Talk:National Prayer Breakfast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harpers and Newsweek have also carried recent stories on this group, it's goals, and it's origins.

It's goal of global Fascism under a slogan of "Christianity" is unchanged from the group's beginnings. These people plan long-term, and they don't give up on total power. If you controlled half of Congress, the majority of the Judiciary, and the White House, and had a whole political Party, the controlling one, eating out of the palm of your hand, and they support your plans for a "Thousand Year American Reich", would you give up either?

40,000,000 people were murdered for this cause [or for defeating it] between 1940 and 1945. These people would be willing to have a thermonuclear war if it met their ends.


  • While your commentary on this organization was quite verbose (if it was yours), it does not belong on a page about the National Prayer Breakfast. And please sign your talk pages --Nscheibel 15:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The research work was attributed. More attributions have been added. The origins and goals of the National Prayer Breakfacst are relevant, and straight from the Fellowship Foundation's own records. Biographical information on the people involved and affiliated is well known. Need I get ADL involved in this? I don't want ANTHRAX by special delivery, so I'll refrain from signing. The people behind this group in various states have been implicated in many Anthrax threats.

Contents

[edit] Deletion of historical background information

Why is the Wikipedia staff deleting the well-researched, well-documented, and WELL-PUBLICISED background information on this group?

The information is factual.

The information is verifiable.

The information does not contain POV, only facts about the people that have been well-researched by many investigative journalists.

First of all, Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. Next, your additions have been copied verbatim from an existing website, and therefore constitute plagiarism and copyright infringement. I have reverted your contribution in order to remove the copied text. First, you must obtain special persmission to use a copyrighted work (or otherwise explain why your use falls under fair use), then you must adequately cite your sources. Please review Wikipedia's policy on this matter. Also, the source you have copied fails to document and cite the claims he makes, and therefore maybe questionable under Wikipedia's Verifiability policy.
No. I don't want these guys to send me Anthrax. Only one set of extremists in the United States has a long and illustrious history threatening people with Anthrax, and that's Christian Fundamentalists. I will *NOT* sign these. I have a right to protect myself from Religious extremists, especially the kind that has performed over 30,000 terrorist acts on US soil against Americans in the past decade alone [I can document those too], including the only use of biological warfare agents against Americans in recorded history [look at all the targets. All liberal congressmen, liberal press, and one republican Governer who had been threatened by religious freaks for being "liberal"].
Signing your posts makes reading easier, but even if it is not signed it is possible to find out who wrote what. Signing is matter of courtesy and convenience, not security. 212.200.52.11 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Next, your text seems nearly irrelevent to the topic at hand. Would not background infromation about the Fellowship Foundation be more appropriate for a history section on that page?
My text details the history of the Organization, the people who founded it, and their goals, past and present. Jesus said it himself. "Ye shall know them by their Fruit". This group recruits from the leaders of this country. All of this text ius relevant. This group has not changed a single goal in 71 years, they want a millenial "Kingdom" where THEY and their kind are the Kings. These people are quite open in how they will do this in their churches and sermons, and are equally open about what they will do to "non-believers" once they achieve this. When was the last time you went to church? Try Ass. of God, you'll get an earful.
Next, you are not being concise, nor encyclopedic. Please try cutting down the sheer amount of your text, and review the tutorial at your leisure.
On matters such as this, detail is the key. I don't want to be accused of lying by the Radical Fruitcake Right. I know this tactic, and they NEVER fail to use it where there is lack of detail. I know the enemy, and his technique. Now I have met him. Hello.
Finally, your images are not pictures of the National Prayer Breakfast, and are therefore irrelevent. You also may want to consider reviewing the Picture Tutorial. The images are too large, and do not fit well with the design. I don't mind helping you with this, or even 'fixing' the formatting for you, however, like I said initially, the images are not applicable to the topic.
All of the images are of, or about, people directly involved with the National Prayer Breakfast. All pictures are period. All pictures reflect the truth of the text. Most importantly, all of the pictures are public domain.
I urge you to read more about editing wikipedia before changing this page again. Please feel free to ask questions here, or on your talk page or mine. --Andrew c 14:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm about to accuse you publically of being a Religious extremist. There was no reason to delete anything on this entry. I didn't vandalize your entry, I left your entry intact, and at the top of the page. If you care to dispute the facts I presented about the people and their goals, please do so in the page. I would find it interesting if you can. Your vandalism has only served to demonsrtrate to me the Radical Fundamentalist influence here at Wikipedia, I suggest you offer rebuttal instead of vandalizing the entry. Today I plan on adding some rather interesting stuff about Vereinde. This will be an ongoing research project. Unfortunately, this group is quite extensive, and quite insidious. Do not vandalize my compilation and work, feel free to offer rebuttal points, in seperate blocks of text. This group's history and goals should be known to the American public, and the World. You have yet to explain why not.

[edit] Historical cartoons about members of this group added.

These cartoons are in a taxpayer-funded collection at UCSD, and as such are public domain.

The relevance of these cartoons is reflected in that they all depict the people and groups affiliated with the "Prayer Breakfast" movement, and who had participated in their events - as well as their stated reason for participation.

The cartoons reflect the widespread and undisputed knowledge of the groups and persons depicted at the time of their publication in 1941.

[edit] To prevent a possible misunderstanding...

I ran this Entry past a friend of mine, and he thought that some editor could misinterpret the statement of fact at the end of the "Foundations..." section as POV, when in fact it is solid and documented fact.

This group was one of the loudest groups in support of Lindbergh to be nominated at the Republican Convention back in 1940 and 1941.

This group endorsed George W. Bush, in 2000.

This means the statement "They had to wait until the year 2000, but they got in" is pure and verifiable fact, and not a biased POV. Deletion of this statement should be considered vandalism, should it happen.

It is historically relevant for America to NEVER forget who brought us Bush, and how Bush has taught us that their goals have not changed in 71 years. These people backed Hitler for a reason, and they have been willing to wait for their thousand years of power.


OK...a bunch of concerns here.

First of all, the text added to the article is most likely copyrighted. A link is fine, cutting and pasting someone else's article is not.

Second, this text is NOT about the National Prayer Breakfast, it is about The Fellowship Foundation. As you can see, there is an article about them.

This text is all about the "Prayer Breakfast" movement, and the founders of the "National Prayer Breakfast", and their REASONS, as stated and practiced for forming them. Oh, and the "Prayer Breakfast Movement" preceeded the "Fellowship Foundation", that's why this information is here. The one grew out of the alliances and loyalties of the other. I'm addressing the other.

Third, "They had to wait until the year 2000, but they got in" implies George W. Bush is a fascist. I might agree, but since he has never claimed membership in any fascist organization, I think it would not qualify as NPOV.

Bush is a Fascist. What planet have you been on? I defy you to find me a definition of Fascist that does not support the conclusion that Bush is Fascist. Also, This group sponsored Lindbergh in 1941-44. This group was one of Lindbergh's loudest supporters. This group ENDORSED Bush, and is still one of his LOUDEST supporters. My statement is neutral, and my statement is FACTUAL. They got their guy into the White House in Y2K, and not 1944. Please take me up on this challange. Find me one definition of Fascism that does not include every bit of this Administration's own policy. Musillini's own definition that he wrote for the 1932 Encyclopedia Italiana says he is. I hold that deletion of this entry over that one line reflects that you are a non-neutral POV. The facts suppoert that this is not POV, and that the sentance wqas merely a statement of fact - one that is fully verifiable, and well-referenced in the text and references. Your asssertion that Bush cannot be defined as a Fascist because Bush doesn't personally claim the definition is ludicruous, and would get you laughed out of History 101. Oh, and Jesus said it himself "Ye shall know them by their Fruit". Hello, religious extremist.

I'm no fan of the Fellowship, but this topic should deal with the National Prayer Breakfast and be NPOv, and this text is not --Nscheibel 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything I have posted here is cited. I am not posting other people's articles. I am posting snippets that are protected under Title 17 as "Fair Use". I am staying within the law. I am compiling information and segments from elsewhere. I am adding some commentary of my own. The firsthand eyewitness accounts in the books of those who atteneded the events in Nuremberg and Berlin cannot be removed due to their historical relevance to this topic. I quote extensively in the "Roots" section from the Wayne Madsen report on this group, I can obtain his permission to do so, and he is already cited. Also, since my use of his material is less than 1% of jhis expose, I fall within the leagal guidelines of Title 17's Fair Use as well, as the courtroom rule of thumb cutoff is something like 20% -- oh, and did I say, I can obtain his permission?

[edit] Vandalism by Religious Extremists will not be tolerated.

If you have some information about this group that rebuts my entry, feel free to add your own entry, as I have. Note the original entry is intact at the top.

Sorry for the amount of detail, people, but I know my enemy, and they demand detail, and more will be added about Abraham later today, and they won't like what I've found on him, this weekend I'll work on his successor and current head of the orgasnization -- I've already been told by some insiders what I'll find on him, and the Religious Fanatics won't like what I'll have here on him. This is a work-in-progress, so, please do not vandalize it again. If you care to add something to your liking create a different section - but leave mine intact - or this dispute will get very public, very fast - since that seems about the only way to resolve a dispute here.

[edit] Small incremental changes

I would suggest perhaps a better way to go is to add materials at a slower pace. Controvercial materials require good references, and there is no going around it. Even better would to add non-controvercial material first, so that you would be making positive contributions right off the bat. --MegaHasher 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we fasll into the trap of Religious Extremists making a valid argument that what is being said isn't being substantiated, and therefore they call for the whole thing to be deleted. Sorry, I have extensive experience fighting these people, and I know their tactics. Whole books have been written on these people. This entry is quite succinct.

[edit] Violation of Fair Use

I removed a long passage from the article due to copyvio. One of the fair use tests is proportionality. Since 100% of the source's content was copied to the article, the test is not met. Feco 16:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is funny, the lengths that religious extremists will go to coverup stuff they don't want in the open. I will email my friend and ask him to give me a mommy-note for you. where do you want him to Cc: it?
Please sign your posts on talk pages. Your activity is automatically logged on the history page, so not signing the page does not make you any more anonymous. By 'sign', we are refering to typing four tildes (~~~~) after each entry, in order to automatically post your username and time and day. This way, users reading the talk page do not have to refer to the history page in order to figure out who said what.
Next, calling people "religious extremists" is a personal attack. You may want to review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. And assuming good faith never hurts.
To answer your question, you may want to review both the using copyrighted works section of the Wikipedia:Copyrights page and the Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. The procedure for documenting permission is presented on the latter page. However, keep in mind that even if you get the permission to use your source text, you have to realize that the content is still quesitonable under Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Finally, please keep in mind what others have said. Starting off with small, incremental changes is a good way to introduce yourself to wikipedia. --Andrew c 22:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on what the copyright violation notice says, it seems this article will be deleted next week? What's there now is not a copyright violation, and it would be a shame if this whole article disappeared. Second, in response to our anonymous modifier, I have a few things to say. First of all, I am not a religious extremist. I started researching this group a couple of weeks a go and was horrified by what I found. I decided to do some edits and cleanup to this page and to the Fellowship Foundation page. I have slowly made some modifications and added relevant information. But Wikipedia is not the forum for airing your concerns. There are a lot of conspricacy theories, and probably a lot of truth in them, but if you have something to say, write an article, host it on your website, and we can link it from this page. Second, if you are so worried about Anthrax, why are you logged in when you modify this page? Not signing the talk page is inappropriate, but you should click on the history page sometime. How anonymous do you think you really are? --Nscheibel 15:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


The edits containing the copyrighted material have been deleted, please do not re-add the information unless you have permission *first*. Please see the Wikipedia:Copyrights for information on how to register that permission with the Wikimedia Foundation. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)