Talk:Christian Institute/Archive 1

Archive 1

List all the issues being campaigned

The article needs expanding because (as yet) it lists only a small fraction of the issues the CI is campaigning about. DFH 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any requirement for us to list their full range of activities? No other minor fringe pressure group listed here gets a free ad. Anyway, a casual glance at their current web site index page shows a fixation on battling gay rights and a gripe about Islam - seems this article amply reflects their POV. 86.144.76.133 10:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are four subsections on their web site today: three of them relate to sexual orientation and one simply announces the release of their annual report. The annual report itself contains much about the CI's efforts (all of which come to naught) to prevent gay equality, plus a few odds and sods about their new building. Based on the CI's own publications, both virtual and paper, this article accurately reflects their current main aims. Vacant Stare 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't read like an Encyclopedia article at all. Clearly it is an opinion article and probably should be deleted or rewritten (dave)

You need to be more specific in your comments, Dave. Specify which parts you have an issue with and why. It won't be deleted (the CI is sufficiently noteworthy as a pressure group to warrant an entry here) an as far as I can see, the current version seems pretty accurate and I'm not really able to pick out any POV: is it, according to its own web site, a fundamentalist Christian pressure group; it has a history of failed efforts to thwart legislation; the quotes provided are a matter of public record, etc, etc... none of which is POV. Please remember to sign your comment using 4 tildes. 81.159.211.209 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the tone of the article -compare it with other articles on controversial subjects and you will get the flavour. POV isn't just about making opinions but in describing "fact" in language that drives the reader down a particular thought path. Note for example your description here of the CI as "fundamentalist" which is a term that I don't think their website uses. Secondly is the Christian Institute noteworthy because of the failure of its campaigns or because of the content of the campaigns. An appropriate article should state the campaigns involved in first and then say that they were unsuccessful rather than making this the thrust of the argument. It's like saying "The Green Party are noteworthy for never ever getting an MP elected!" Or "The Labour Party are infamous for losing every single General Election against Margaret Thatcher" The article should deal with the content of the campaigns and the approach to the campaigns. Dave (193.63.62.252 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your reply. The article does not use the word fundamentalist (we can say what we like here, however.) Success or otherwise is not the thrust of the article: nevertheless I will remove the word and, as you will see, the CI's track record will remain unaltered. The aim of the campaigns is included in the article, and I'm not really sure why you say otherwise - we don't need to waffle on about them. As previously mentioned, the CI is a pretty ineffective pressure group and IMHO a vast article offering the full ins and outs of their workings really doesn't seem justified. 81.159.211.209 14:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you folk register and login rather than editing anonymously ? From a security viewpoint, it's better to display a proper username than making your computer's IP address visible to all and sundry. DFH 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and the edit. I noted the comment about fundamentalism here because although yes it is outside of the main article -it was an inaccurate comment and if it starts here there is the risk it feeds into the official article. IMHO a vast article is not required either, they aren't my favourite group-simply an accurate and NPOV in spirit as well as letter. As for effectiveness there are a number of issues. No group opposed to a Government with a 100+ seat majority is going to have much success! The effectiveness of groups in beginning to politicise Evangelical Christianity is a different matter -the CI certainly have a high profile and have arguably created debate inside and outside of Christianity. Furthermore they were key members of the alliance on the Religious hatred issue -which arguably gives them one success. They also publish material on subjects such as parental discipline and drugs Be Dave 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The CI, by assuming the Bible to be inerrant and the source of all guidance, is by definition fundamentalist. I would also suggest that the government's majority (I have not checked, but I am confident it is under 100... I should also point out that MPs/peers from all sides of both houses have voted to defeat much of what the CI supports) and the more general political avtivities of Evangelical Christians in the UK is outside the scope of this article. These are, however, point not worth us fretting over.

If you wish to rewrite the article, go ahead and 'be bold' as the Help section enjoins us to be. We will have to agree to differ, as, from my perspective, if I spent as much money to so little effect I am sure questions would be asked of me! :-) I would also repeat that the article (which I have only edited a tad, by the way - I claim no authorship) seems fair. The CI does indeed issue the odd pamphlet on other subjects, - we would also however have to remind readers of the time they issued "In the event of my death, I do not what my children to be adopted by homosexuals" cards, an action that had them hauled across the coals by the Charity Commission yet again.

Stonewall's article doesn't list every pamphlet issued and nor list in detail the claims from what could be construed as the other side of the coin. It sets out the group's successes, lists gripes some have about the group and gives a quick outline of its history/aims. It seems a fair model for this article's layout. That the CI's message is primarily negative, largely (tho not exclusively) focused on denying equal rights for others and that their success rate is tiny naturally results in an article that appears, is, more negative in tone.

As I say, please feel free to edit boldly, but I fear it will result in an article that is like the current one, only more so. 81.159.211.209 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the recent editing makes the improvements I've suggested -so thanks. Yes we can be bold but on a controversial subject it will only lead to editing wars. Incidently...no beleiving the Bible is inerrant makes them Evangelical not fundamentalist...an unwillingness to engage with academia especially higher criticism, a seperatist agenda, a commitment to the King James version of the Bible...are the defining points of Christian Fundamentalism and there is a respected difference between the two distinctives if some shared territory. Also UK government majorities were over 100 for 2 out of the three Labour governments and in the 60s in this parliament...that an article is "negative in tone" simply means that someone has intepreted a groups commitment to specific so called civil rights as their position on all civil rights and that the said civil right is a civil right...also that a group must immediately succeed in the face of high political odds. It is fair for you to state your POV here but the article read as though POVs were spilling over heavily into it. Incidently I've looked at the Stonewall article and if this one was modelled was modelled then that doesn't appear to me an adequate model. To suggest that one group on their own are responsible for the success or failure of specific legislative objectives, especially a group not actually electing people to parliament gives an inadequate explanation of the political process of a parliamentary democracy.193.63.62.252

I should first point out that I didn't write/originate this article so I can't comment with authority on the model used (if any) or the intent of the original author. The Stonewall article came to mind simply because they share a theme.

If a group of people believe any text to be inerrant and that it must be the basis for their way of living then I believe it is fair to say they are, by the definition I understand, fundamentalist - this is, however not a point worth debating to any great length.

The remainder of your comments seem to be in breach of WP:AGF, specifically implying ignorance and POV-pushing with those who share a different view. The use of at least one straw man is also unhelpful (as nobody has suggested that the CI is solely responsible for the failure to restrict the rights of others by legislation, your conclusion is erroneous.)

Other editors here have adopted a collegiate approach to your concerns: it is not asking too much that they receive the same courtesy. 81.151.36.171 23:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I've modified the talk comment above in order to iron out the language -I expressed my opinions there more robustly than Wikepedia is comfortable with and my issue in that respect is more with the limitations of the overall resource itself. My intention was certainly not a personal attack but a robust discussion of the approach to the article. Apologies for misunderstandings caused.

With regards to the "fundamentalism" discussion -the importance here might best be understood in the light of the following quote from Wikipedia's article on fundamentalism..."and in its use as a description of these corresponding aspects in otherwise diverse religious movements the term "fundamentalist" has become more than only a term either of self-description or of derogatory contempt" you can see from that comment that unless someone describes themselves as fundamentalist there is a high risk content in calling a group "fundamentalist" in that respect -in terms of using the talk section to help each other understand where we are coming from you will appreciate why I wanted to settle that point here.

I'm not sure what your last comment means but my intention here has to be to ensure a collegiate approach to this article, (in that respect I hope my own good faith is acknowledged) which is exactly why I've raised comments here rather than entering an edit war. (193.63.62.252 22:30, 25 February 2007 Upon further reflection there are some points in the (UTC))Stonewall article that might be helpful to follow e.g. The article has a seperate heading called criticisms.(193.63.62.252 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

This article is not based on any other and there is no requirement to mirror articles with a similar theme. While there is no doubt that the author on this Talk page used the term as they dislike the CI - they are not alone in that respect - the 'edit war' would not have occurred as at no point was the word with which you take issue employed in the article. While the discussion is interesting, this really isn't the appropriate forum; and the chance that the article might be edited to include the word is insufficient to warrant this ongoing debate:

Not wishing to stiffle discussion, nevertheless I suggest that this is probably the point at which to close this thread Vacant Stare 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

controversial

if we are going to gripe over the word controversial -then can we include enough citations to show that there was controversy caused . A particular group disagreeing with the inclusion of an amendment is different from controversial. Some level of high profile argument -media anguish, scholarly articles debating the principle or practicality of the ammendment, whatever seems to be implied. Indeed the controversy seems to be more to do with the CI's support for the ammendment or what the purpose of the amendment was (i.e. wa sit in good faith or wrecking) rather than the content of it which I don't think has been seriously questioned in a public forum. My preference is to leave colourful words out and let the intelligent reader make their mind up. The response of the Bill's supporters is included. I will leave the word in for the time being but am inclined to remove it again -as I said to give the reader the opportunity to decide for themselves rather than feeling led to a decision. Alternatively we could say that "Supporter's of the Bill considered the CI's tactics controversial..." how does that sound(Be Dave 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

Dave - with respect, your edits are some of the sloppiest I have seen in a long time. You also seem unable to restain yourself from drifting into lecturing us on your views, preferences and inclinations. We have plenty of official guides to style that I urge you to read. The nature of the amendment (note spelling) was discussed at length in the House Of Lords (a pretty public forum, you will agree) and is a matter of record in Hansard - ref 4 in the article will take you to quotes from various political parties who condemned the tactic. And of course the controversy centres around the CI's involvement - it was the CI's own amendment, put forward by their mouthpiece Detta O'Cathain! It is not incumbent upon us to reference each and every word in this article. Your changes will be reverted - please return to this Talk to seek a consensus before straying into the realms of your preferences yet again. When you do edit, please use the edit summary, particularly if the edits make a major change to the tone of an article: it is a basic rule. 86.144.79.30 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained my decision here before making the change and gave people chance to disagree. As you will see there has been plenty of discussion here prior to my changes and people have said "go ahead and edit bravely" Well it would have been nice if you had discussed the changes with me as you suggest rather than reverting and then making accusations.(Be Dave 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Be Dave - We are not here to create the blandest articles possible. That is not desirable. The uproar caused by the CI's amendment is a matter of public record (see Ref #3) and diluting or ignoring that damages the article and I would, on those grounds, return the wording to the original should you revert.

Explaining a decision here does not require your fellow editors to accept it. Editing Boldly is not the same as Edit Rashly.

If you take issue with comments given here or anywhere else on WP, there is a procedure to be abided by. Please see the Help section for guidance on this, and on ways that you can better view the site should you have difficulty. [NB - this comment is based on Be Dave's original reply which has since been amended by him. My points still hold good, however] Vacant Stare 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm Slightly amusing really. Firstly I left the changes several days after explaining what I intended to do -hardly a mark of rashness. Secondly note my point here was not that other editors had to accept it but that against the accusation made against my editing I did in fact bring it to the page here for discussion. Thirdly I tend to find that adjectives of that nature are best used sparingly. If I need to be told that something was "controversial" after its content has been described to me then it probably wasn't! I've took some time reflecting over these comments -it is quite difficult to see why my changes that included as per previous discussion a reference to the controversy caused in themselves caused such controversy. I know that I personally feel quite passionate about how we use language and have said before that I feel there is a tone to the whole article that sets the bias one way rather than the other. Maybe I am too passionate about that -I understand one appropriate thing to do in such a situation is to step back for a bit -maybe we should all do this and leave this article be for a while? (212.159.72.13 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC))(Be Dave 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Be Dave. As you are alone in feeling overly 'passionate' about the article, please do feel free to step back and chill for while. You have even previously taken up editors' time debating a word that doesn't even appear in the article! The rest of us appear to be merely reverting unhelpful edits, perfectly calmly.

Your reply is illogical - you say that refs should be provided to show controvery - when it is pointed out that a ref is already provided, you then say 'If I need to be told that something was "controversial" after its content has been described to me then it probably wasn't!' This is inconsistent, shows that you have not studied the article fully and reinforces the suggestion that you are pushing a personal POV.

While the tone of a previous comment was perhaps a little harsh, it contains useful advice: articles should be edited according to the Style Guide, not personal feelings. Please also be concise in replies here. Vacant Stare 08:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In my experience phrases such as "my personal preference" are simply a way of putting an interpretation forward in a gentle way. It doesn't mean the person is ignoring standard guidelines for a maverick/subjective approach. For the record I was editing in line with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines (see the Saddam Hussein example).

Note that the supposed reference is to a Gay Times Article about the CI's tactics and not to Hansard or any reference to a wider controversy about the amendment's content itself.

Finally could I draw editors' attention to the Civility article and its comments on edit notes? (Be Dave 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Although on reflection -I'm not sure why people would object to someone expressing a personal preference if it is based on experience as a reader and writer of reports and articles. That's always the way I've managed to get people to improve things -by having their own opinions on things.(Be Dave 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Question -are we saying that the content of the amendment was controversial -that the idea that siblings should avoid inheritance tax caused uproar, or are we saying that the tactics employed by the opponents of what in itself was a controversial bill (although we haven't felt the need to attach the adjective there) used controversial tactics to oppose it? (Be Dave 11:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC))