| | ::::Sources: Adam Yahiye Gadahn: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian New Yorker] John Walker Lindh: [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org] Franklin D. Roosevelt: [http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm National Park Service] | | ::::Sources: Adam Yahiye Gadahn: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian New Yorker] John Walker Lindh: [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org] Franklin D. Roosevelt: [http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm National Park Service] |
| | ::::BTW, the article is [[Homeschooling]], not [[Christian Homeschooling]]. Perhaps you may want to fix that. Either way, all three were Christain and Christian homeschooled as the sources show. But this and my earlier point prompts a bigger question which you seem to be ignoring. If we'd rather not have in the list those who were homeschooled but may be viewed as casting it in a poor light, then let's just come out and say that and not pretend that sources say something other than they do or rely on turns of semantics to contrive justifications for an incomplete list. If our ideas are indeed that strong and compelling, then they can easily withstand being scrutinized in full light of all facts, and to act otherwise by ignoring or dismissing unfavorable facts only undermines our position and claims and invites greater scrutiny. If we're going to not be viewed as a partisan tool we need to accept and acknowledge all facts and let the chips fall where they may. Better to succeed on the strength of our ideas rather than machinations and subterfuge, I'd think, don't you? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:18, 27 February 2007 (EST) | | ::::BTW, the article is [[Homeschooling]], not [[Christian Homeschooling]]. Perhaps you may want to fix that. Either way, all three were Christain and Christian homeschooled as the sources show. But this and my earlier point prompts a bigger question which you seem to be ignoring. If we'd rather not have in the list those who were homeschooled but may be viewed as casting it in a poor light, then let's just come out and say that and not pretend that sources say something other than they do or rely on turns of semantics to contrive justifications for an incomplete list. If our ideas are indeed that strong and compelling, then they can easily withstand being scrutinized in full light of all facts, and to act otherwise by ignoring or dismissing unfavorable facts only undermines our position and claims and invites greater scrutiny. If we're going to not be viewed as a partisan tool we need to accept and acknowledge all facts and let the chips fall where they may. Better to succeed on the strength of our ideas rather than machinations and subterfuge, I'd think, don't you? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:18, 27 February 2007 (EST) |
| | + | ::::: Harpie, you can add here what is factual, but not what is misleading or wrong. Gadahn and Lindh are Muslims, not Christians. Surely you don't think attendance at a Christian school, or Christian homeschool, makes one a Christian. If that were true then Bill Clinton would be Catholic for having attended Georgetown. He isn't. |
| | + | ::::: I looked at your first two links above. Neither claimed that Gadahn or Lindh were Christian homeschoolers. Gadahn appears to have joined some Christian homeschool groups out of necessity, and with serious disagreements. I found no claim that Lindh even did that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 27 February 2007 (EST) |