Talk:Christian right

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article issues[change source]

Can somebody give me a good reason why this is complex, biased, or in need of cleanup? I don't really see it as complex, biased, or in need of cleanup Purplebackpack89 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's particularly biased in the mainspace, though it could use more citations. For example, statements like "almost all members believe in prayer in schools" need citations, because it may not necessarily be true. Also, the number of "critical" links is disproportionately represented. How about balancing it with a couple links to Christian right organizations? Kansan (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The links were there to begin with. If I a) add an proportional number of links, or b) delete all the links, will you remove the NPOV tag? And could you remove the redlinks tag as well, since it only has three? Purplebackpack89 03:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  I don't know. The entirety of the intro seems rather focused on the religious right in America. Are there non-American Christian right activists? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good question. I think the term is probably predominantly used in the United States, although I anecdotally know that there are some organizations based in Canada as well. I've gone ahead and removed two of the tags, but the article needs lots of references, especially for such a controversial subject. Kansan (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is predominantly used in the US, we should find a citation for that fact, which could lead to the removal of the tag. Otherwise, I'm okay with it for now. Kansan (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The English article seems to deal almost exclusively with the term as used in the United States, but has no citation for it. And LOL, there are more redlinks associated with the tags then there are in the body of the article Purplebackpack89 03:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being? We need refs, plain and simple. Speaking of simple, it doesn't need a complex tag, but could still be trimmed. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it needs refs. That's why the unreferenced tag is the only tag I haven't mentioned. Trimmed? Purplebackpack89 04:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]