seats of power in the government of the United States.


 * What's the best way to describe Yurica's POV neutrally? --Uncle Ed 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's properly attributed to Yurica, per WP:NPOV:
 * It's already presented neutrally; there's nothing to fix. Please don't try to contrive an issue where none exists. FeloniousMonk 04:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly, if 1) Katherine Yurica or 2) Theocracy Watch had even one newsworthy mention between them in the New York Times for example, Yurica's POV might be of encyclopedic quality for a section called something like "Battle between X and Y." As it is now that paragraph miserably fails any WP:NPOV and WP:RS test.  Wikipedia should not be an advertising scheme--even for the fledgling Theocracy Watch, may they somehow protect our liberties.  --Rednblu 07:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when is being in the NYT the standard for notability? Can you please point us to the policy that says something even remotely like this? FeloniousMonk 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

FM has been admonished by the not to give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved. So I will ignore his warning don't try to contrive an issue where none exists on the grounds that he has no standing here.


 * I don't think you understand what warnings mean in that context. --Ideogram 17:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To describe a POV neutrally, we must follow Undue Weight. FM has violated this by "removing well-referenced information" which describes the opposing POV. I will add this to the RFC about his misbehavior, unless he reverses course and permits this verifiable quotation (rebutting Yuriac's accusation) to be re-inserted. --Uncle Ed 15:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments about the RFC are not relevant here. --Ideogram 17:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't warning you, I was asking you. Your ham-handed attempt at casting me violating an arbitration ruling is transparent and speaks more to your tactics than it does mine. Since my request was not a personal attack nor a proscribed warning, you had no grounds to delete them . I'm now asking you to not delete any of comments again.
 * Your addition of Heubeck's quote is a non sequitur to Yurica's viewpoint; it says nothing about Weyrich's position, and this is the Weyrich article last time I checked. Yurica's viewpoint was already balanced by Weyrich's own words, cited above. The Heubeck's quote should come out. FeloniousMonk 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, what is missing from this page is a section on the topic "Paul Weyrich's view of modern politics in America." Perhaps Heubeck's quote belongs there--if Heubeck has penned the thoughts of Weyrich. Then the current "Controversies" section should be renamed to "Criticisms of Paul Weyrich's politics." A convenient NPOV model for organizing the biography of a controversial figure with ideas for restructuring society might be the Karl Marx page. --Rednblu 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of the disupute template
Ed is once again misusing the dispute template to gain the upper hand to force in questionable content. As detailed at his arbitration case, he has a history of doing this. I've removed it once, he's now restored it. Ed has failed to make the case for its necessity, and the only editors who dispute the section are Pravknight, who's bias arising out of his personal affiliation the subject has resulted in his not being able to contribute here, and Ed, who has taken up Pravknight's role here based on discussions seen on their respective talk pages. FeloniousMonk 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Heubeck quote discussion, moved from article
Added to the article by Ed Poor:

The quote in context:

I may be wrong, but it seems clear to me that the Heubeck quote is simply out of place, a non sequitur. It doesn't speak to Yurica's view of what the screed calls for as Ed claims. Furthermore, Ed says it is necessary to counterbalance Yurica's viewpoint. But looking at the passage in context, Yurica's viewpoint is already sandwiched between to quotes from Weyrich himself, one quite long, that contradict Yurica's view. How much counterbalance do we really need? FeloniousMonk 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit war
It would be most helpful if both sides refrain from editing the article during the discussion. If the edit wars get out of hand I will get the article protected. --Ideogram 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to comply with this as long as the other side does as well. FeloniousMonk 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What is wikistalking?
At the beginning of another section on this page the following statement was made:


 * It appears that Ed may be wikistalking FM. JoshuaZ 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What is wikistalking? Thank you for taking the time to consider my question :-) --Awinger48 21:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See Harassment. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sir :-) --Awinger48 08:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cause of death?
Any source?? TIA --Tom 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)