Talk:Christian right

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 106560766-1591053325817gettyimages-1216826600.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Trump-jesus-sign.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this should just be "Associated political parties."

To the extent that all these parties are minor, this seems like a pretty pointless section.

Moreover, some of these parties are not minor--for example, the list includes the Polish Law and Justice party, which is the dominant party in Polish politics (largest bloc in the Sejm and Senate, and the party of the current president and prime minister). 69.30.188.35 (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

One paragraph here ends with the claim, "Beginning around the presidency of Donald Trump, Christian conservatives have largely refrained from engaging in debates about sexual morality." This links to an article from 2018 stating that Christian conservatives had largely seemed to have given up on overturning gay marriage. However, by this point five years later, it seems abundantly clear that after Trump's loss in 2000, Christian conservatives pivoted strongly back towards an anti-homosexuality message, particularly aimed at transgender people. The number of prominent figures who have engaged in "groomer" rhetoric and who have assisted in passing laws targeting the rights of trans people in multiple states certainly seems to indicate that this sentence no longer holds true and that sexuality is once again a major, if not the central, plank of the religious right's campaigning in the US. 2601:840:4480:30:11F2:3A82:AEF:E6C0 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The article seems to have a liberal bias. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You need to explain better. Since "liberal bias" usually means "RS bias" (which aligns with our definition of "neutral"), you should quote examples of text that are not based on RS or that misrepresent sources. We can fix that kind of thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nononsense101: To tag an entire article (as opposed to specific sections) as POV for an article of this size and scope smacks of WP:DRIVEBY. You need to explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page in a manner that helps editors identify the concern and fix it themselves. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the tag because, per the {{POV}} tag's docs, it is not clear what the neutrality issue is. I'm not opposed to you tagging the article for POV if there is something of concern, but this is an article with about 10,000 words of prose - you need to identify specifics because otherwise, no one really knows what the problem actually is. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Oops. After reading the article, I realized there was no actual NPOV problem. Just some political reaction.  Self-trout Nononsense101 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Thanks for looking it over and circling back to this. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

As do the Gospels, whose values Conservative-Christians repudiate. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The canonical Gospels were supposedly influenced by Cynicism, and they reflect Cynicism's rejection of "all conventional desires for wealth, power, glory, social recognition, conformity, and worldly possessions". The cult of personality of modern plutocrats would be anathema to their writers. Dimadick (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)