Talk:White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Please give this article attention
I can't believe that a subject of such great importance in modern political discourse is reduced to such a stub. I wish I was more of an expert on the subject, but I also feel myself to be extremely biased and feel it is best if I abstain from editing the article. However, I would like to urge that attention be given to this article. Wish I could be of more help. FluxFuser (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If someone has an NPOV complaint, please post to talk before deleting sections of text.
- No sections of text were deleted in the edit you reverted; one word was changed.
- My mistake, the diff looked like a paragraph had been blanked, but it was just moved.
Deleted some section calling other points of view "extremist and illiterate" because this is not the tone of an unbiased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.135.69 (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] sign! [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]]
Why are David Kuo & "Tempting_Faith:_An_Inside_Story_of_Political_Seduction" not listed?
hopiakuta ; <nowiki> { [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ; </nowiki>]] 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC) This article could be much better, I have written a legal memo on this subject. The article on the Establishment Clause is pretty fuzzy too. Because this is such a controversial area, I would stick with a legal analysis of the Supreme Court's cases dealing with faith-based funding-Mitchell and Bowen. Once the permissible current contours are established, Bush's Faith-Based Iniativie and Charitable Choice(not even mentioned) may be discussed. The Court has not yet ruled on the constitionality of Bush's plan. The Court has agreed to hear a standing case involving the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in Hein.75Janice 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)75Janice 6:06 UTC 30 December 2006.
I wrote a legal memo on this topic. This article could be improved. The major U.S. Supreme Court cases and major cases already decided by federal district and courts of appeals are not even mentioned in passing. This will be my first attempt at editing an article in wikipedia. I wish someone else were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 04:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Restoring section for the record
The following discussion was removed from this page. As a record of the discussion, it is relevant that it remains, despite the fact that it refers to blogs etc that have no part in the actual article.
- Teen Challenge
- Why was the Investigating Teen Challenge link removed? Is the site considered irrelevant, or is this just blanking? Mbelrose 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- According to another edit I read "a blog is not a reliable source of information". --t (19Jun07)
- If you can't find these two websites that are critical in exposing the 'other' side of Teen Challenge, memorize their names and then Google them.
- Teen Challenge Exposed
- Investigating Teen Challenge —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustTellingThe Truth (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages document the process of the development of the article, this section should remain documented in case, for example, it is raised again. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The section was removed because it was irrelevant to the article and belongs exactly where it is at - The Teen Challenge talk page.
-
-
- yes, people often make irrelevant comments. in this case, the author was clearly linkspamming, and did so elsewhere.we keep them in the talk pages (not the main article) for the record anyway. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-