Talk:Christian Peoples Alliance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Is it just me, or does this whole article read like an advert for the CPA? GiraffeBoy (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demos2008[edit]

It seems most of the changes made by Demos2008 seem ignore any attempts at neutrality. His insistence on adding information surrounding allegations about Ademolake Paulleake has made a good case for removal due to it's lack of relevance and bias. Bondegezou is right when he says there are many unsupported claims in favour of the CPA.

Anti-Gay?[edit]

I've tried to improve the NPOV of the part of the article re: the CPA being 'anti-gay'. We really need a source for Gidoomal having been forced to resign as chair of BRC due to disquiet with the 'anti-gay' policies of the CPA if that claim is to stay in the encyclopedia.

Paulleake 19:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.refugeestudies.org/viewtopic.php?t=93 - discussion forum excerpt with contributions from staff at Refugee Council. The 'conflict of interest' is clearly the previous homophobic/anti-gay campaigning platform of the CPA.

they certainly are 'anti-gay' - their recent pamphlets in my area (Dundee West) were focused entirely on sexuality issues, listing every major or minor right homosexuals had been granted as proof that all other parties were 'anti-marriage': even things like Section 28 which have absolutely nothing to do with marriage! On a leaflet filled with text and tables, there was no mention of any policies not relating to gay rights and their alleged immorality

Are you sure that's the Christian People's Alliance?86.165.82.198 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are most definitely anti-gay. This is an article by their leader which is very anti-gay: http://www.alansangle.com/?p=851 Alexkumar (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Queeripedians smell blood. If not outing everyone in the world as a gayer, you are attacking those who would rather not be a gayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.111.134 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominionism[edit]

Wouldn't the infobox for Dominionism, also called Christion Reconstructionism or Theonomy, be more apropriate for this apperntly theocratic group that the more mainstream Christian Democrat template? Or Dominism as a term reserved for theocratic movements in the US and Canada?--Dudeman5685 05:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominionism is not a theological or political movement of any type whatsoever, nor is there a Christian "theocratic" movement in the United States, this is a myth perpetuated on left-wing blogs and political websites, a short conversation or phone-call with any nearby, evangelical pastor would probably reveal that he himself has never heard of the concept, which contradicts our motives, over-estimates our power, and countermands the Church. That Christians seek to elect Christians in the United States by no means implies that we intend to set up some insidious, nefarious, secret shadow-government, these are paranoid conspiracy theories born of ignorance and misguided distrust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV out to lunch?[edit]

The CPA's policy on homosexuality is based on the Biblical teaching that homosexual behaviour is sinful. This is a not unreasonable position for a Christian party to hold. What would be unreasonable would be for the CPA to promote the oppression of those who practise homosexual behaviour - but it does not in fact do this. The adoption issue is one where the welfare of the child is at stake. If you truly believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful and harmful, then it is perfectly logical to oppose the adoption of children by same-sex couples. You might not agree with it, and that's your right, but it does make sense as a coherent political philosophy.

The current article on the CPA is very christophobic, and makes a mockery of NPOV. Also, until I corrected them, the article had at least two factual errors, and it attempted to make political anti-CPA capital out of one of them.

The CPA is not theocratically inclined, as Dudeman5685 suggests. Their statement of political philosophy makes this clear: "We recognise the role of the Christian faith in shaping the liberties our nation enjoys. Though we want Christianity to continue to be our established religion, we affirm that it also requires the state to acknowledge the rights of religious and cultural minorities and to treat them equitably in public policy. We welcome the diverse faith communities present in our nation." (Mayflower Declaration - section entitled "The meaning of Christian Democracy")

With regard to the Dundee West pamphlet, I can't comment on a pamphlet I haven't seen. If the above report is accurate, however, then I think it demonstrates that the CPA consists of quite a broad spectrum of political and philosophical opinion. Frankly, I can think of much more important political matters for the CPA to be focussing on than what people get up to in their bedrooms, but it appears that some CPA supporters disagree with me. Well, that's their right. But in this area in the local council elections, the CPA policy thrust was on feeding the hungry and housing the homeless - problems that the council currently tries hard to ignore.

Let's have a bit more balance, shall we?

Cllr Ademolake[edit]

I've removed the para about the conviction and appeal of CPA cllr Ademolake as it is not directly relevant to an article on the CPA (no other party articles would include such details about councillors). It is also unencyclopaedic and Pov in tone.

Paulleake —Preceding comment was added at 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So is the whole article (unencyclopaedic and Pov in tone). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.101.225 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. But where in any encyclopaedia would the alleged misdoings of a councillor be recorded (it is not, for example, used as part of a demonstration of a political parties ongoing association with terrorism, crime or disorder, or a crime related to the political process)? I would hold the material more relevant to an article on Ademolake rather than the CPA (see Wikipedia Relevant of Content)
In addition the section:
"Here Ademolake was discharged on a technicality as the Crown presented no evidence. Apparently the Crown Prosecution Service lost the papers! However the only court that had heard the evidence (Stratford Magistrates Court)found him guilty." is PoV. "Ademolake won his appeal after the CPS offered no evidence against him" would be just as accurate. The coverage in Private Eye also suggests there is another side to the case. I believe the tone doesn't complie with NPOV guidelines - Fairness of tone and doesn't represent the reported view of the Crown Court judge that "Cllr Ademolake could leave "without any stain on his character"
In short, I don't believe the information adds anything to the article and I believe paints a partial picture. I'll leave the reference to the case in, but believe it should reflect the full picture and in a more neutral tone.

Paulleake (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Gidoomal[edit]

No one has provided any sources for the claim that Ram Gidoomal was forced to resign as chair of the board of trustees at the Refugee Council because of his association with the CPA. I've done a google search and can't find any back up for this. Could someone find a reference. Without a reference this claim ought to be removed per Wikipedia policy.

Fair use rationale for Image:Christian Peoples Alliance 2.gif[edit]

Image:Christian Peoples Alliance 2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

I've tagged this article as having NPOV issues. Much of the article appears written from the CPA's point of view, talking up their electoral success and popularity. I've done some work on the article but more is needed. In particular, several contentious claims are made without support from the literature. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than a year has passed and I don't see a problem with the current version, so I'm going to remove the tag. Luwilt (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jarring sentence[edit]

"The CPA has also received encouragement from other Christian democrat parties and are affiliated with the European Christian Political Movement."

CPA is singular for the first verb and plural for the second verb, which is somewhat inconsistent... AnonMoos (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian Peoples Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Membership and affiliations[edit]

I'm removing the first sentence from this section for the following reasons. 1. It doesn't say who's reporting the aim. 2. It doesn't actually relate to the party's membership or affiliations. 3. The phrase "rather than a fundamentalist position" doesn't have any obvious referent. If someone would like to put it back in (say, if you have access to the cited book by Freston), please completely rewrite for clarity. Meesher (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian Peoples Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Peoples Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_Peoples_Alliance&oldid=1206412775"