Talk:Clause 28 Children's Protection Christian Democrats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RE: Clause Democrats How on earth was that a false summary? Don't start with me. Edit it with compromise, and be reasonable. There were no changes made to the facts, and this means the exact same thing! Don't be a phobic; and yes, it is a minor edit. Anyone with at least half a brain would see that as obvious.

I do hope that last statement is not taken as insinuation by golly. Techrontech 03:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. By the "minor edit" box you checked, there is a link entitled "what's this?". If you click on it, you will find an article informing you what counts as a minor edit. They key phrase in it is that "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." This was very clearly not the case with your edits.

Regarding the substantial change you made to the article, do you disagree with the original phrasing? If so, please clarify in what way you feel it is incorrect. You have introduced a very biased phrase ("committing of abortion", which implies that it is a crime or a sin, not a universally held opinion). You have changed opposition to "sex outside of marriage", which I believe is the party's position, to opposition to "adultery", which is a more limited thing, and a change to the phrasing about its use of the Bible, this last indeed being minor but also wordy, without adding anything. Warofdreams talk 04:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaflet

Is it appropriate to display a political leaflet as part of an article on particular party? Yes I know this particular one is unreadable and we do have some on wiki already, but as a rule these just show a photo of the candidate, not text. In keeping with a neutral POV I don't think its appropriate that this remains on the article page. Galloglass 07:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If it were permissable to display a political leaflet, I think it would be quite informative and could be beneficial to an article, provided that it did not dominate and was clearly an image, not Wikipedian-generated content. However, I am extremely doubtful that this one can be licensed under the GFDL (fair use, perhaps), and being illegible, it loses most of its value. Warofdreams talk 02:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Website

It would be helpful if there were a link in this article to other information about this organization. MsgrCloche 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no information available on this 'organisation'. Galloglass 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some campaign material available at [1] and minimal information on the Electoral Commission website at [2]. With the difficulty in verifying more than the most basic facts about this group, I wonder if this article should be made a redirect to David Braid (campaigner)? Warofdreams talk 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think a re-direct is in order as it is a 'registered party' even if, as appears the case, that David Braid is its only 'active member'. Nice find on the info btw Warofdreams. Galloglass 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)