Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Self-determination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs)
• Gaba p (talk · contribs)
• Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview by Wee Curry Monster

Although currently being conducted at Self-determination, its a reprise of a disucssion that has been raised by the same two editors User:Gaba p and User:Langus-Txt at Falkland Islands,Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute and other articles such as Luis Vernet. It refers to a historical event in the Falkland Islands in 1833.

In 1833, the British government sent a warship to expel the Argentine garrison that had been there for 3 months. Whilst the garrison was expelled as planned, the existing settlement remained under the British flag. There are two contemporary eye witness reports on this incident, the reports of captains of the British and Argentine warships present. Both confirm the summary above and are verified by other records.

In its modern sovereignty claim, Argentina claims the entire population was expelled and replaced by British settlers. Noting the above, several prominent historians point out this is untrue.

Langus-Txt and Gaba p would like to replace a neutral text that summarises the above with text that re-inforces the Argentine claim. They argue it doesn't matter whether a source is contradicted by the historical record, what matters is that it is recorded in a source they can quote - even when the source references a WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source that makes a different claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Raised at WP:NPOVN repeatedly and at WP:RSN

How do you think we can help?

I would hope for a neutral 3rd party comment on the correct approach to dealing with a sensitive matter reflecting the differing national agendas from a neutral perspective, rather than as demanded to reflect particular national agendas.

As I see it Wee is engaging in WP:OR to attempt to present some sources as documented facts and others as untrue or invalid or just lies. The disputed source is the book Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands by Lopez. The source states verbatim: "Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...". From Wee's perspective, the historical documents present a version that contradicts the above statement (WP:OR). My point is that we present the sources that make contradicting claims (as we already do: Cawkell and Harpers) but also present this one since there is no valid reason not to, other than it conflicting with sources Wee seems to like best.

The two edits of mine I assume Wee has a problem with in that article, are:

1. A ^{[citation needed]} tag for an official Argentinian claim. Wee attempts to source this claim with the Lopez's book claiming Lopez "is a political appointee, stating the Argentine Government position". I argue that that book represents the official Argentinian version as much as the books by Cawkell & Harper represent the British position. This for example is a valid source for an official Argentinian position. Lopez's is an investigative historical book just as those by Cawkell & Harper are.
2. I introduced the sentence: On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British.[7], where the ref [7] points to Lopez's book. Wee removed this whole statement arguing that the author does not analyze British sources (accusing me of citation fraud). I responded that such fact is in the name of the book: Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.

"The existing settlement remained under the British flag" is an erroneous statement, as some of the settlers did leave as a consequence of British seizure.

Having said that, the problem here is being misrepresented by Wee Curry Monster. The real issue is that he insists on doing his own interpretation of historical records to "select" which secondary sources are wrong and which are right. This is called Original Research. The proper guidelines for selection of sources is WP:IRS, where you won't find anything remotely similar to "whether a source is contradicted by the historical record or not".

The question was recently raised at Wikipedia:NPOVN#What_is_a_NPOV.3F, but only achieved tangential comments that didn't address the question. Fours months ago, the same question was raised by the same editor at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Do_we_have_to_report_a_false_claim_as_true_from_a_certain_POV. The comments that time were quite explicit, but WCM insists that they favored his call for original research.

So the real question here is: is it ok for us to pay attention at the "contemporary eye witness reports" and get ourselves in the analysis proposed by WCM in his opening statement? My answer (backed by the comments in the second thread and insight gained from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ) is NO.

Hi, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We await all opening statements before we begin, however, while we wait, Langus-TxT please do either of two things: Either remove comments from uninvolved parties or add the members to the dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question to parties: what do the neutral modern sources say about the conflict? What is the most prominent viewpoint among modern historians? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitrij, before we begin, I would like to clear up the issue with involved parties. We should not be using the comments of Wikipedia members unless they are notified and included.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the above query. The prominent viewpoint among neutral modern historians reflects the contemporary sources. There were 2 populations present at the time.

1. A garrison sent some 3 months before to set up a penal colony for the Republic of Buenos Aires. This had mutinied killing the commander after only 4 days.

2. An established settlement, formed by Luis Vernet.

The prominent viewpoint is that the garrison was requested to leave by the British warship and complied, the established settlement was encouraged to remain.

Like I say thats the neutral academic sources, the Argentine Government publications repeat the claim of an expulsion. Lopez referred to above is an Argentine official and if you refer to the source he references, Goebel, Goebel makes no such claim but confirms the above see [1]. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amadscientist I left a comment in the talk page of both editors asking them if they could stop by. Is that what you meant?

Regarding the neutral modern historians viewpoint the problem is defining neutral. I have no reason to believe Lopez is not neutral more than I have to believe Cawkell & Harper are not neutral. Lopez is not acting as an Argentinian official but as an author, thus his book is by no means a statement on the official position of Argentina on the matter.

I'd like Wee to expose his reasons to believe Lopez is not neutral if he is in fact making such a claim. In the case that Wee should make the claim that Lopez is not neutral, I'd like to remind him that Pascoe & Pepper's pamphlet, a highly biased source, is used extensively in all Falklands related articles; the use of which he has defended time after time.

Let me also quote Wee on a previous discussion regarding the inclusion of contradicting sources (Laver vs P&P's pamphlet):

"...On the one hand [referring to Langus & me or just to one of us, I'm not sure] you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. [referring to P&P's pamphlet] That is non-neutral and seeking to turn wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda piece...." Wee Curry Monster 11:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

At the time, Wee defended the inclusion of a rebuttal or contradicting source when the other one (Laver) was used to back an Argentinian claim. I don't see what could be different this time between these contradicting sources. Gaba p (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comments, and I apologize to the editors if they felt it was inappropriate. I'm leaving the links to those to threads as the matter discussed is exactly the same.

Before continuing I urge everyone to review Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. I question the idea of "neutral" sources mentioned by Czarkoff, as every writer I've read takes a side on the dispute, even if subtly. In fact, that's part of the problem here: that some of the civilians stayed on the islands is a fact that is remarked by British-biased authors, who prefer to ignore or downplay those who did leave and the whole Argentine garrison who was indisputably and wholly expelled. --Langus (t) 10:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Czarkoff said that. I believe he asked about modern sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Langus refers to Czarkoff's mention of "what do the neutral modern sources say about the conflict?". He's asking for neutral & modern sources and Langus questions (as I did before him) the disputable neutral quality of any source (be it modern or not) As I said, I have no more reasons to believe Lopez's investigation is not neutral as I have to believe Cawkell's investigation is not. Gaba p (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, however if you look at the italics he is simply asking what modern scholars have to say about the subject. Neutral as in, don't look for someone who is taking a stand or forming an opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that approach is problematic, because sources that Wee Curry Monster calls "neutral" are pro-British texts to me, even if subtly, and vice versa. The intersection of "Neutral according to WCM" and "Neutral according to Langus" is probably an empty set.

As such, the only way we can have "neutral" sources would be if you decide it for yourself which of them are really neutral, or if you choose to believe Wee Curry Monster over me, or Gaba p over WCM, etc. --Langus (t) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might help the mediators to understand Langus's issues with any source I propose if they refer to this post of his [2]. Its worth quoting:

You encourage someone to stay but if they choose to leave, then they were apparently expelled. Fundamentally I think the problem here is that rather than seeing the Argentine position described from a neutral perspective, Langus and Gaba want the article to give the Argentine POV and thats why there is a conflict. When you use a source to describe the Argentine POV from a neutral perspective they falsely claim it is WP:OR because it doesn't represent their POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if I take over your house at gun point claiming that it's mine from now on but you're welcome to stay as a guest? If you leave then it's because you are choosing to do so, right? I mean, I encouraged you to stay. This analogy is intended to demonstrate how you attempt to ridicule and minimize an invasion.

I think the problem actually is your double standards, let me present your comments once again:

"...On the one hand [referring to Langus & me or just to one of us, I'm not sure] you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. [referring to P&P's pamphlet] That is non-neutral and seeking to turn wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda piece...." Wee Curry Monster 11:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Merely four months ago you defended the inclusion of a rebuttal or contradicting source (and a quite biased one, it is worth noting) when the other one (Laver) was used to back an Argentinian claim. Now the tables turn and so do you, something I'm sadly already used to. Gaba p (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Argentine claim is the entire population was expelled to be replaced by British settlers. It seems people wish to confuse the mediation process by claiming something different from what they were previously arguing so I encourage the mediators to look at the rather rambling and confusing talk page discussion.

Further if you look at my edits I do not favour either British or Argentine sources; I judge sources on their merits and you will never hear me reject a source solely because of its nationality. Neutral academic sources of all nations reflect the summary above. Further it isn't a British claim "we only expelled a garrison", in fact no part of the justification for British sovereignty refers to whether the population was expelled or not. That is completely unsourced WP:OR by Gaba and Langus in an attempt to lower the historical record to be a British claim in line with the modern Argentine sovereignty claim. Whereas as I've pointed out above, neutral academic historians of all nationalities suggest that the Argentine claim is false.

The only reason I would reject the use of a source, is on those occasions where the source makes a claim that fails verification. Again in the case of Lopez, the claim attributed to Goebel does not reflect Goebel's research; ie the author has committed citation fraud. Despite clearly indulging in WP:OR themselves, Langus and Gaba loudly accuse others of doing the same for checking the reliability or otherwise of a source.

Currently the article now reflects what Gaba and Langus now acknowledge - that Argentina claims the population was expelled but that historians only note the expulsion of the garrison. Langus and Gaba wish to add a statement that, according to Lopez's book, the population was expelled and this is confirmed by British sources. My issue with that claim is (A) it relies on WP:OR and WP:SYN since the argument is that since Lopez's book is supposedly based on British sources ergo the claim must be confirmed by British sources and (B) Lopez refers to Goebel who does not make the claim attributed to him. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Argentine claim is the entire population was expelled to be replaced by British settlers", source for this entire claim of yours please? I ask because I have not seen this in the official UN release used as a source in the article. Could you provide a source?

"Neutral academic sources of all nations reflect the summary above", source please?

"in the case of Lopez, the claim attributed to Goebel does not reflect Goebel's research; ie the author has committed citation fraud", source? Starting to see a pattern here Wee? (Hint: WP:OR)

"Currently the article now reflects what Gaba and Langus now acknowledge - that Argentina claims the population was expelled but that historians only note the expulsion of the garrison", misleading in every possible way. The conflicting sources state that settlers were expelled versus only a garrison was expelled. This is nowhere to be found in the article because you edited it out, remember? Even more, the Lopez book is used (because you put it there) as a source for the statement "Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination", an edit whose logic I still can't understand.

The issue here is very simple: Wee refuses to accept the inclusion of the sentence "On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British." (sourced by Lopez's book) because he dislikes or disapproves its implications. Sadly for him, that's not a valid reason to keep a source out nor is it his extensive WP:OR on the matter.

I recommend Wee to please go check WP:ASF because I believe it states clearly the path to follow in these cases, ie: present the sources and attribute them clearly. Gaba p (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly [4] and I quote:

Just to point out for the benefit of the mediators, this has been challenged before and supplied before [5]. This habit of demanding cites repeatedly for the same thing is hampering any move forward in the discussion.

• No Wee, I asked you for a source stating precisely the entire part you claimed. This one does not so you were wrong before or purposely twisting words just a tiny bit to adjust to what you want them to say (as usual) That said, this is a correct source for the Argentinian claim that the population was expelled, including the garrison which of course is part of the population. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again you're accusing me without justification of conducting, WP:OR no that is not WP:OR, it is verifying the claim made in the book. If Lopez refers to Akehurst, where he attributes a statement to Goebel and when checking that statement we find it contradictory, we shouldn't be using it. If I were to conduct my own research of WP:PRIMARY sources and conclude that Lopez were wrong that would be different, Lopez did the research I am merely checking his claim and finding that it doesn't match. The simple question arises here, why would you use a claim made in a source you know fails verification?

• Wee my friend that is the definition of WP:OR. If you have a source then present it, do not put forward your own analysis as a fact. And you haven't addressed my request of copy/pasting the part that proves Lopez is committing citation fraud. Could you please do so? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral academic source [6]

• Correction: neutral academic source says Wee. I have no reason to believe you that Cawkell is a neutral source any more than I have to believe you that Lopez is not. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out for the benefit of the mediators, this has challenged before and supplied before [7]. I've lost count, what is it, 10 or 15 times now?

Just to be sure, you're claiming I've edited that out of the article. Current version [8]

Rather plainly I have not.

• Yes Wee you have. You edited out (deleted , removed, made go away, etc...) the sentence mentioning Lopez research: On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British. You deleted the mention to Lopez research and then used it as it were an official Argentinian source to reference the statement "Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination", an edit that I still can not understand. What is it that you are not comprehending? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you to apply WP:ASF, the claim made by Lopez is attributed to Goebel, as I have pointed out repeatedly, Goebel does not make the claim ascribed to him. To do so is citation fraud. See [9], again this cite has been supplied repeatedly. The only reason for objecting to that statement I have already pointed out above, your response is nothing but an accusation of bad faith and you haven't addressed the main reason why - the statement is falsely attributed to Goebel.

• That is WP:OR since you have absolutely no source to back that statement up. As WP:ASF says: "Undisputed findings of reliable sources can be asserted without in-text attribution. In-text attribution is recommended where sources disagree, not where editors disagree". Sources disagree hence we present both sources. You are trying to wikilawyer a source out based on WP:OR and WP:SYN. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also repeatedly pointed out to you, it is not a British claim, it is not part of the case made for British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, its what neutral academic historians point out and I've asked you for a source to back up your assertion its a British claim rather than a reflection of what neutral histories state. You have not supplied any such source, further you are unable to provide any source to verify any such claims.

• The British claim part was not present in the version of the article you defiled (go see for yourself) so I have no idea why you keep insisting on this. Perhaps to divert attention from the fact that you are hell-bent on obscuring a source you disagree with? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out to you at WP:NPOVN back in May, we do not present matters from the British and Argentine POV to achieve a NPOV, we achieve a NPOV by describing the Argentine and British positions from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Achieving a NPOV is very hard to do when you keep biasing this and other articles to suit your British preference Wee. Gaba p (talk)

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Christian right (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Psalm84 (talk · contribs)
• StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)
• Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Naapple (talk · contribs)

Later added:

• ViriiK (talk · contribs)
• Little green rosetta (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)
• Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs)
• Sphilbrick (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The content dispute is happening on the Christian right talk page.

The issue is that plainly stating a strong association between the Christian right and the Republican Party, which is well-known and accepted by scholars and the media (and shown in the article), is opposed by some editors.

The connection is so established that it can actually be difficult to find sources that plainly say there's a link, although there are a great many that study it. For example, a book called " God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right."

Two proposed changes on this ran into opposition because other editors dispute the CR link to the GOP. The first proposal, to add it to the lead, has been done on the basis of the article, which talks a lot about the CR and GOP.

The second proposal has been undone, though. That was to change a list called "Parties of the CR" to "Parties associated with the CR" (since there are some Christian parties outside the U.S.) and then add the Republican Party. I did that and added some poll results on white evangelicals Protestants and the GOP. The poll itself links these religious voters to the GOP. I also added elsewhere in the article numbers from the poll on WEP who are Democrats, black Protestants who are mostly Democrats, and others.

When adding the Republican Party to the list, however, a description actually isn't needed. It could be added to list alone, but the idea of adding it at all is opposed. User Collect wrote:

"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."

And while I understand that the Tea Party isn't a party, I also added it to the list under "Tea Party movement" because of a poll showing that much of its backing comes from conservative Christians.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posted extensively on the talk page, answering all arguments and adding several proposals.

How do you think we can help?

To focus on the content issues and how other WP guidelines apply here.

I would also point out that I've dug up a bunch of potential sources for us to cite, in addition to the ones we cite now, so it's not as if we've run out of options. The only problem is that there seems to be strong opposition to listing the Republican party regardless of these sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is simple -- should the Republican Party be specifically categorised as a "Christian Right" organization. The secondary issue is whether the "Tea Party movement" should be specifically categorised as a "Christian Right" organisation. Alas for those who seek to so categorise the groups, the evidence is not there, although they keep adding irrrelevant cites for the claim they implicitly seek to make. In the past, it was decided by overwhelming consensus that the Tea Party movement was not "radical right wing" and that it is substantially libertarian in emphasis - which means ab initio that categorising it as "Christian Right" is unlikely to succeed. The Republican Party is described by those seeking to categorise it as "Christian Right" as consisting, according to the poll cited, of possibly 34% evangelical Christians, which is also insufficient to categorise the part as "Christian Right."

That is the actual sum of the dispute, and until 34% is defined as the controlling group in a party, I doubt that those pushing this categorisation will be satisfied. Collect (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[10] is the latest version of the SYNTH claim being promoted - (white) evangelical Protestants ... "comprise about a third (34%) of all Republican or Republican-leaning voters. Which is insufficient to assert 1. That all of the 34% are "right wing" or should be categorised as "right wing" , or consider themselves as "Christian right" in the first place, and 2. that it is clear OR to then assert that this 34% (including "leaning" voters) runs the party. As this is the crux of the discussion and it is so clearly OR, SYNTH etc. this "dispute" clearly would require violating the Five Pillars to meet with what the "The Republican Party is a Christian Right party" as is being sought. Or even within a mile thereof. Collect (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it is clear that if 1/3 are evangelical Christians (not necessarily even "right wing" then 2/3 is not in that category. I rather think 2/3 >> 1/3. Collect (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion sources are insufficient for statements of fact, and adding 'multiple polls' (none of which label the party as 'Christian right') does noting but add synthesis of sources to reach a conclusion none of them give. Further, the Republican Party is a big tent party which allows almost anyone from any religion or political ideology to join and run for a party nomination, so the label is inaccurate on the face of it. Toa Nidhiki05 22:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, Still wanted to add the Republican Party to the list of Christian right (CR) parties in the article. When it was pointed out that all the other parties, all of which are minor parties, have clear Christian Right agendas, he suggested renaming the list to parties associated with the CR. While it is true that the CR is a major element within the Republican Party, the term "associated with" is vague and grouping the Republican Party with CR parties is misleading.

I would point out that Still says he believes CR controls the Republican Party. But the sources he presents do not say that. The argument that the relationship is so obvious no one mentions it is disingenuous. There is certainly a lot of literature about the CR's political influence and if they had captured a major political party, someone would have mentioned it.

I do not know why Collect has chosen to bring up an unrelated discussion. That discussion was not about whether or not the article on the radical right should call the Tea Party "radical right", but about whether or not we could mention scholarly opinion on whether it was in that tradition, based on a summary of the research in a scholarly paper.[11] Radical right is a term developed by Seymour Martin Lipset and adopted by scholars including Daniel Bell and others to refer to right-wing movements in the US, that typically combined libertarianism, anti-communism and conservatism, that operated outside the main two parties or challenged the party elites, and sometimes organized into third parties.

So I see two sides - one trying to make the Republican Party and the Christian Right look bad and the other trying to make it look good, rather than just trying to make the article reflect what sources say.

TFD (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing stinks of OR. Just because evangelicals are more likely to be in the Republican party doesn't mean the Republican Party is all evangelical. The Republican party doesn't discriminate against other members joining. No source provided by the opposition states otherwise.

IMO this discussion need not even warrant an intervention by the DRN. It was discussed in the talk page, most persons are against it, and it was brought to this board way too quickly.

Naapple (Talk) 03:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it can probably be clearly stated that most that would consider themselves to be Christian Right would support the Republican party in national elections versus Democrats, the converse cannot be stated. Simply stated, All Sailboats have sails, but not all boats have sails and not all things with sails are boats. In general this appears to be an attempt to define the Republican party as a Christian Right party, which is clearly an attempt at Original Research within WP. Arzel (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is timely, as it relates to something on my to-do list, which is not exactly this issue, but is on-point.

Humans have a penchant for categorizing. This is a valuable and necessary function (these types of plants are edible, these types are not), but can be, like many things, over-done. Making a binary pronouncement (you are either on the list or not), of a fundamentally analog concept can be useful, but can lead to problems. As encyclopedists, we must be especially careful of doing it ourselves. (and by careful, I mean we generally should not). This is the fodder of opinion creators and even of respected academics, but while they can do it, we must absolutely avoid OR| compartmentalization, and even as summarizers of reliable sources, we must take care not to over-summarize.

The relationship of the Republican party to religion in general and to the Christian Right specifically, is a subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. But it is a nuanced relationship—one that take paragraphs, maybe even pages to articulate accurately, and cannot be summarized as an entry on a list. The original title of the list "Political parties of the Christian Right" was problematic because it isn't that simple. The revised proposal "Political parties associated with the Christian Right" solves one problem while creating a bigger one—it is a mealy-mouthed, monstrosity. Would we countenance "Politicians associated with terrorist organizations" and include anyone with any involvement? I certainly hope we would bury that quickly.

My To-Do item relates to the use of entries in infoboxes, but it is the same problem—many things cannot be summarized in a single word, or even a short phrase. We are good at summarizing complicated issues into a few, neutral paragraphs, but that doesn't make us able to summarize a complicated relationship down to a single word or phrase.

By all means, it is appropriate to discuss the relationship between political parties and religion movements, over time, and across the globe, but let's not jump to the conclusion that we can summarize that nuanced treatment into membership on a list.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect has already summed up everything when I was involved before. Another issue was why this was obviously brought up was the investment of a specific editor in order to attack one organization by being associated with the article in question. The basis for this was supposedly the source that he was promoting was based on a book which costs $75 and I asked for page numbers for his citation claims which was never given so I has to logically assume that he was basing his entire argument on a book's description rather than something within the book. Especially I don't appreciate the fact that he uses "we" trying to represent ALL editors while intentionally excluding editors who do not support his worldview. Now unfortunately due to real life commitment, I don't have the time nor the patience to play Wikipedia. ViriiK (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perhaps the least involved editor at this article with respect to this DRN, so I expect my role here minimal. My initial foray into this article (and subsequent watching) was due to a completely unsourced edit attempting to link the Christian Right to the GOP being added to the article. After this the TP degenerated into finding sources that backed one's position. Now that ISS247 has formally declined DRN, I suspect the majority of the disruption on the TP that lead to this DRN being filed in the first place will subside here. I wish everyone the best of luck.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. We will wait for the other parties before opening for discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Amadscientist, another volunteer here at DR/N. Before we begin this filing I have a question. Why is the list of involved editors so different from those participating at the discussion on the talk page?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are three discussions that relate to this, 27 "Removal of the Republican Party," 28 "and you forget Jimmy Carter," and 29 "Proposed article changes (from the previous two discussions)." The first has been going on for awhile and it seems many of the editors who commented in that thread are no longer participating in it. And the question now mostly comes down to a dispute over adding the Republican Party to the "Parties associated with the Christian right" list and that involves the editors listed. Psalm84 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The only problem with that explanation is that the actual dispute is covered over three discussions beginning with "Removal of the Republican Party," , dated 26 August 2012 which is only three weeks old. This is a very long and contentious discussion of a controverisal nature and many of the more active participants have not been included. Clearly there is sufficient discussion to bring this here, but I am concerned that by not including the major particpants, no firm resolution will be reached. What is to stop this from being brought up immediatly after a compromise or conclusion is made from those not included?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I joined the discussion on the 11th and many of the earlier participants were no longer involved by then. There was one editor that I exchanged some comments with at first but they haven't participated in days so I wasn't sure about including them. I wouldn't mind going back and either putting the tags for this on the pages of everyone who has posted in these threads or else putting a notice on the talk page about this discussion so anyone interested could comment here. I did think about mentioning this on the talk page but got sidetracked by the dispute itself. Psalm84 (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to suggest that you include ALL major participants regardless of whether or not you, yourself have interacted with them or this may be little more than an exercise in futility. Some of these editors have invested more time and effort in the discussion. I tell you what... I don't want to give the impression that DR/N is not going to accept this filing so perhaps it is best to just ask the "major participants" if they are inclined to participate as I would hate to set this up to fail for lack of all parties listed, participating...which is a bigger and bigger possiblity with a larger list.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to figure out everyone who's been a major participant and include that editor I mentioned. If you think I've left anyone out maybe you could let me know when I'm done with the notifications? I also put a link to this on the Talk page, which I'll leave. Other people might have opinions on this that they want to share. Psalm84 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's everyone now. I'll add all the names to the list. I also included one editor that just contributed a list of possible sources after someone asked them for one, but has also been having a dispute since then over including other information in the article. They may have an interest in this. Psalm84 (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I also create the sections for the other users to add their opening comments? Psalm84 (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was notified on my talk page by Psalm84 about this issue. Collect's opening statement accurately describes the dispute, and why the current consensus is against making a Christain Right/GOP connection. I won't speculate on Psalm84's rationale for wanting to establish this link, but in my view he is editing and discussing in good faith. Unfortuantely I cannot say the same about another editor in this discussion who IMO has been enganged in deliberate and sometimes tendentious POV editing across articles involving politics and social policy. Because of such, I fear this DRN is DOA.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm84's good faith is not in question. He has worked very hard to get this right and include parties that have a vested interest. I understand what you are saying, but that is what we are here for at DR/N. Please consider taking part.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm84's good faith is not in question; however, the good faith of another contributor is in question. I also don't yet have anything to add to Collect's opening statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur beat me to it. I think you misunderstood LGR. No one is questioning Psalm, it's someone else... Naapple (Talk) 08:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, another volunteer here. Will try to help out when I can.--SGCM (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SGCM. We're gonna need a bigger boat. LOL!

To Little green rosetta, Arthur Rubin and Naapple....I did not misunderstand...at all. Trust me. That is why I am here, because I am familiar with your concerns. I am not an administrator. I am just a volunteer, but I encourage...no, I IMPLORE all of you to participate. This is not a Board where your concerns are going to be blown off, ignored or tossed aside for an easier way of dealing with things. But, if you don't add all of your voices then someone else may well just get whatever it is they are after without any resolution at all. I am going to make a request of all volunteers here. I think this filing should go forward regardless of whether every single editor in the original filing joins. I wish to make a human exception and not automaticly close this dispute from a lack of all participants. I believe this is that moment when we must "ignore" one of the rules to improve the encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts so far as someone who's only vaguely familiar with American politics: The Christian Right are one of the main constituencies of the Republican Party, but so are the neoconservatives, Republican libertarians, and Rockefeller Republicans, who do not affiliate with, and are often opposed to, the Christian Right. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are big tent parties, that appeal to a variety of constituencies, without focusing on a single one. The Democratic Party is equally as diverse, appealing to progressives, social democrats, Southern Democrats, the Christian left, etc. It seems to me that that the claim that the Christian Right is one of the main constituencies, among many, of the Republican party, is less controversial and a more prominent viewpoint in the reliable sources than the claim that the Republican Party is itself part of the Christian Right. The article should state just that.--SGCM (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that there is some good wisdom in that. I believe the fact is that there is a consensus being ignored regardless of our own beliefs. As a Liberal myself and registered Democrat, I do know there are Christians that identify with the party. I myself am pagan, but my spouse is Christin as is most of my family and all conservative Republicans (Yes, my spouse is Republican. Election time can be very interesting in this household). I am familiar with American politics, but the issue here appears to be less about our own personal perceptions and almost entirely about collaborative editing on an article that many feel is an attempt to lable, pigeon hole or be force into a descriptor against both sources and consensus. This will most likely be determined by both sources and the willingness of editors to loosen the grip and accept what others feel is best for this article. We are not going to be changing the definition of the Republican party or the Christian right. Is it possible that some may not share this thought?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all. I'm another of the volunteers here, like Amadscientist above, but I am also someone whose objectivity might be questioned, so I'm just weighing in as myself here. The problem, so far as I can see, seems to at least in part be about whether the Christian right is Republican (which it, basically, seemingly is said to be according to Reliable sources), is more or less sufficient cause to say that the Republican Party is strongly Christsian right. That second statement does not, so far as I can see, necessarily have sufficient reliable sources to be made. While I agree that the Christian right does get a somewhat disproportionate amount of news attention in American politics relative to other groups within the Republican party, and that perhaps the Christian right may have been a bit more actively involved in Republican issues than others, the same could be said for African-American involvement in the Democratic Party, but I don't think many of us would think it would make sense to call the Democratic Party an African-American group. Hopefully getting my old math characters right here, although the Christian right<Republican party, that doesn't mean that Christian right=Republican party or Christian right>Republican party, any more than the equivalent statements about African Americans and the Democratic Party would be accurate. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbreak's comment is informative, and could lead to a solution. Would the parties object to abandoning the list and substituting it entirely with prose? Text will better convey the nuances of the subject.--SGCM (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be acceptable. The CR is supposed to be a US-only term, and yet the list is full of political parties from other countries. Once removed there would be little left to list, making prose the only alternative. However, I object to any language that states the Republican party associates with the CR, and instead that it is in fact the CR that may associate itself with the Republican party. The CR isn't a single, unified body. It is simply a term used to broadly describe individuals who identify as Christian conservatives. As individuals, they may or may not vote GOP or engage in other political activities or form political and private groups. The term describes individuals and thus making comparisons to groups like the Tea Party, which is an actual organization, is incorrect. I think this distinction is important to note, as the article looks to paint them as a unified political group. To extend the analogy above, it is as if we would paint all African Americans as members of the NAACP. Naapple (Talk) 18:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest we work on baby steps? If we can reach a consensus that a prose-approach is preferable to a list approach, we can then move on to debate the nature of the words in the prose. Naapple supports a prose approach. I trust it is obvious that I support a prose approach. What do others think?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree using a prose approach, as opposed to a simple list approach, would be preferable as well. One of the major concerns we will have with any political group is that, unfortunately, the groups which associate with them can and do change over time, given the changes in the political situation in general, in some cases certain very prominent individual politicians of the party itself and other parties, and other issues. Basically, adding descriptive text would to my eyes be a way to both indicate the changes in issues of important in American and partisan politics over time, which is relevant to this article, as well as make it easier to indicate exactly when and how a given group was most closely associated with a given party, and, possibly, the major issues of the time which prompted that affiliation. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is commendable that a compromise has been offered off the top, but...is it needed? I see only one actual editor involved in this DR/N who wants these claims even made at all. Only a couple of editors have shown interest in the compromise. It is a good compromise.....if it was actually needed. Is it? I don't think that I am overstaing when I say that all but one editor is arguing against inclusion of this interpretation and I am not at all sure they are able to demonstrate their position as being accurate. I am not rushing, but at the smae time I am reluctant to call for something like 8 seperate editors to forced into a compromise due to one editor not wanting to accept consensus as something they can live with or offer anything themselves that they would be happy with short of the full list and interpretation. Dispute Resolution is not a forum to force ones hand on others. I am sorry, I know that sounds harsh but right now I only see the original filing editor as being for this inclusion at all. We'll give it some more time and see where this goes.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read over the comments made so far and I don't agree that prose should take the place of a list, or lists.

An important part of this issue is that the Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point. Anyone familiar with American politics knows that it is an unquestioned basic fact. It is simply taken for granted where politics is concerned and it's not fair to people seeking information here to not reflect that. Here's an example from a source listed by Still of how the link is treated in the media, which constantly mentions it:

"Republican Party and Religious Right Heading for a Split?" US News

The article just assumes that most readers are already aware of the strong GOP and Christian right connection.

And here is also one quote from one book which could also be added to the article:

"One result of these changes was the realignment of white evangelical Protestants into the Republican Party; such "values voters" now constitute an essential component of the GOP coalition." (The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics)

When you are talking about the goals of an encyclopedia, it's being informative and accurate in a clear way. If something is a plain fact it should be just as plain in the article too. That is why the association was added to the lead. It simply summarizes what the article says.

On the list, there is some description that explains the association, and it could be improved if necessary. Some of it was there already and I added to it. And the quote above could also be added.

This is a complicated topic and things have to be reported with care, but still some things are plain, and should be treated that way. The readers too should be trusted to understand the explanations, including on things like polls. If you explain the universally known association between the Christian right and GOP, that should be enough. Trying to remove mention of the link or make it less plain than it is doesn't help readers who come here for accurate information.

And for the record, too, the Republican Party is already listed in a hidden box of wikilinks at the bottom of the page under "Political Parties."

This page also has a lot of questionable material in it if you look at it closely that has gone unchallenged and uncorrected. One of the first things said is that the Christian right is 15% of the population and there's no reference for it. The first source several sentences later doesn't mention any statistics so it's clear that's unsourced. And there are other issues as well if you look at the article closely. So, just to point this out, the article really needs a lot of careful attention to all of it. Psalm84 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As a dispute resolution volunteer I am recusing myself from this dispute. I would like to say that the other dispute resolution volunteers here have my complete support and that they, as usual, are doing a great job. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm84, your link seems to be broken. And this brings up a point that I would like to bring up as a reminder. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or journalistic board. We actually don't "Report", we summarize secondary, reliable sources. In this situation and subject matter, relying on "News sources" can be problematic. Dead links are just one reason. The other is...America is in the middle of one of it's most contentious elections in years and news sources can and will contain a good deal of political bias. Many sources have bias of course, but using the media right now for this creates an immediate tug of war. With all political parties from the beginning of Democratic and Republican forms of government, there have been and will continue to be, seperate factions fighting for indentity. You state: "[S]ome things are plain, and should be treated that way". I would contend that, the subject matter we are discussing falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". And that WP:MNA: "Making necessary assumptions" is not a good idea here. Also (and down a bit from that) WP:RNPOV states: "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., "fundamentalism" and "mythology". Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.".

This is indeed a truly complicated topic. But we can get through this by using the tools we have, being patient with one another and, remebering that we should not be so set with our opinion that we can't consider an option that all can live with. Yes, this means that some or all will not get exactly what they desire for the article. But we have to work together on this and we have a really good start. So, Psalm84, I would ask if you could demonstrate with reliable secondary, mainstream sources, that (A) Show "[T]he universally known association between the Christian right and GOP". and (B) that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". These are, I believe your main points of contention. A good starting point. But I also ask that you begin thinking about what compromise you feel would be acceptable if these points cannot be demonstrated in a manner all can agree with. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link and was going to reply then, too, but a few things came up and in between I wrote a reply and accidentally closed the window. So I'll try this again.

On the link I posted, it wasn't meant to be a source for the article. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It was merely an example of the fact that in discussions of politics by the media and scholars, the association between the GOP and CR is universally acknowledged. Conservative Christians strongly back the GOP and that is a given in news coverage and discussion by pundits and scholars (like with the campaign where there have been questions about Romney's support from the base and a lot of talk about Santorum's candidacy, for just two examples). There is never any question at all in these discussions that a strong connection exists. The entire Wikipedia article also discusses and documents it using reliable sources, too.

I wouldn't mind finding more sources but don't believe any more are really needed. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics is an authoritative source and it calls the Christian right "an essential component of the GOP coalition" without any hesitation. That statement is in line with conventional knowledge, the article itself, and its sources. They all completely support that this strong connection exists.

On the WP:EXCEPTIONAL guideline, I don't really believe it applies here, since the GOP/CR link is a mainstream assumption. Because of all that support, too, I don't believe the WP:MNA concern, that something is being assumed that shouldn't be, applies either. But again, there are sources in support of the GOP/CR connection and many more available.

The religious related concern also seems to me to do: more with articles on religious beliefs where there could be disagreements between Christian denominations, for example, on what a word means. There does need to be care here, too, but problems with terms doesn't seem to be an issue in this dispute.

This is a very complicated topic in some ways, though, and the disputes here involve a lot of material from the article and from outside sources.

And just to clear up something else, in the responses so far there seem to be two issues being mixed together. One is the question about the existence of the strong connection between the GOP and the CR, and the other is the question about the "Parties" list. There are a number of editors who are acknowledging the connection and a number who are not, and that should be mentioned.

It's also not the case that the issue is about declaring the GOP a Christian party. This article is about the CR, not the GOP, and the GOP is closely tied to it, as all evidence shows (and there's been no evidence offered denying the link). It would be inaccurate to call the GOP a party OF the Christian right, but noting the association and briefly describing it (that the Christian right largely supports the GOP) should be acceptable.

On the "Parties" list, this is what was used for description:

Political parties associated with the Christian Right

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". Parties not defined as Christian but with significant Christian right backing include:

The first sentence was actually already there and I added the second. And the first sentence already sounds like it is referring to the GOP. But the only parties in the section were put under this description: "Some minor political parties have formed as vehicles for Christian Right activists." Since so much of the article is about the Christian right's relationship with the GOP, it's hard to understand why the GOP appearing in a list section, even with careful explanation of the link, is opposed.

One other thing too. Looking again at your comment, I will go to the article and other sources and will post more about them. Psalm84 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but the above offered little but your opinion. At this point I would be inclined to say that the compromise suggested is not necessarily even something needed at this point. How may disagree with your interpretation? I have given you a great deal of latitude to demonstate your position. You have not even attempted to do so. If you are not going to attempt back up your opinion of (A) "[T]he universally known association between the Christian right and GOP". and (B) that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". then there seems to be almost no dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. As I noted at the end of my last comment, I would take the time to find sources, and I have located some. One difficulty, as noted earlier, is that the connection between the GOP and CR is so well-established that it very very often isn't completely directly stated. For instance, the recent Values Voters summit was held, and there were many news articles (evidence that the media assumes the association) that called this the Republicans speaking to their base, and to religious and social conservatives. Most didn't even explain the connection further than that, so I left articles like that out, but had to go through many. This connection is so obvious and known that it takes a lot of leg work to pick out quotes that state the obvious because many of them don't since it's unneeded, just as the nightly news doesn't say, "Barack Obama, who's the President of the United States." I went through an entire introduction for "God Own's Party: The Making of the Christian Right" and didn't really find an explicit one even though the ENTIRE introduction (and the book too) is about the connection and describes at length things like the 1980 GOP Convention.

I also want to state here, too, that numbers, as someone else brought up, too, don't represent consensus. For one thing, from working on pages with different amounts of traffic, I've noticed that many very well-trafficked and debated ones get a more well-rounded representation of editors and end up more NPOV. And the consensus page itself speaks of the importance of including all important points of view and concerns. The fact that a page which is significantly about the Christian right and GOP link (which is something I'm looking at more closely to give some idea here on how much that is) avoids stating that in some places is concerning to me. Before this dispute was brought here there was opposition just to including the GOP in the lead and that thinking has carried over here.

I also believe that I didn't just provide opinions above, but arguments and specific responses about how I see these issues relating to guidelines of Wikipedia.

My concern here is about the quality of the article. While this debate was going on an editor asked me if information should be included on the CR being largely rural and less educated, and said they had sources for it, and I said that it should, if it can be properly stated and sourced. That is a complicated issue and there's been debate on that. But I am for impartial, informative encyclopedia entries, and it's the same with this issue, too.

So then, I'll post too some sources that I've found so far. Psalm84 (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (for now) to show "[T]he universally known association between the Christian right and GOP". and (B) that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". I would also ask if there are any reliable sources that deny this association, or claim it's a minor point, that they be added to this discussion too.

• For now, we are trying to see if the above can be demonstrated.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One result of these changes was the realignment of white evangelical Protestants into the Republican Party; such "values voters" now constitute an essential component of the GOP coalition. (The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics)

(1) Oxford Handbook, page 218. (Bolded so you can find them easily).

• What changes? Is this a quote from the Oxford handbook? There is no link, no ISBN or page number. You must provide a way to verify this information or it must be dismissed. This is your opportunity, please understand if you provide no way to verify this, there is no choice but to dismiss it here.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here in these responses, I'm going to request the assumption of good faith. There is so much research necessary here, going through dozens of pages of different books, just finding them as they're listed here, on the Talk Page, and then the coding, etc. This has taken me hours, just as it is. The books came from a list someone put on the talk page, they're at Google books. The pages I could easily find. What I'm also concentrating on too, here, is just strong statements about the connection which take reading dozens of pages just to find. And with Google books, you also must type out the quotes rather than cut and paste. This is so much work that I didn't include [s]titles[/s] authors, ISBN, etc. Psalm84 (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you find this too dificult we need not rush this. But it is upon you to provide the information and not require others to do your research. There is no assumption of bad faith, please do not create reason to do so.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly have nothing better to do than argue? It took me <30 seconds to find that quote in the cited book on books.google.com. So: The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics. Oxford University Press. 2009. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-19-532652-9.. Next time, try putting as much effort into your verification as into your abreaction. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  07:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The responsibility of the demonstrating verifiablity falls on the one who wants to include the information. This is Dispute resolution. If you wish to argue, you may do so on the article talk page, your own talk page or another venue. Not here. Thank you for providing the needed information.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Google books does not provide the needed page to confirm this. I want to make something perfectly clear. This is not a talk page discussion. This is the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard where you MUST provide ALL the information. NOT A BRICK WALL! If you CANNOT provide it, DO NOT USE IT! So, either you find the needed information or it will be dismissed as you have just admitted this isn't even your own source, just something someone gave you on your talk page. Are you serious? Is this how you intend to qualify your opinion here? I am amazed. Seriously amazed.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave another comment, but then I saw this one. I'm not going to leave that, though, because this situation needs some cooling off, it seems to me. On this topic, Google Books does allow you access. I have no special access either. Most introductions are just available if you scroll down, but the easiest way to find some thing is to search on a word or a piece of text in quotes and it will take you there (there is usually a search box in a left frame, or under the book information). And on the part about the Talk page, this was a book I either found by myself or was posted in a list by another editor, Moxy, was asked by someone through email, Moxy said, for books on the topic. Moxy posted that list on the article talk page, and I went and looked in those books. My mention of it was just to say that one thing I'm doing is going all around to try to see where this was poll was mentioned on the talk page, and where that quote came from, and it's time consuming because there are also a number of books I found through Google myself. Psalm84 (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very good understanding of Google books. Thank you. The point is...the page is NOT included in the preview. As such, if all you have is a google preview that does not include the page you are referring to, it is up to you to provide the quotes from the source. It is not up to me to find it. If you don't have have it, then you shouldn't be using it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously arguing that everything cited needs to be available on the net for you to read for free? That is complete bollocks, and a complete failure to understand sourcing in WP. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your failure to understand how the Dispute Resolution Noticboard works and you argumentative manner is not helping, but hurting this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The (1992) Convention illustrated the powerful role the Christian Right plays within the Republican Party and laid to rest rumors the movement was dead.

(2) The Right and the Righteous page 1.

• Nothing provided to substantiate this claim at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CMT Keeping all this straight, formatting here, etc. also is time consuming too. But I apologize if it's not clear, this quote is from the book below, The Right and the Righteous. Psalm84 (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In short, the Christian right will not go away...Neither will it leave the Republican Party.

(3) The Right and the Righteous: The Christian Right Confronts the Republican Party, 1996, page 1.

• Thank you for the link. But you have provided no page number. Certainly you do not expect us to read this entire book to verify a single claim?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the quotes have actually been typed out, I will google them all or just go back and find them. It will take a few minutes when I'm done looking through these comments. Psalm84 (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because typing into the search bar is too much effort, apparently? —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  07:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"More recently, the Christian right has become politically active, successfully aiming for inclusion into the Republican Party in a now more competitive two-party system." (4) Party Movements in the United States And Canada: Strategies of Persistence, 2006, page 81.

• Again, no page number.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the first entry - and the quote is real from page 218 of the Oxford Handbooks Online. The ptroblem is that it elides the material preceding it -- which is that the Democratiic Party took polarizing positions on certain issues, aligning with "religious modernists", but does not support the claims made for it otherwise at all. Specifically it depicts the Democratic Party as essentially forcing the white evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics (who, by the way, are not evangelical Protestants) out of that party, which does not support the thesis being promoted here. Also in that introductory essay, comments about this being a "culture war" based on the increasing importance of social issues in American politics. Thus Jelen's words must be understood to say no more than the anteceding section supports. Which means it does not work in Psalm's favour here.

The cecond entry is from page 81 of that source (looks like someone was Google-farming a bit), the salient elided introduction is:

Evidence of takeover efforts is often complicated by the difficulty distinguishing between the intentions of the groups involved and the co-optive strategies of the parties themselves.

Followed by a state-by-state listing of Larouche and the Democratic Party, etc. Ending with takeover is as much a tactic of movements on the left as on the right. Again - a source of no value to Psalm for the claims he desires to make. Collect (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Could you provide a link to that so we may all view it please? I have spent all night (I am not kidding) on this and I am going to bed now. I will return later today. If any other volunteer wishes to tag in. That would be great. If not, see you all in about 9 hours. (in case anyone is wondering, I believe this is the longest DR/N case we have had since the Occupy Wall Street cases. I could be wrong...but I doubt it. LOL! That is how I got involved here.)--Amadscientist (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used the regular "search in book" system -- but Google seems to allow different folks different pages at times, I fear. My quotes are accurate, and show moreover that Psalm seeks to have them say what they do not, in fact, say. Ball is in his court to actually come up with real sources which support real claims at this point - which, so far, has not been done. Cheers. [19] [20] Collect (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is the same as Psalm. Just saying I read it in a book is not enough. If there can be no illustration of text from the source it simply becomes irrelevant to the disussion. Fighting back and forth over something intangible makes no sense and doesn't move the discussion along. Let me look at the links you provided but as far as the The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics, I am taking out of the discussion. I askes specific questions about the quote and the source and recieved nothing. If editors wish to bring it up, please be prepared to type out the text and explain its context.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at this quote now and will type out the context of it. Psalm84 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page link(forgot with all this that they can be given):

Changes in the religious landscape have been critical in elevating social issues to the foregront of American politics. Prior to the 1970s, religiuos differences were mainly between Protestants and Catholics. These differences had political consequences, particularly outside the South, with Protestants aligned with the Republican Part, whereas Catholics and their Jewish allies identified with the Democrats. Increasingly, after 1970, conflict had taken place within religious groups, with battles over gay rights, abortion, and women's roles. Inevitably, these differences also had political consequences. Strategic elites in both parties found it advantageous to raise such issues, ensuring their prominence in the public agenda (Jelen 2000, Layman 2001; Jelen and Wilcox 2003; McTAgue and Layman, chapter 12, this volume). As Layman (2001) has argued, politicians and political parties saw new opportunities for these religious differences. Democrats aligned themselves with religious modernists in taking pro-choice positions on abortion and liberal stances on gay rights. In contrast, Republicans took the other side on both issues, joining religious traditionalists. The result was a "social issue evolution" (Adams 1997), similar to the racial evolution described by Carmines and Stimson (1990).

One result of these changes was the realignment of white evangelical Protestants into the Republican Party; such "values voters" now constitute an essential component of the GOP coalition. Meanwhile, mainline Protestants, the former bulwark of the Republican Party, moved to the center based, in part, on social issues, as did Roman Catholics, the old champions of the Democrats. The GOP's social issue stance had special appeal to "traditionalist" religionists, particularly in the South, and helped transform the region from a Democratic Party bastion to a Republican stronghold by the end of the 20th century. Moreover, the increased visibility of issues such as abortion, gay rights, and school prayer occasioned the rise of the Christian Right during the late 1970s... (Oxford Handbook) Psalm84 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for adding this. This helps a great deal. So, let me see if I understand you correctly. It is your belief from this source that "white evangelical Protestants", which this pubication refers to as "values voters" are what constitute both the core of that constituency as well as the core of the "Christian Right" for this definition? It seems that the passage does state that: "Strategic elites in both parties found it advantageous to raise such issues, ensuring their prominence in the public agenda". I would contend that this also states that "religious modernists" are aligned to the Democrats and "religious traditionalists" are aligned to the Republicans. This seems clearly stated and unambiguous. As I see it, the outcome is simply being illustrated in such a manner as to be clear that one portion of the Religious traditionalist have become "essential", meaning absolutely necessary (by this books definition) perhaps even indispensable, but absolutely speaking to only one set of the actual traditonalist...the white evangelical Protestants. The passage goes on to define the "mainline Protestants, the former bulwark of the Republican Party" as moving to the center...not to the right. This does not state that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". It is actually saying that the religious traditionalists split off with one section or group going to the Republicans and the "mainline" ( principal portion) of the Protestant "bulark" (strong support) going center. In other words..."Values Voters" are bing described as a small but needed portion of the traditionalists who have sided with the GOP, but the main faction did not.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see a different meaning in this selected text, and don't agree with your main point:

It is actually saying that the religious traditionalists split off with one section or group going to the Republicans and the "mainline" ( principal portion) of the Protestant "bulark" (strong support) going center.

The article says this:

"In contrast, Republicans took the other side on both issues, joining religious traditionalists."

"The GOP's social issue stance had special appeal to "traditionalist" religionists, particularly in the South, and helped transform the region from a Democratic Party bastion to a Republican stronghold by the end of the 20th century." Psalm84 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And although the article talks about the mainline Protestants and Catholics going to the center, it doesn't at that point attempt to say which party they went to. As the CR mentions, there are conservative Catholics, and the polls I've found show some mainline Protestant backing for the GOP too. Psalm84 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said Friday that he’s given Mitt Romney some personal advice: talk more about yourself.

I’m not the only one who has told Mitt that maybe he needs to talk more about himself and his life,” the Wisconsin congressman told an audience of social conservatives gathered for the yearly Values Voters Summit. “It wouldn’t hurt if voters knew more of those little things that reveal a man’s heart and his character.”

Romney, who spoke to the gathering last year but took a pass this time, dispatched Ryan to appear on his behalf before this core part of the GOP base. Social conservatives and evangelical Christians never have fully warmed to the former Massachusetts governor, given his Mormon faith and past reversals on social issues they hold dear. But Ryan is one of their own: a Catholic with an unblemished anti-abortion voting record in Congress and a reputation as a crusader for fiscal conservatism.

In his 30-minute speech, Ryan sought to energize these so-called values voters — a key portion of the GOP base that Romney’s campaign needs to help organize voters and turn out in droves for him in November. (Associated Press story on Values Voter Summit, 9/14/12)

• Meaningless. Of all that text that you posted, you are basing a connection regarded as fact from a sentence that ends with "...dispatched Ryan to appear on his behalf before this core part of the GOP base" (which is referring to the Values Voters, who are simply American social conservative activists and elected officials from across the United States) and another begins with "Social conservatives and evangelical Christians never have fully warmed to the former Massachusetts governor,". This simply does not support the claim. We regard this as elevating the information out of context. I personally call this pulling a rabbit out of a hat.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CMT This is an Associated Press news story, which is a reliable WP source. News stories provide background information that isn't as changeable as the currents events in the story and is required to be accurate. The GOP/CR link is an example of background information. The Values Voters summit is organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, and the article brings together "social conservatives," "core part of the GOP base," "social conservatives and evangelical Christians," "social issues they hold dear," "so-called values voters," "Ryan is one of their own: a Catholic with an unblemished anti-abortion voting record," "so-called values voters — a key portion of the GOP base."

This is all well and good except you are combining facts to produce another fact. Family Research Council organizing the summit does not equal the summit being a christian event. You are doing the very same thing with the information. IT DOES NOT make or support your claim of demonstrating a universally known association between the Christian right and GOP or that the Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point it is an unquestioned basic fact.

As noted, the news media passages aren't be offered as article sources but only as proof that the CR/GOP connection is well-accepted by the media. To prove that as I'm being asked to, it takes a mosaic approach and the point of this story is the Romney campaign reaching out to important block of GOP voters, which it identifies as evangelicals and social conservatives. As I said, even the "God's Own Party," a scholarly book, in a long introduction didn't expressly say it though every page described it. Psalm84 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It simply does not prove that the CR/GOP connection is well-accepted by the media. It doesn't. Its a WP:Trick Hat.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reed noted that in 2008, about 44 percent of self-described evangelicals — the core of the Christian right and the GOP base — turned out to vote in the GOP primaries; this year that number could approach 50 percent. (Washington Post article)

• There is a problem with that webpage. Ten attempts have all frozen and my browser simply closes.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why there would be a problem with you accessing it. I did access it right away from my link here. The article is called, by the way, "Santorum shows the Religious Right isn’t dead yet."

I believe the problem was with the flash animation on the page and seems to be fixed. OK, Ralph Reed is the head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and the architect of the Christian Coalition in the 1980s and is not a reliable source in that he is extremly bias and cannot be seen as an expert in this interpetation...which is inaccurate and misleading. It isn't the media saying this...it is Reed himself. This is an opinion that simply cannot be referenced as fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me just point out the title again. Santorum (GOP) and the Religious right. As the CR article discusses the two are often used as synonyms, but in the U.S. case the RR term automatically includes the CR. And the article does interview Christian leader Ralph Reed. His comment also isn't a direct quote, and it would be poor journalism for a journalist to repeat his claim without checking it since most readers would simply take it as fact. Interview subjects, even "partisan" ones, can present facts, but the journalist is responsible for how they're presented so that readers aren't misled. If the journalist disputed Reed's claim, they would have said so. They would have said Reed had his figures wrong, misinterpreted them, left out some information, counted something the wrong way, etc. The journalist, though, accepted Reed's poll numbers were fact and assumed responsibility for them, then inserted the description about the importance of the CR voting block. That would be why it's not a direct quote.

• Voters like Burkholder represent the Christian conservative base that was so lukewarm to Romney during the GOP primary season.

• The majority of the states with large evangelical populations are safely held Republican territory.

(Mitt Romney and Evangelical Voters: An Arranged Marriage, PBS Newshour)

• TONY CAMPOLO, Eastern University: Well, his television programming impacted this nation from coast to coast. It was through television that he was able to mobilize Americans in the evangelical tradition to become Republicans...Up until Jerry Falwell, it was kind of an even split between Democrats and Republicans. He changed the political landscape. Historians will write about him and say, because of Jerry Falwell, Ronald Reagan became president. (Campolo on Jerry Falwell, PBS Newshour discussion, 2007)

I also want to note that the Pew Poll that's been mentioned here (and cited in the article) says that the GOP has the support of 71% of white evangelical Protestants (and also has numbers for other groups such as Catholics). Another poll I cited on the Talk page which could be used in the article too says that "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." If I recall correctly, too, they came up with these numbers by asking about "church attendance."

One other note, too. It is not at all easy being the only editor representing this side of the dispute and trying to answer everything other editors are saying while researching too, and even though I'm only one, that in itself should not be the only factor, I believe. Psalm84 (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note...same here as a volunteer, but I am trying to help you, not hurt you. But you must understand that I requested this not be closed because I wanted to give you a chance. It is niether of our faults that the other involved editor refuses to engage on this board.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the "Christian right" article itself:

• Before any changes from me, the article's history of the CR began with a section that reported on the CR turning to the GOP, concluding with: "In addition, as the Democratic Party became identified with a pro-choice position on abortion and with nontraditional societal values, social conservatives joined the Republican Party in increasing numbers."
• In the Timeline section, it talks about several Presidents, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, and some of their actions. It also talks about the CR influencing two House takeovers by Republicans, CR opposition to Obama, and the 2012 GOP primary, including Santorum's candidacy being supported by the CR.
• The article also frequently links the CR and GOP with statements like this: "Political activists worked within the Republican party locally and nationally to influence party platforms and nominations." Psalm84 (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it does not support the claims as you sought to make them. Gee whiz - the article is clear, and it does not agree with what you assert it supports! Collect (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article portrays the Christian right as highly supportive of the GOP and closely tied to it. It talks about it a lot and putting the GOP on a "Parties associated with the CR" list with some explanation will only help to clarify things, I believe. For example, mention could be made there that there are other factions in the GOP, including the link to that article. Psalm84 (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got as far as this: "[T]he connection between the GOP and CR is so well-established that it very very often isn't completely directly stated" and as it is the second time you have stated this I am going to stop you right there and say that makes no sense. I have not read the full text but will get back to it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also state the following: "I also believe that I didn't just provide opinions above, but arguments and specific responses about how I see these issues relating to guidelines of Wikipedia." That is opinion and I really didn't see specific arguements using wikipedia guideline or policy but your stating that you didn't believe the guidelines I posted related. I am not at all impressed with that sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another off the top remark "I would also ask if there are any reliable sources that deny this association, or claim it's a minor point, that they be added to this discussion too." I have to say that at this point that is irrelevant and is just saying "Prove it isn't". Not a good sign.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have no way of knowing this, but just for the record, I'm not a "sir," but a "ma'am." And I'd to add that I've worked very very hard on editing and discussions to base them on verifiable facts and to respectfully state things.

This is also very difficult for me because of the nature of this. To put it bluntly and just asking you yourself, assuming you're familiar with American politics, but in the case of, for example, Rick Santorum appealing to the Republican base. Would you have needed to be told that he appealed to the base because they're conservative Christians, or did you already know that? Are you generally aware, in other words, that the Christian right is an important block of the GOP?

As to why I posted something a second time, it was because you had quoted me on that and asked for specific sources on it. I copied it to show specifically what the sources were about and that I was answering your request.

My reply, too, I believe, as I said, discussed "arguments and specific responses about how I see these issues relating to guidelines of Wikipedia." Looking back over it, I gave specific examples about how the media covered the link in the GOP campaign, offered a quote from the Oxford Encyclopedia, mentioned that this issue isn't about labeling the GOP Christian right since the connection can simply be explained, and gave the text that was included in the article to explain it.

I've put a lot of time and energy into this, as I know some others have too, including you here, and as I've said, and it's a hard thing to argue since the connection is so well established. Psalm84 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to find academic papers that link the two, either. For example, Guth talks extensively about how Obama swung part of the religious vote, but the right (evangelicals) “remained entrenched as the core of the reduced GOP”. Burkee and Walz say “In 2000 the "God Gap" favored the George W. Bush by twenty points: Six out of ten voting Americans who answered in exit polls that they go to church about every week voted for the Republican. That number grew slightly in 2004.” —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  08:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hicks says “Today, the religious right enjoys its greatest access to the corridors of power, particularly because of its relationship with conservative members of the Republican Party.”

And here are a few articles by Forbes (“Despite all of these factors, the national Republican Party remains closely tied to the Christian right and the narrowest issue positions it has represented.”), The Guardian (“Since 1992, the religious right mobilized by the sexual counterervolution has constituted the largest and most powerful bloc within the Republican Party.”), The Associated Press (“The Faith and Freedom Coalition's two-day conference proved that the religious right still plays a major role in the nominating process, even if it's less organized than during the Christian Coalition's heyday and economic issues are dominating the early campaign.”), and a somewhat older one by The Washington Post (“Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.”).

Of course I could also paste endless quotes from Huffington Post and many other sources, but there's enough obnoxious belligerence being touted here that I'm sure they would be dismissed out of hand. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  10:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before. If you think you are helping this case...you are not.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerfuffler, It is the opinion of this volunteer that you have a direct conflict that you are attempting to continue into this dispute case with no real interest in anything but disruption. If you continue this case will be closed and refered to formal mediation as the next logic course of action. I am requesting that you refrain from further input. Failure to do so means that you simply wish the conflict to interfer with this volunteers work on this case in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"First I apologise for my default "sir". But as far as your claim that you used Wikipedia guidelines or policy to argue your points...no, you didn't. You blew off my bringing up policy and guideline with: "On the WP:EXCEPTIONAL guideline, I don't really believe it applies here, since the GOP/CR link is a mainstream assumption. Because of all that support, too, I don't believe the WP:MNA concern, that something is being assumed that shouldn't be, applies either. But again, there are sources in support of the GOP/CR connection and many more available." I am getting seriously concerned with your obfuscation and walls of text that say little, provide nearly nothing to verify and then argue facts as presented to you in direct contradiction to what is being said. I don't understand what you think you are doing, but it isn't research and it isn't demonstrating your interpretation. You had a single editor defend your not having provided the needed information and if he hadn't simply followed me here from Talk:Innocence of Muslims just to be a pain, I might be inclined to see some support. I think it best to continue to have patience with you, as you are trying and there may yet be a way for you to rescue your supposed sources, but if you don't provide it here, I am not looking for it. This is your time Ma'am. I believe I have gone way out of my way to accommodate you here because you DO want to discuss this but please do not test my patience here. It has been taxed well enough and I am truly trying to help you, so help me.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I keep the guidelines in mind as I'm editing and research them when there seems to be any question about anything. In this case there is so much other research involved that specifically noting WP policies becomes more difficult, takes more time, and would add a lot of text. Most of the discussion has also been over sources and where WP policies have come I've tried to answer why I agree or don't.

In those guidelines you brought up, I did start a more lengthier response but I believe it was lost and that what I answered was sufficient. But on WP:EXCEPTIONAL, I'll explain more fully. The gist of the entry talks about fringe theories, mentions conspiracies, and "surprising" claims that go against "mainstream assumptions." This definitely doesn't seem to be the case here since it is the working assumption in politics and the media. The reporting on the GOP hasn't been, "there's a GOP and CR alliance," but "can Romney 'win over' the base," "will Romney's Mormonism matter to the Christian base," and "Santorum appealed to the Christian right base." There were numerous specific stories to highlight it, like the Pastor who said at last year's Values Voters summit that Romney wasn't a Christian, and the attempts by prominent Christian leaders to get together and form support and raise money for Santorum.

I also want to add that the CR article already describes this connection, as do other articles, such as Factions in the Republican Party (United States), where they're described under "Social conservatives." Here is the text from the Factions page:

Social conservatives

The term "religious right" is often used synonymously with Christian right because most of its members are Protestants, Evangelicals, traditionalist and conservative Catholics, although some are Orthodox Jews and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Both fundamentalists and moderates of said faiths appear in this faction, comprising a wide spectrum of beliefs that are typically united on stances as abortion or homosexual unions.

The Religious Right has become a powerful force within the GOP. This faction is socially conservative. Its major legislative issues in recent years include efforts to criminalize abortion, opposition (but not criminalization) to legalized same-sex marriage, and discouraging taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research. They have supported a greater role of religious organizations in delivering welfare programs.Psalm84 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full section:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Shortcuts

• WP:REDFLAG
• WP:EXCEPTIONAL

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.^[4] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;^[5]
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

I actually do contend that you are putting forth a "fringe" theory as stated at Wikipedia:Fringe theories:

Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. 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.

We balance the mainstream academic opinion, only when such opinion is of equal validity. WP:BALANCE:

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

It simply is not the working assumption in politics and the media that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". In part you have proven one thing, and really it was never in question, that is simply that the Christian right generally votes Republican. But it is indeed a minor point and unquestioned basic fact that it is a minor point. If I were to be overly generous I might even go as far as saying that "Values Voters" see themselves as very important to the party, but they are clearly not the full force and arm of that right wing of the Christian base. They are simply not the all encompassing portion of the Christian Right. Your sources bear this out, and one (Oxford Handbook) interpretes the opposite, that the main portion of only the Protestant faction went center.

"The Christian Right", by Grant Wacker of Duke University Divinity School states:

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. At the same time, many evangelical Protestants showed little interest in the Christian Right's political goals. Those believers, who might be called evangelical outsiders, included confessional Protestants (especially of Dutch and German extraction), Protestants from the generally apolitical peace churches like the Amish and Old Order Mennonites, fervently fundamentalist Protestants who were so conservative that they held no hope for America or any civil society, and black and Latino Protestants who tended to be politically liberal though theologically and culturally evangelical. Evangelical outsiders also included millions of born-again Protestants who were generally sympathetic to the political aims of the Christian Right but, as a practical matter, remained more interested in the devotional aims or charitable work of the church than in winning elections. It may be helpful, then, to think of the Christian Right as the large shaded area in the middle of two overlapping circles.

He also states:

How large was the Christian Right in recent elections? Hard figures are hard to come by, but polls and other indicators such as book sales indicate that the inner core—the shaded area—claimed no more than 200,000 adult Americans. On the other hand, fellow travelers, people who explicitly identify themselves as partisans of the religious right (a slightly broader category than Christian Right), ranged from ten to fifteen million. Sympathizers who might be mobilized over a specific issue such as abortion or gun control may have enlisted thirty-five million. Though the Christian Right's numerical strength leveled off in the early 1990s, its influence at the grass roots, in state and local elections, in setting school board policies, etc., has remained conspicuous.

This author seperates the Christian Right from the Religious right and accurately so. He says the Christian Right at a grass roots level stands out and is attracting attention...not the offical wing of the GOP as a party--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to make a short post on the "fringe theory" thought. Originally (and it has been about) adding the GOP's name with an explanation of the association to a list. The GOP is already central to the CR article, and for a reason. I'm sorry I got drawn into looking for more sources as it wasn't necessary, but if there is no CR and GOP connection then the GOP mentions should be removed from the CR page. If you are reading a WP page and clearly the GOP is a "big player" on that page, then it makes sense when listing parties to find a way, for the convenience and understanding of the reader who's been reading about the party at length, to summarize what the reader has already read with a link. No idea I've proposed to add isn't already a part of the page. If that isn't the understanding here, then there's been misunderstanding. Psalm84 (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that the GOP may well be a central part of that article. However, the DR/N filing you made was about the two proposal made that were either deleted or argued against. See below. As stated the fringe idea is "identifying the American Republican Party as being Christian right" .--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the opinion of this editor and volunteer for the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, that the case has not been adequately made for the proposed changes and list text identifying the American Republican Party as being Christian right. Therefore, I believe this revert/deletion was justified.[21]. Furthermore, it is the conclusion of this editor that the proposed changes [22] should not be made. 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. Many academics do make claims based on educated and qualified expertise, while others will form an opinion, make assumptions and state their point of view. When this is done attribution of the publication and author should be made and clarification of the stated opinion made in prose. It appears to be the rough consensus of this DR/N that these changes not be made as proposed. I won't be closing this filing immediatly to give editors time to respond with rebuttle and add any further comment to the consensus and/or propose any last compromises they feel may be justified, however if no further compromise is appropriate and all parties agree, I am inclined to close as "Resolved". Should an editor not agree with the resolution they have the oppurtunity to suggest what they can live with or request formal mediation as an option at this point but may not be the best choice.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

My concern then on this, is the whole article. Why is the GOP so much a part of it and what should be done about it now? As I said above, it's a main player in the article, so then should the GOP angle be removed from it, primarily in the history and timeline areas? Again, there is no "fringe theory" here because my only idea merely reflects what's in the article already, and that is all. It would be a different matter if the GOP tie wasn't in there, but the article itself already makes the only connection I ever sought to make.

The "Parties" list functions almost like a "see also" here, so my thought was that it is good wikipedia practice, and seen on other articles, for links to provided that correspond with important parts of the text.

I also want to add, too, that no matter the disagreements of opinion, I appreciate the time and energy that people who've participated here have put into this discussion.Psalm84 (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that you have tried really hard to present, to the best of your ability, the sources as you saw them, and present your argument in the best manner you could as you believed. However, one problem I note is that you do seem to disagree with everything that counters what you present. This doesn't show an attempt to understand what others are explaining. That can be a great asset in some situations but can lead to some unfortunate situations on an encyclopedia edited in a collaborate effort. Your concern about the whole article can be taken to other venues, but was never a part of the discussion as was presented or even as shown in the discussions. Just that these two points had become a "dispute". 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.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Rachel Corrie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs)
• AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An overview of the actions and intentions of Rachel Corrie on the day of her death is being repeatedly deleted from out of the lead section of the article on her. The deleting-editor gives as a reason for deletion that these specific details are disputed, but will not demonstrate how they are disputed nor provide reliable sources that confirm that contention.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1. I've recently initiated four topics of discussion on the talk page specificly about the lead and these issues (two of which have been ignored). 2. I've asked for details of what exactly is considered to be disputed info. 3. I've reworded the contested info to attempt compromise and so that it meets Ankh's obections (i.e so that it does not imply anything that is disputed by the various sources).

How do you think we can help?

I'm new to this coming to this board so I don't know exactly. Perhaps help us decide how to get out of this apparent impasse?

• Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and will be helping to mediate this dispute. We are waiting for opening statements from the other editors before we can begin. Electric Catfish 15:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ZarlanTheGreen (talk · contribs)
• Trofobi (talk · contribs)
• JHunterJ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute over the content of Broadsword (disambiguation) and application of MOS:DAB. The disputed content is the disambiguation between the types of swords that might have been referred to as "broadswords".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Well aside from trying to discuss it, I put this on Wikiquette assistance, but nothing much had happened except for me and Trofobi trying to argue some more (which seemed rather pointless), until the process of Wikiquette assistance was eliminated, recently.

How do you think we can help?

I dunno. That's why I'm asking for help. Manage to get an answer to my questions in some way, and/or get Trofobi to actually realise that (s)he hasn't answered or explained anything and actually bother to do so?

The user Trofobi made a significant edit to Broadsword_(disambiguation). I found it to remove a lot of information and removing certain good distinctions that was present in the old version thus I made a revert. Trofobi did not respond by discussing, but rather instantly re-reverted it. I reverted it again and it was re-reverted again, and it finally entered discussion ...but it's a discussion in name only, pretty much. I try to get a dialogue going, but Trofobi, repeatedly, refuses to answer basic questions ...or any questions, pretty much. Also the explanations Trofobi has given, are far too vague and need further explanations, which I have repeatedly asked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered 6 times^1,2,3,4,5,6 plus sound edit summary info, plus several edits fixing Zarlan's formatting mess, message misplacement etc. Furthermore there are (up to now) 9 more answers^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} on this topic by 6 other Wikipedians; none of whom supported Zarlan's edits in any way. I think there is nothing more to say, except for putting the whole thing on WP:AN for the ongoing disruptive behaviour and false accusations of Zarlan. (His 2nd rev for ex. was not only reverting me, but also two other authors, both from Project DAB. Only due to this I was so "bold" to revert it.) --Trofobi (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page cleaned up per WP:MOSDAB. Entries not ambiguous with "broadsword" removed, remaining entries formatted. The discussion has not been fruitful, since ZarlanTheGreen asks many questions beside the point instead of addressing the problems with the removed entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

Right now I am waiting for opening comments by JHunterJ and Trofobi before opening this up for discussion, so please be patient. In the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the "guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a reminder on Trofobi's talk page that we are waiting for him. If I don't get a reply in a day or so we will proceed without him. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

The prior discussion on talk page was never answered, so DRN can't help. Try WP:RFC instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Around 2005 I made the mistake of trying to add a link onto the global warming page. I found that there was an organised group of people who stopped others editing the article. After several years of trying to edit the article to better reflect the spread of evidence, I realised that more than likely the same people who write the wikipedia pages were also writing the articles, reviewing each others articles and preventing anyone with a contrary view from being published. As a result I am boycotting Wikipedia (with one recent exception). However, I still feel I should be able to raise areas which should be added even if to attempt to add them will result in a co-ordinated attack with the intention of removing me (as happened to many other people). The simple fact is that the Kyoto protocol is coming to an end this year. I have read the protocol and it is very clear that the "commitment period" ends. There is nothing about a second phase and despite the editors oft used rule "It's got to be in the peer review literature", no one has even attempted to demonstrate any legal or other basis for saying there is a second phase to Kyoto. I know I cannot edit the article however, I do not see why this should not be properly discussed. But as usual, any discussion of any nature which contradicts the eco-political bias of the editors has been squashed. 82.14.206.26 (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Family therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marschalko (talk · contribs)
• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute relates to the validity of a table created by User:CartoonDiablo, which he purports is an accurate reproduction of information contained in a table in the original source that he cites. I maintain that it is not, for the reasons stated on the talk page. The issue was also subject of a related dispute at Talk:Psychoanalysis. CartoonDiablo maintains that that dispute was resolved in his favor, but I do not think that is clear. In any case, my dispute relates to specific aspects of CartoonDiablo's table, that were not addressed explicitly in the previous dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page at Family therapy.

How do you think we can help?

Preferably, obtain an opinion from someone with expertise in the correct interpretation of scientific research and, in particular, meta-analyses.