4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: − + + +
→Article opening contains material not included in the reference which supposedly supports it: Tracing it back to another unconvincing "source"
Maybe he said it, maybe he didn't, but if it's going to go in the article I want to see a good source for it... good meaning, first, that it actually includes the words he's supposed to have said; second, isn't part of a patently anti-ACLU rant; third, does a reasonably good job of identifying the original published source that includes those words.
Maybe he said it, maybe he didn't, but if it's going to go in the article I want to see a good source for it... good meaning, first, that it actually includes the words he's supposed to have said; second, isn't part of a patently anti-ACLU rant; third, does a reasonably good job of identifying the original published source that includes those words.
Now, I also have an objection to the change from "Unitarian socialist" to "non-Christian socialist." ''Unitarian'' is perfectly specific. Since Unitarian Universalism is non-creedal, it cannot be described ''either'' as Christian or as non-Christian. Transforming "Unitarian" into non-Christian looks like POV-pushing to me. Many Unitarian Universalists describe themselves as Christian. Many do not. The UU's own statement on this is can be found [http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html here], the section "Are Unitarian Universalists Christian?" (First line: "Yes and no.") Wishy-washy? OK. Non-Christian? Not a fair characterization. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:13, 25 February 2007 (EST)
:One source attributes it to a book by a George Grant, "Trial and Error." It can be downloaded for free [http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/210a_47e.htm here]. Like the websites, it is clearly an anti-ACLU tract without much attempt at neutrality. It appears to have been published as a book by "Wolgemuth and Hyatt," publishers I haven't been able to find out much about. Amazon lists availability only of used copies. But, anyway, the point is: yes, the passage appears in the book... but only in an appendix and, once again, without any citation or attribution. It's in a section entitled "philosophical roots" and saying only "According to Baldwin," then launching into the quotation. No all-caps emphasis, though.
Now, I also have an objection to the change from "Unitarian socialist" to "non-Christian socialist." ''Unitarian'' is perfectly specific. Since Unitarian Universalism is non-creedal, it cannot be described ''either'' as Christian or as non-Christian. Transforming "Unitarian" into non-Christian looks like POV-pushing to me. Many Unitarian Universalists describe themselves as Christian. Many do not. The UU's own statement on this is can be found [http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html here], the section "Are Unitarian Universalists Christian?" (First line: "Yes and no.") Wishy-washy? OK. Non-Christian? Not a fair characterization. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:13, 25 February 2007 (EST) P. S. Of course if Baldwin self-described himself as non-Christian that would be legitimate, but transforming "Unitarian" to "non-Christian" is unfair (just as Mormon->non-Christian or Christian Scientist->non-Christian would be).
P. S. I also think the article should be moved to [[American Civil Liberties Union]], leaving ACLU as a redirect. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:15, 25 February 2007 (EST)
P. S. I also think the article should be moved to [[American Civil Liberties Union]], leaving ACLU as a redirect. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:15, 25 February 2007 (EST)