![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships was copied or moved into Jim Towey with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
I attempted to clean this section up a bit. I removed mention of a comment by a blogger as the blogger, herself, provided no references or proof that she had actually called Towey. The structure was awful and did appear to be original research. I tweaked some bits that were definitely not NPOV and fleshed out the point on Obama to cover his whole stance on the issue without, I hope, crossing the line into an add for Obama. The old wording, on the other hand, seemed more like an indictment. I also added reference to one comment regarding pagans that got a lot of attention at the time at least in the pagan community.
The article still has a little bit of the bad flavor of original research and really doesn't have any counter-arguments at all (big possible NPOV?), but at least the remaining comments are cited and the NPOV wording has largely been removed. Anyway, it's better now, though far from perfect. aremisasling ( talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This article indicates that the office no longer exists. As far as I know, the new administration hasn't done anything to abolish it at this time. It would take an executive order, as it was created by one. -- Son ( talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The article contained a list of members of an advisory council. While such a list might have been appropriate when the council existed, this is no longer the case. To avoid the list being lost, I will move it here:
The members of the Council [1] include:
References
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships was copied or moved into Jim Towey with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
I attempted to clean this section up a bit. I removed mention of a comment by a blogger as the blogger, herself, provided no references or proof that she had actually called Towey. The structure was awful and did appear to be original research. I tweaked some bits that were definitely not NPOV and fleshed out the point on Obama to cover his whole stance on the issue without, I hope, crossing the line into an add for Obama. The old wording, on the other hand, seemed more like an indictment. I also added reference to one comment regarding pagans that got a lot of attention at the time at least in the pagan community.
The article still has a little bit of the bad flavor of original research and really doesn't have any counter-arguments at all (big possible NPOV?), but at least the remaining comments are cited and the NPOV wording has largely been removed. Anyway, it's better now, though far from perfect. aremisasling ( talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This article indicates that the office no longer exists. As far as I know, the new administration hasn't done anything to abolish it at this time. It would take an executive order, as it was created by one. -- Son ( talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The article contained a list of members of an advisory council. While such a list might have been appropriate when the council existed, this is no longer the case. To avoid the list being lost, I will move it here:
The members of the Council [1] include:
References