Talk:United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

Web links

The link to http://www.uscirf.gov/ doesn't seem to work. Bernburgerin 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Commissioner and his Organization's freedom of religion track record

Commissioner is nominated because of his position at a Private Organization. Thus, His and his organization's freedom of religion record is relevant. Check the USCIRF website for details. This is true for all sectional advocacy group.

Hypothetical example, If Walmart VP is a commissioner of a free-labor sectional advocacy group then VP, and Walmart's free-labor track record becomes relevant. More-over, Is Walmart VP abusing his commissioner position by opposing mom & pop business and pushing Walmart agenda is also a relevant question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs) 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your first claim is not correct. According to the USCIRF website, "Commissioners are selected for their expertise, not because they represent specific religious communities.". Also, there's no evidence that the commissioner was involved in the given events. In any case, the allegations against the Southern Baptist Commission and the IMB have no reliable source. (The HAF is an advocacy group and so not a reliable source.) Spacepotato (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Spacepotato: There are 3 problems here, So let's deal with them separately. First problem: On what basis commissioners are selected ? Answer: According to USCIRF website, "Commissioners are selected for their knowledge and experience in fields relevant to the issue of international religious freedom". How did commissioners gained that expertise? They gained their expertise by working in an organisation. The Organisations are listed in commissioner's bio on uscirf website. More-over, Commissioners haven't resigned from those private organization in question. In conclusion, Commissioners are selected based on their expertise developed at private organization listed in their bio. Hence, Track record of commissioner and his organization is relevant.

Second one: You say Richard land was not involved in the anti hindu event at SBC, but Anti-hindu event at SBC falls in the freedom of religion sphere. That's like saying that VP of labor-relation was not involved in the labor dispute of his employer.

Third one: You claim that HAF being an advocacy group is not a reliable source. If your claim is true than we should put a big disclaimer on USCIRF report and deem it unreliable because USCIRF itself is an advocacy group. Unbiasedpov (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Conflict of Interest" section

I removed this section because it appeared to be made up completely of original research. For example, it made criticisms of the USCIRF such as "Commissioner’s duel [sic] public and private role can produce conflict of interest and biased recommendation favoring one religion over other" and "Instead of reporting factual violence involving all religions, USCIRF uses deceptive hyperbole and discriminatory omission". However, these criticisms were not found in the quoted sources. It is not permissible to insert one's own personal editorializing into an article. Criticism can only be reported as it is found in reliable sources. Spacepotato (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Conflict of Interest" is real, and USCIRF also has a conflict of interest and antinepotism policy. Check the USCIRF website. http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=45 More-over, Most commissioners are affiliated with evangelical religious organization making it extremely difficult for commission to behave in non-partisan manner. That's precisely the reason USCIRF website states “Commissioners are supposed to act as individuals on the commission’s behalf and not as representative of their private sector or religious organizations”Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph of "Criticism and Controversy" section

I removed this because it seemed to consist mostly of inconsequential political gossip, such as a proposal to cut the funding of the USCIRF (which was denied) and a possible request for an investigation (which was withdrawn.) Rumors of infighting are already reported above. Spacepotato (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reverted most of some recent edits to the "Criticism and controversy" section, because they extensively misquoted sources, and added unjustified categories, such as Category:Anti-Islam activists. Also, regarding the commission's 2009 visit to India, I think it should suffice to give enough criticism to give an understanding of how the controversy arose and what it consists of. The article should not become a forum for quoting every possible piece of rhetoric against the USCIRF as this is not helpful to the reader. The edits did add some interesting material regarding the commission's 2001 visit to Egypt which I hope to improve and add back momentarily. Spacepotato (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted back. The determination of HAF needs elaborating to balance out the pro-USCIRF slant in the article. Furthermore, the USCIRF-lobbyist edits constituted Yellow badging of minorities (using inflammatory and conspiratorial terms like "Hindu lobbying group" etc.) and was Original research and Undue weight. The categories are entirely appropriate, as both the Egypt & India incident, as well as the allegations of bias in the United states make the categories relevant. Furthermore, I do not think that the virulently bigoted USCIRF would object to be referred to as anti-Hindus or Anti-Islam activists, they would probably be quite proud of it.117.194.196.42 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted these edits, for two reasons:

1. They turned the article into something of a quote farm of rhetoric attacking the USCIRF. I disagree with the assertion that the article has a pro-USCIRF bias. If anything, it is already too heavy on the criticism and controversy, and the reader would benefit from seeing this summarized more briefly. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article on the USCIRF, not on Indian nationalist (or Egyptian nationalist) rhetoric. The article benefits by informing the reader about the controversial nature of the USCIRF, but it does not benefit from being used as a forum to deliver invective.
2. They misrepresented sources (such as the May 21, 2001 article in Christianity Today and the August 14, 2009 piece on Orissa Christians in rediff News), which is original research and not permissible. The categories added were also unsourced. Personally, I rather think that the USCIRF would strongly object to be referred to as anti-Hindu or as activists against Islam, but regardless of one's personal view, it is not possible to add categories without a reliable source ascertaining that the group is in this category. This is also original research.

Also, as regards the terms (1) "Hindu official" and (2) "Hindu lobbying group", these were included simply to let you know the point of view of the speakers quoted, and who they speak for. They are not there to demonize. The source calls (1) a "noted Hindu pontiff", so I think it is not original research to call him a Hindu official. As for (2), the HAF's own website describes it as an advocacy group for Hindu-Americans. However, I have added a source for the assertion that the HAF is a Hindu lobbying group.

Spacepotato (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this tactic won't work. See Jewish Lobby for instance.The term is inherently demonizing in the context of US politics, and involves subtle pro-USCIRF (the granddaddy of all militant Christian lobbying groups) attempts to deflect criticism by poisoning the well. Just because one person expresses an opinion that HAF is a "lobbying" group does automatically entail USCIRF activists to label them as such on wikipedia. The inclusion into the categories is well justified. Putting an article about an organization in a category such as Category:Anti-Hinduism or Category:Anti-Islam activists does not mean that the wikipedia article accuses them of anti-Hinduism or Islamophobia, just that notable and relevant sources accuse them of such, much like inclusion of Adolf Hitler under Category:Antisemitism. Furthermore, given that USCIRF reserves most of it's attacks on Hindus and Muslims (and none for Christians), it is highly likely that they will not really object to being called as anti-Hindus or Islamophobes (which is what they are), although they might stage a superficial protest for media purposes. In that vein, they are probably like the British National Party or Vlaams Belang 117.194.197.135 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is silly. The HAF says itself that it is a lobbying group, and the article does not assert an overall conspiracy of Hindu lobbying groups. Also, personal theories about the motives of the USCIRF are not relevant here. Finally, you have reintroduced original research by reverting the article [1], and you have not responded to my other points above. Spacepotato (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues here is the concern about the use of terms like "Hindu Lobbying group" to describe critics of USCIRF. This is a weasel term, the intention being to smear them and cast doubt on their neutrality, which violates WP:NPOV. There are other examples of such subtle smearing on your revision that also need to be addressed.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The HAF is not neutral, nor do they claim to be. They explain themselves, on their own web page, that they are an advocacy group. In any case, I re-edited the page as the existing revision was OR, inserted unsourced categories, and was otherwise unhelpful, as I explained above. Spacepotato (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see that three anonymous editors are engaged here in a debate with Spacepotato . My view is that Spacepotato’s arguments are more convincing than those of the anonymous editors. My reasons are as follows.

Most importantly, Wikipedia attempts to present a neutral point of view. This is the second of Wikipedia’s five pillars. This necessitates not only that editors provide a neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles, but also that they avoid subjective language and a partisan point of view in their arguments on Talk pages and anywhere else they are trying to be persuasive. Writing objectively is an acquired skill and does not come automatically.

Anonymous editor 117.194.196.42 has referred to the virulently bigoted USCIRF. This is highly inappropriate language on Wikipedia, even on a Talk page, and shows that this anonymous editor has not adequately grasped the nature and importance of objective language. This is subjective language, and subjective language is intrinsically unpersuasive. This anonymous editor has also written I do not think … USCIRF would object to be referred to as anti-Hindus or Anti-Islam activists. They would probably be quite proud of it. Whether a Wikipedia user or an anonymous editor thinks an organization is anti-Hindu or Anti-Islam is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The only consideration that is relevant is whether there are sources to confirm that some person or organization (preferably more than one) has made persuasive statements that the organization is anti-Hindu or Anti-Islam. If anonymous editor 117.194.196.42 wishes to be persuasive, and wishes to be considered seriously by the Wikipedia community, I strongly recommend he or she practise using objective language.

Anonymous editor 117.194.197.135 also relies heavily on subjective language. For example:
the granddaddy of all militant Christian lobbying groups (Incompatible with WP:NPOV)
it is highly likely that they will not really object to being called as anti-Hindus or Islamophobes (Wikipedia is not impressed by what one or more editors think is highly likely. Wikipedia is only impressed by what can be verified by authoritative secondary sources.)
although they might stage a superficial protest for media purposes. (Incompatible with WP:NPOV) Anonymous editor 117.194.197.135 makes much use of subjective language, and too little use of objective language, and as a result is not convincing.

Anonymous editor 59.160.210.68 has suggested the term Hindu lobbying group is a smear and not a neutral description. This may be a valid concern, particularly as Spacepotato has written that the HAF describes itself as an advocacy group. Where there is dispute about the exact description to be applied to a person or organization, the best solution will often be to use the terminology the organization applies to itself, rather than paraphrasing that terminology. Therefore it is likely the best way for Wikipedia to describe the HAF is advocacy group, or whatever wording the HAF actually applies to itself.

It is not the role of Wikipedia to be partisan or polemical. Where a reader feels distrust, suspicion or enmity for a person or organization it is inevitable that the Wikipedia article about that person or organization will appear to be too positive, too euphemistic for that reader. Wikipedia is not in the business of winning hearts and minds in any ideological battle. Wikipedia is in the business of presenting the facts, and presenting them in a neutral and dispassionate manner.

For these reasons, I find Spacepotato’s arguments to be the more convincing. The anonymous editors who have contributed to this discussion have relied too heavily on subjective language and partisan arguments with the inevitable result that they have not convinced me. I encourage Spacepotato to proceed, albeit with caution given that this is a controversial topic and one that attracts a broad spectrum of views. Dolphin (t) 04:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a third opinion. I believe that User:117.194.196.42 and User:117.194.197.135 are in fact the same editor who has logged onto his ISP twice and been given a different IP address from the pool each time. Spacepotato (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits (II)

Spacepotato: Please refrain from doing unjust undo's. You should provide facts supporting your claim. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that advocacy group is unreliable source in one case and a reliable on another one. You can't claim that Stanke is right about consensus claim, but then turn around and claim that india disagreement is routine. You can't simply claim that richard land, who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, is not involved in anti-hindu SBC event. You need to provide supporting facts because anti-hindu event at SBC falls in the sphere of ethics & religious liberty. You cannot censure richard land and SBC's track-record in freedom-of-religion sphere and claim it as irrelevant. For example, If walmart's labor-relation VP is also serving as commissioner at "free labor" advocacy group then both walmart and VP's labor related track record is very relevant. More-over, Is walmart VP misusing his commissioner position by targeting mom-and-pop stores and shielding walmart is also very relevant. This is double standard. Unbiasedpov (talk) 04:44, 08 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has never said that disagreement about India is "routine". Rather, it pointed out that there has been disagreement on a number of countries. So, India is not a unique exception, and the implication that it is is misleading. Because of this, and the fact that the claim "India is an exception" is unsourced and may be original research, this claim should be removed from the article. The remainder of your points are ones you have made before.

Re your recent edit, I must also point out that it worsened the referencing of the article, as it replaced references directly to the annual reports with a reference to a directory of the annual reports. This means that the reader has to examine a large amount of text in order to verify the claims made in the article. This is not desirable.

Spacepotato (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"India is an exception" is a summary conclusion of the list prepared by spacepotato. Spacepotato's list shows total 22 instance of dissent for all USCIRF reports. 10 out 22 instances are w.r.t India. Spacepotatoes list cleary puts india in exception category. Spacepotato i agree with you that reference to archive means that reader needs to search, but On the other hand, It means that all future changes can be accomodated by this single reference to archive. I understand your point and i am fine either way. :::Unbiasedpov (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Times editorial of 2004

The comment on this editorial is out of place, because it is about the 2004 report, and it is in the middle of a section which is devoted to Indian press responses to the 2009 report. Also, the editorial [2] does not explicitly accuse the USA of hypocrisy, but rather sticks to insinuation. The reason for this is probably that the argument in the editorial is weak; the only charges against the USA are (1) that foreign-born citizens are not allowed to become president and that (2) all presidents have been Christians. However, neither of these points have anything to do with the USCIRF, or even with religious freedom—the USA has never had a Jewish president, for example, but this does not prevent Judaism from being freely practiced in the USA.

I would prefer to leave this editorial out altogether as we already quote plenty of rhetorical attacks against the USCIRF and the USA and this extra one adds little, and does not help the balance of the article. I find the invective in the Indian press interesting and worth documenting, but this article is certainly not itself a forum to attack the USCIRF. Spacepotato (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

India section needs to be short and focused on Subject. Thus, quasi-relevant material needs to be dropped. One missing item is USCIRF's factual rebuttal of criticism, but i can't find a single USCIRF press release providing facts supporting it's reported claims and rebutting criticism. If i find it then i will put it in. Unbiasedpov (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"its original intention was to protect Christians around the world"

I don't know if that's really true. What is the case is that in the mid 1990s many Christian religious groups in the U.S. were getting highly annoyed by the fact that the U.S. State Department was doing almost nothing year after year to protect oppressed religious minorities, or even to publicly highlight their plight. This agency was created as something of a rebuke to the State Department (since State seemingly suddenly lost almost all interest in the matter with the fall of communism), and also as a practical means to reduce growing political friction between Foggy Bottom and evangelicals. It was created because of Christian concerns, but there never was any official stated intention to favor Christianity over other religions... AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC) but most appointed commissioners are christian evangelist who have no history of championing freedom of ALL religions. Equality and Freedom are inseparable. Only those who believe in equality of all religion/race or at least respect all religion/race will champion freedom of all religion/race. David Dukes is smart, intellegent and has decades of experience in race based advocacy. Does that mean he is suitable to be commissioner of civil rights commission or equal opportunity commission? USCIRF Appointments clearly indicate the intention. (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

= Should Stanke's easily refutable quotes be treated as gospel truth ?

The whole article is peppered with Stanke's POV. Most of the Stanke quotes fails to stand against facts. For Example: Stanke Quotes "Commissioners...who come from a variety of political and religious backgrounds as well as various areas of expertise," but the truth is that since inception majority of commissioners are officials of various evangelical organizations. Clearly the commission, which is suppose to protect freedom of ALL faith, was and is dominated by 1 faith. More-over, Some belong to organization which have displayed hatred towards other faiths. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just found out that Mr.Ted Stahnke was the deputy director of USCIRF. His views naturally suffer a POV and should not be treated as gospel truth. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Blog ref

IP @198.182.56.5: can you please stop affing content sourced ot a blog, it fails WP:RS Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States Commission on International Religious Freedom's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nytimes":

• From Robert P. George: Kirkpatrick, David D. (20 December 2009). "The Conservative-Christian Big Thinker". The New York Times.
• From Abdul Rahman (convert): Abdul Waheed Wafa "Afghan Judge in Convert Case Vows to Resist Foreign Pressure". The New York Times. March 23, 2006. Archived from the original on 6 May 2006. Retrieved 2006-03-23. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031127222008/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/526/eg1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/526/eg1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214205744/http://www.globalengage.org/research/reports/829-the-future-of-us-international-religious-freedom-policy-special-report-.html to http://www.globalengage.org/research/reports/829-the-future-of-us-international-religious-freedom-policy-special-report-.html

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) 09:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)