Talk:David P. Gushee

Same-sex marriage?

Shouldn't there be something in here about his prominent support for same-sex marriage? 66.254.231.41 (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Massive changes

We now have something here, but it must be done with due objectivity. If you edit, please preserve the quality of the piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MostExcellentTheophilus (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Since it's apparent that Gushee and potential close associates are trying to edit this article against our conflict of interest policy, I'm going to have to restate what I told one of the sockpuppet accounts:

Like I said in my revert edit summaries, you can request changes to the article at the page Talk:David P. Gushee (here on this page) Given you are the subject, ordinarily, any substantive change you make to the article (beyond simple fixes like typos) will be reverted according to our site's conflict of interest policy. Also, the Wikipedia doesn't accept requests for removal of articles except under specific extreme conditions, but as far as I know, given the article is well-sourced and that the subject (you in this case) is a notable one, the best that can happen is you request changes on the article's talk page and someone else makes them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@MostExcellentTheophilus:, I have noticed that your changes are exactly the same changes as David Gushee's. Are you aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy? Why have you chosen to restore changes that the subject of the article made? Also, I'll note that you have accused me of an "agenda". However, I am actually sympathetic to the subject to some degree. My only agenda is in following Wikipedia policy. The changes you have made continue to be subject to reverting because Gushee and close associates are not supposed to be directly editing this article. If you are serious about working within the Wikipedia's confines, you will revert your changes, then discuss here what changes you would like to see, or go through a detailed review of the changes you have made and why. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can the people reverting stuff and removing content please stop and say why they object to it? I don't really understand this stuff. For example, I am not even sure why being against torture is described as controversial. Just reverting eachover is not helping anybody. This needs to be discussed. Anybody with a potential COI can still discuss it. Please just say what your involvement is. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my point. But for the time-being, the changes by the COI editors should be reverted. We can discuss it all here, and then make changes to the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The edits werde done by Dr. Gushee's Facebook friends. After he wasn't able to "clean up" his article on his own, and also with the one sockpuppet account, he asked his Facebook friends to make the changes, which they did. I have screenshots of this, should these be required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.50.216.179 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I have taken snapshots of the Facebook posts in case they become necessary to refer to later. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It a real pity that it has come to this. It all sounds so very counter-productive. Trying to control one's own Wikipedia coverage, through anything other than the official channels, is something that is so prone blow up in one's face that nobody who was well advised would even consider it. This sort of thing makes everybody defensive of the existing content and makes it harder to get improvements done.

One possible approach here would be to request semi-protection. That would see off the short-term sockpuppets and any misbehaving IP addresses. Unfortunately it would also stop any other IP addresses from editing too.

On the plus side, the latest sockpuppet investigation seems to have cleared MostExcellentTheophilus so maybe we can now have a decent discussion about this. To this end let me start a new section below. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleared of sockpuppetry, yes, but the account is obviously connected as they restored all the exact same edits (save a typo) Gushee made after popping up after a long hibernation. Sure, we should be constructive, but Gushee and his associates haven't as yet seemed willing to discuss the article. I'll be happy to discuss any changes they would like to make. At the same time, this site has policies and we need to abide by them - anything that is necessary to collect evidence and ensure that the policy is upheld should not be shunned. And I will continue doing it if it is necessary. But yes, let's discuss -- where are they? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Improving the article: A suggested framework

Rather than keep on reverting big changes (i.e oscillating between two competing and incompatible versions of the article) We need to discuss small, manageable changes and only update the article once we agree about them. Once agreed here they will form the new consensus and they should not be changed without further discussion.

Here is how I think this should work:

When you want to make a change:

• Say which bit you want to change.
• Say what you think is wrong with it at the moment. Try to be specific.
• Say what you think it should be changed to, with references where necessary.
• Say how you think that is an improvement.
• Declare whether you have any involvement with the subject or whether you have been canvassed to come here. (Don't worry. We are not going to reject suggestions just because somebody is involved!)

When you don't agree:

• Say why you do not think the change is an improvement. Try to be specific.
• If you can think of a better change that might be acceptable to all sides then suggest it.
• Be civil to people you don't agree with. Play the ball, not the man.

If we can't get consensus then rather than argue repetitively, we can start an RfC and get some more people in to arbitrate.

Are we happy with that? If so, lets start.

If anybody wants to suggest a change just make a new section below. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Since the majority of the recent edits have been deletions of content, it seems to me more productive to reinstate the last version before the edits, and then discuss the possible deletions (and other changes) from there. That's probably the way Dr. Gushee should have moved forward to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎137.50.216.179 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2016‎ UTC

I concur with the IP comment. Nobody should mistake my position with wanting to keep all the content in that version permanently. I have no agenda with respect to the content at all. If there's anything that we deem undue and/or not well-sourced, we can decide to chuck it. And if any well-sourced, due content has been left out, we can decide to add it. But I don't think we can simply allow a major cropping of the article by COI editors without discussing here first. So, the article should indeed be reverted back, but certainly as a first step. This has been my position all along, I should note. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I only learnt of Gushee's existence today, and came here to find out about him. If I have understood the history correctly, then this is the "original" version of the article, i.e. the last version before the flurry of edits in Feb 2016; this is the most recent version by User:David_Gushee; this is User:MostExcellentTheophilus' preferred version; the Feb 2016 flurry ended with this version (still the current version as I write this), which basically only differy from Theophilus' version in the Controversy section; and Stevie is the man! would like us to go back to the original version and then change it step by step. Here are a couple of immediate comments:

• I note that User:David_Gushee's first Feb 2016 edit changes "Christian ethicist" to "leading Christian ethicist" in the first sentence of the article. Stevie is the man! is right to say that COI editors should discuss their planned changes here first.
• To me the phrase "A self-described Evangelical centrist, yet increasingly controversial figure within Christendom" (Work and Membership, original version) is a bit POV, and certainly requires an immediate in-line reference if it is to make it back into the article.
• As someone who hadn't heard of Gushee before today, I have my misgivings about "began to publicly step away from the traditional beliefs regarding LGBT people he was previously known for" (Controversy, original version): are we sure that this is NPOV?

--GroupCohomologist (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The main purpose in going back to the "original" was to ensure that COI editors not make edits, and then we go through the normal editing process. If there's anything in the "original" that shouldn't be there, it should removed with valid policy/guidelines-based reasons for their removal. That all said, if you have compared the "original" to the current, and can state that what was removed should have been removed for such-and-such reason, I will accept that on good faith, as we are supposed to do. Beyond that, anyone can be bold and change at will. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that the wording regarding GLBT "civil rights" is POV and inaccurate. Moore's complaint was not about Gushee advocating for civil rights specifically, but about Gushee advocating for things that he regards as in controvention of the Bible, such as same sex marriage. Tomkentwell (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If you can cite this with reliable sources, WP:JUSTFIXIT. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

LGBT and activism section

The "LGBT and activism" section reads somewhat clunky right now. Not just the prose, but take this sentence for example: "For Christians, the LGBT community has always been a controversial topic regarding sexual ethics." Until the 20th century, this was not a significant point of controversy for Christians; the "traditionalist" (to use a word from the section) stance on the issue was by far the only one. Thus "the LGBT community" has not "always been a controversial topic" for Christians. If the point of the sentence is to emphasize what the Christian position has "always" been, it could say something like: "Until the late 20th century, Christians by and large held to traditionalist views on LGBT issues." ---- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)