Talk:Sojourners

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Merge with Sojourners Community and Other Changes

Rather than having an article for the magazine and another for the community, the articles should be merged and reconfigured to speak of Sojourners as an organization.

As the article in its current form states: "Sojourners magazine, a progressive monthly publication of the Christian social justice organization Sojourners." Both the magazine and the community are component parts of a larger organization that includes the magazine (its flagship publication), a mobilizing and messaging team, and a faith community.

It really makes the most sense for this article's focus to be on the organization, and the magazine and community as component parts of the greater whole. Sojourners (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a year, and no-one has shown any interest. I am removing the tags. St Anselm (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This article was a benefit because I had not heard of Sojourners before. The reason for not deleting it is that it does not meet any criteria to delist under "Reasons" (it appears original, verifiable, neutral and good). The 'delist' requestor had not followed any of the guidelines and should have Wik privilages removed. The article appears suitable (as this discussion clearly needs to take place), appropriate (as a distinct identifiable organization) and notable (in that Dr James Wallis was a panelist at Davos, WEF 1/25/07, where Thomas Friedman was the moderator, other panelists were the Mayasian PM, former Iranian President Khatami, and a Saudi Royal Princess and Univ Trustee) re-broadcast 2/23/07. Why is it this article was listed for deletion on the same day as the re-broadcast of this important conference ? I think it was disingenuious !! Please amend the article as necessary and remove the privilages of the delist proponent (was that K-Bomb ?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.189.145 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 February 2007

Previous Comment

This article is extremely biased. I have never read anything in Sojourners that would indicate that it is a liberal organization. It is a moderate but passionate organization concerned with following the teachings of Jesus Christ. The statement that it is "left-leaning" is unfair---Jim Wallis explicitly states again and again that, while being on far right is dangerous, being on the far left is too. Please revise this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.62.42 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 24 January 2006

Previous Statement

I wrote the previous statement that defended Sojourners. I want to rescind any thing I said that gave the impression that Sojourners is an unbiased, fair publication. They are a distinctly liberal and it is extremely dishonest for them to advertise with a slogan like "Not from the left, not from the right, but from the Spirit." I have no qualms about them claiming they are from the Holy Spirit, what I have a problem with is an organization thats about as unbiased as moveon.org luring in moderates with claims of political neutrality that turn out to be completely bogus. I have left their organization because I cannot stand any longer their nasty and hypocritical attacks on conservative Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdwall‎ (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 October 2006

Its good policy to sign your name when editing the talk pagesKbomb 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for not creating?

I'm kind of surprised there's not a page for this, there really ought to be. I checked the deletion log, but the reason given leads to a non-existent page. Is there a reason there "shouldn't" be an article on "Sojourners" or that I shouldn't create an article here? Inexorability 04:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funding from George Soros and renting of mailing list to Obama campaign

An editor has removed my additions on the basis of WP:Undue and WP:WTA. While I see that it would be better to use "reported" instead of "revealed", I don't see this as a case of WP:Undue. The funding issue was reported by at least five sources: World Magazine, Christianity Today, The Washington Examiner, National Review, and the Media Research Center's Newsbusters website. I can add the additional sources if needed. The renting of the Sojourners mailing list was reported by the very prominent Washington Post, as well as World Magazine. Drrll (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion column in World magazine and its blog are not reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. If the story is truly important, a secondary source will cover the story.

Also, you got some basic facts wrong in the sentence about Obama's campaign and the Sojourner's mailing list. Where does the Washington Post say that Jim Wallis rented the list? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World magazine is a news publication and as such is a reliable source. It is especially reliable in the case of reporting on an evangelical Christian as an evangelical Christian publication. Opinion pieces from reliable sources are allowed under WP:RS if properly attributed to the author, which it is. Blogs of reliable sources are also allowed under WP:RS. Additionally, as I said above and which you ignored, the issue was covered by other reliable sources--Christianity Today, The Washington Examiner, and National Review.

As far as the other issue, your wording is more accurate, although it does stretch credibility to assume that the person who runs Sojourners did not have the final say in such a major decision as the renting of a mailing list to a major presidential campaign. Drrll (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) World magazine may be a RS, but an opinion column is not, nor is a blog. Please provide more information about the other sources, such as links.

(2) Reading Wallis into the Washington Post article is original research.

(3) Please explain why this isn't a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear why extensive synthesis from opinion pages, blogs, and primary sources should be included in the article. The section clearly violates WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. Unless some significant sourcing about the topic can be unearthed, the section should be removed in due cource. Wikipedia is not a store house for every trivial fact that editors find interesting. aprock (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd done some significant cutting recently, but you are correct. The WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT issues have not been dealt with at all. Drrll has had plenty of time to do so and has not. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about use of "opinion pages." If you had bothered to go to the articles from Christianity Today, you would have seen that both are news articles. WP policy about blogs of news organizations is clear--there is no distinction between use of blog formats and non-blog formats of news organizations. One of the CT articles is not in blog format, but both articles are written by the exact same author. Did you even see the title of one of these news articles--"Wallis Admits to Soros Funding"? Hardly synthesis.

As far as WP:UNDUE, this story was reported twice by Christianity Today, a preeminent news source about evangelical Christianity and hardly politically conservative. It was also mentioned by another very prominent evangelical news source--World, which is politically conservative. That represents a wide range of inclusion in the major press whose beat includes coverage of such evangelical publications as Sojourners. If you believe that sourcing from less niche publications is required, then tell me exactly what in this WP article would survive?? As far as WP:RECENT, the generic issue of Sojourners funding is one that transcends recentism and the funding by those foundations did not occur at one point in time, but over many years. The Soros funding issue, which also was not a one-time funding event, was discussed once in July 2010 and twice in August 2010. Drrll (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at the articles. The sources used here are [1] a primary source, [2] reporting on an opinion piece, and [3] a blog post from the same organization reporting on the same opinion piece. You're going to have to find something more substantial than that. And to clarify the WP policy on news organization blogs, see WP:RELIABLE Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. (emphasis added). aprock (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source was added by the other editor that I discuss in the section below. I don't see that it is a problem policy-wise, as the source is Sojourners and this article is about Sojourners. Yes, what originally triggered this story was an opinion piece, but the CT articles report the story way beyond the opinion piece and the vast majority of what was actually in the WP article about this reflected that reporting, rather than what was in the opinion piece (and that small part was still reported and cited from CT).

The blog article author is the exact same author as the non-blog article, meeting the writer requirement and there is no reason to believe that the blog, like blogs of other news organizations, is not "subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Besides, most of what was in the WP article can be sourced to the non-blog article.

Why is it that out of all the advertisement-like material in the article, including sourcing to barackobama.com and verbatim copying from the Sojourners website, you focus on this single area that doesn't read like an advertisement? Drrll (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do realize that you've found one secondary source (the author of the two CT articles) that reports on this topic. One is not enough. You've failed to address any of the WP:UNDUE concerns. Unless you've got other sources, I don't see how you're going to be able to justify the inclusion of this. aprock (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name a more prominent news source that covers the evangelical community than CT? There are two sources from there--yes, by the same author, but a week apart, with newer developments reported in the 2nd piece. On what policy basis do you say that two sources is not enough? What else in this WP article (or many other WP articles) is sourced to more than two sources? I did address WP:UNDUE concerns about this material above. There is much other material in this WP article that are better candidates for WP:UNDUE concerns than this. Drrll (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issue with other parts of the article, feel free to discuss them. aprock (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to discuss them, but I would rather work on the funding issue first. Please see my shortened proposal below. Drrll (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened proposal on funding

In July 2010, Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief of the conservative WORLD magazine, wrote that Sojourners accepted money from philanthropist George Soros, who Olasky says also "financed groups promoting abortion, atheism, same-sex marriage, and gargantuan government". Jim Wallis responded as follows: "No, we don't receive money from Soros." Wallis later clarified that Sojourners had accepted funds from Soros' Open Society Institute, and that the funds made up "the tiniest fraction of Sojourners' funding during that decade -- so small that I hadn't remembered them." The grants from the Open Society Institute totaled $275,000 from 2004 to 2007; the largest grant constituted less than 5 percent of Sojourners' revenue that year. Sojourners posted on its website a detailed explanation of its various funding sources.

Jay Richards wrote that Sojourners had received $2.2 million from various foundation grants from 2003 to 2009, including the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Wallace Global Fund, and the Streisand Foundation.

Sojourners responded:

We partner with many Christians as well as interfaith and secular individuals and organizations when we share common values. That does not mean we agree with our partners on everything. We do not even agree with our Christian partners on everything. What is important is that we stay true to what we feel God is calling us to do. In all things, we start with the gospel and base our convictions and work on our desire to follow Jesus.

About half of the material is Sojourners' side of the issue. Any suggestions? Drrll (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that you find some secondary sources that go over all of this instead of synthesizing content. aprock (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existing secondary sources do "go over all of this."

From WP:SYN:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

Exactly what conclusion did I draw that was not stated by the sources? Drrll (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've not presented any new sources here, so I can only assume that you're still making extensive use of opinion pieces and primary sources here. I realize that you want this content to be added to the article, but without secondary sourcing indicating that a deconstruction of the funding sources is somehow a significant topic, inclusion of all this trivia violates WP:UNDUE. In general, picking apart revenue sources is not an encyclopedic topic. In particular, it might be encyclopedic in the case of well publicized conflicts of interest or scandal. At some point, you're going to have to explain why this particular detail isn't a violation of WP:UNDUE. Reporting from a single news source (an op-ed is not a reliable source) is not enough: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. A single web-only news source just isn't enough here. Even if you find some other minor source, I doubt that'll be enough. Without some kind of broad coverage, it's just not anything but trivia. aprock (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only sources used are the CT articles and for Sojourners' side, the Sojourners references added by Skipjames57 (we can leave those out, but it seems only fair for them to remain and since WP gives wider latitude toward using self-referenced sources in articles about the sources). I actually started with the most recent version that Sxeptomaniac trimmed and trimmed it some more. You seem to be arguing that less-niche sources are required for use about the niche publication Sojourners. I contend that within the realm of the evangelical Christian community, reporting by the reliable source CT is a big deal--it could probably be likened to a New York Times or a Wall Street Journal of the evangelical world as far as prominence and respectability. It's not "views of tiny minorities" when reported by CT. WP:UNDUE is about proportionality. If you think this could be further trimmed, then make some suggestions. Surely you aren't arguing that everything else in the article now is more weighty than funding? Drrll (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the only sources used are the CT articles and for Sojourners' side, the Sojourners references". Exactly.
"You seem to be arguing that less-niche sources are required". Exactly.
"WP:UNDUE is about proportionality." ... proportionality in the world, not in some niche.
"Surely you aren't arguing that everything else in the article now is more weighty than funding?" I'm only discussing the funding issuess right now.

aprock (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the main point of disagreement seems to be the importance of CT's reporting with regard to Sojourners. Anyone else have a view on this? Drrll (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been considering this one, and I think there's a weak case for this addition. The Christianity Today article is more about the dispute between Wallis and Orlasky, and Wallis' subsequent apology. Soros' donations, and by extension, why Orlasky even considers Soros a problem is not what the article is really about, from my readings. There might be a case to argue for adding a sentence or two, but any more than that is pushing the limits of undue weight. If all the relevant information can be compressed enough, I would consider supporting putting something back in. On the other hand, Jay Richards' material does not seem to have sufficient sourcing, as it's not the subject of the article, and not sufficiently explained for the average reader. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated proposal for inclusion

Two August 2010 articles in Christianity Today discussed a conflict between Sojourners editor-in-chielf Jim Wallis and WORLD Magazine editor-in-chief Marvin Olasky, where Olasky pointed to what he said was left-wing funding of Sojourners by George Soros' Open Society Institute totaling $275,000. After first denying that Sojourners accepted funds from Soros, Wallis later clarified that Sojourners had accepted the funding. The Christianity Today articles also state that Jay Richards pegged total funding of Sojourners by various foundations from 2003 to 2009 at nearly $2.2 million.

Please discuss how that this could be improved, including any additional explanatory material from Sojourners. Drrll (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add this soon as no discussion has ensued. Drrll (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue I'm seeing is that it isn't really explained why any of it is relevant. A secondary issue is that the sources are mainly about the conflict between Olasky and Wallis, not about Sojourners funding. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. I think that the August 27 CT article describes the relevance as being that the foundation grants in question come from left-wing sources (search for forms of "left" in the article). To a lesser extent, the relevance would be funding from secular or anti-Christian sources (that comes only from quotes by others). Wallis, and by extension Sojourners, frequently eschews the left-leaning characterization. I think that the August 27 article sufficiently describes the funding of Sojourners by leftish sources beyond just the tiff between Olasky and Wallis. Do you have suggested wording? Drrll (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has quotes by Olasky and Jay Richards as to why they think Soros' donations are a problem, but that's their opinions, and would have to be phrased as such. Still, notability and sourcing standards generally agree that information in WP should not change the focus of the cited article. If the article is about a tiff between Wallis and Olasky, we shouldn't be changing the focus to what Olasky thought the problem was. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the wording to reflect that it's Olasky's view of the problem and that the focus of the articles was on the Olasky/Wallis conflict. Yes, the August 27 article is more about the Olasky/Wallis conflict than anything else, but it does devote substantial space to funding of Sojourners beyond just that conflict. Drrll (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the proposal at the top of this subsection. Any comments? Drrll (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing much of a reason why it should be included. The issues of undue weight and notability were never really resolved. Moving it higher in the article only increases those problems. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here. Including some petty dispute over minor funding issues sourced only to niche publications isn't encyclopedic. I'll be reverting in due course unless some sources can be offered which establish this content as encyclopedic according to wikipedia guidelines. aprock (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to 'History' because it fit better there than any place else, unless a 'Criticism' section is added. As I said before, it is a big deal for the niche evangelical publication Sojourners, with a circulation of 35,000, to be covered by two of the most prominent evangelical news publications, with circulations well over 100,000. Like it or not, Christianity Today is an authoritative reliable source on the evangelical community. The fact is, you are not going to get New York Times or Washington Post articles devoted to the topic of Sojourners. What is going to happen is the occasional reference to Sojourners in unrelated articles of major publications (which explains the reference to Sojourners renting its mailing list to the Obama campaign). It is "according to wikipedia guidelines" to use reliable sources in the field of an article's topic.

If references from publications like CT that devote entire articles to the topic of Sojourners are excluded, and references from major publications which mention Sojourners are excluded, then we might as well have an advertisement article with nothing but references to Sojourners itself, because they will be the only acceptable references. BTW, it should be noted that even the editors associated with Sojourners who added a lot of advertisement-like material to the article did not remove the mailing list or Open Society material. Drrll (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to address the issues with WP:UNDUE by bringing other sources to the article, that would be welcome. One niche periodical covering a competing niche periodical may be interesting to those in the niche, but that's not what an encyclopedia is about. aprock (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to Wikipedia policy. WP is based upon reliable sources and doesn't require that sources meet some kind of nebulous standard of being niche or non-niche. Drrll (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a specific policy you'd like to bring up, please do. Just saying that policy isn't on my side isn't helpful. If you'd like to fix the advertisement aspects of the article, by all means go ahead, but that's a separate issue. aprock (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I was referring to was simply WP:RS, specifically, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There's nothing in there that I could find about a threshold for prominence of the source. BTW, what's your opinion of including the bit about Sojourners renting out their mailing list to the Obama campaign? It was reported in The Washington Post, but obviously it's not from an entire article devoted to Sojourners. Drrll (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no one has questioned whether or not CT is a reliable source, this seems like an odd policy to refer to here. As has been mentioned numerous times the specific policy that is at issue is WP:UNDUE. aprock (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP:UNDUE, for a subject as obscure as Sojourners, it makes sense that prominent sources in the related field be consulted in helping to determine proper weight. At most, you'll just get a passing reference to Sojourners in general sources. Drrll (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Sojourners is really so obscure, per WP:UNDUE that argues for less coverage, not more. aprock (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What sourcing scenario do you see where inclusion of critical content here doesn't run afoul of WP:UNDUE? Drrll (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps when it's real criticism, rather than just a blurb about a small argument between two personalities. Perhaps then it might be picked up by another reliable source or two. Perhaps something not added just because it was a recent incident. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you dismiss two separate articles devoted to Sojourners in the most prominent news publication in its field, dismiss a reference to Sojourners in a major general-interest publication (The Washington Post on the mailing list issue), I don't see much of a possibility of any criticism entering this article, barring some major scandal that would attract articles devoted to Sojourners in general-interest publications. This issue was discussed in opinion-oriented pieces, which appeared in such publications such as The Washington Examiner, and National Review, but opinion pieces are not good sources for reporting facts. Do you think that opinion pieces have a place here in relaying criticism of Sojourners as opinion? Drrll (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are significant criticisms, reported in multiple locations, that's possible. It usually has to come from someone considered an expert on the topic if it's not widely reported, though. There was only one article on the Wallis-Olasky, published only to the web; Christianity Today didn't even find it important enough to put in their printed edition.

As for the Washington Post piece, the article was not about Sojourners, and the brief mention was not a criticism. Turning it into one in the article constitutes original research. I let it slide for a while, since it was a small mention, but enough was enough.

You complain about the reverts, but let's turn that around. Why are you so very determined to cram any criticism you can find into this article? What makes you think it's a good idea to start implying bad faith, too? Do you think other editors haven't noticed the particular viewpoint that you're advocating for? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent conflict of interest editing

Yesterday, after 3 months of no edits to this article, two accounts made huge changes at around the same time. I believe that both accounts are likely editing in conflict of interest. The "Sojo interact" account by its very name indicates an affiliation with Sojourners. The account "Skipjames57", by its contributions to this article, demonstrates a deep knowledge of Sojourners. In addition, that account has only edited the Sojourners and Jim Wallis articles. The users of these accounts should undo their substantial edits to this article and obtain a consensus here first for their changes. Drrll (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about addressing specific issues, instead of trying to control the article by getting rid of other contributors? For obvious reasons, the best contributors to any article are going to tend to have a "deep knowledge" of the subject. I vehemently oppose any attempt to use WP:COI in such a way, as attempting to get rid of other editors for knowing too much about the subject is frankly tendentious behavior.

These editors are under no obligation to justify their edits to you. You may have been hoping they didn't know enough about policy to resist you, but I do. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to "control the article", nor to get "rid of other contributors." I just want them, if they are closely associated with Sojourners to exercise some restraint by bringing their proposed changes here in digestible chunks. Even if they are closely associated with Sojourners, I believe they could improve the article a lot. If I were intent on bullying them in hopes that they would not "resist" me, I wouldn't have brought up this discussion here--I would have just left it at warnings on their talk pages or I would have just emailed them.

From WP:COI, "in a nutshell": "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia."

You actually don't have a problem if someone closely associated with Sojourners puts in large segments of text that look like an advertisement for the organization? Would you take the same view if employees of World (magazine) or Fox News did the same for their articles? After months of no edits to this article, an account named "Sojo interact" (see www.sojo.net) and another account within hours of each other make massive changes to this article as their first edits--changes which require an enormous amount of knowledge of the organization.

As far as some specifics go, how about the History section added? The first 4 sentences are copied verbatim from the Sojourners website. How about the first sentence in the "Other activities" section--"Along with the award-winning magazine, Sojourners also produces an award-winning website"? Or "Musician Moby recorded a three-part interview on Sojourners' God's Politics (http://blog.sojo.net/) blog about his journey into faith and politics"? Much of the other material added would probably better fit into the article on Jim Wallis. Drrll (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:COI, "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as [content] policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles." You need to read all of the article closely if you're going to cite it. You did not mention one content issue with either of the editors before asking them to remove the material, which is against policy.

Do not attempt to imply hypocrisy without basis. I have broadly opposed such use of WP:COI for some time. If they can edit without regularly creating content issues, and are willing to risk potential embarrassment to the organization if caught, there are no restrictions on anyone editing any article.

So quote, rework, or remove the copied sentences, and address the content issues. If the award is notable, the statement regarding the site should stay. Otherwise, it should go. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there are policy and content issues that have been brought about by their editing, not the least of which is WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COPYVIO.

Yes, they can edit their articles, but "COI editing is strongly discouraged" and "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page. When making a request, please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding." In addition, WP has put in place the WP:COIN noticeboard to handle these situations by removing the COI material and even blocking those users if they continue to ignore warnings. The right thing to do would be for them to come here to discuss their desired changes.

I was disappointed to see that you removed most of the only material from the article that didn't read like an advertisement for Sojourners, while leaving in all the rest, including the 4 long sentences copied verbatim from the Sojourners website. Drrll (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not bother noting any content issues until I called you on your inappropriate behavior. It is up to them to decide if they want to declare a COI issue, not you. The COI Noticeboard is there because it's a specific issue requiring a slightly different response. The COI noticeboard specifically says not to use the board to try and gain the upper hand in a content dispute.

I told you already to deal with content issues without trying to put the contributors at a disadvantage. It is entirely up to them if they want to restrict themselves to the talk page. You do not get to ask that of them without giving very good cause, such as repeated content/behavioral issues. You didn't give even one.

Since you haven't gotten around to actually telling what the copied sentences are from, I'll go ahead and dig around for it myself, then. However, there is no requirement that an article contain criticisms. If you can't establish that it's a notable incident, there's no reason to include it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a fair point that I should have brought up specific policy/content issues with them at the beginning.

In case you haven't found it yet, the copied sentences are from http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.history .

As far as notability of the funding issues, it was discussed in two of of the most prominent news sources that cover the evangelical community--Christianity Today and World--as well as in The Washington Examiner and National Review. Please see my additional comments in the above section concerning WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. Drrll (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retain wp article people ...

The founding editor-in-chief is Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics; the editor is Jim Rice. Contributing editors include Diana Butler Bass, Daniel Berrigan, Melvin Bray, Walter Brueggemann, Majora Carter, Joan Chittister, Eugene Cho, Shane Claiborne, Danny Duncan Collum, Edwidge Danticat, Marie Dennis, John DiIulio, E.J. Dionne Jr., Valerie Elverton Dixon, Cathleen Falsani, Becky Garrison, Wes Granberg-Michaelson, Adam Hamilton, Vincent Harding, Lisa Sharon Harper, Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., Gareth Higgins, Joel Hunter, Lynne Hybels, Daisy Khan, Anne Lamott, Bill McKibben, Brian McLaren, Donald Miller, Ched Myers, Eboo Patel, John Perkins, Samuel Rodriguez, Richard Rohr, Ronald Sider, Barbara Brown Taylor, Cornel West, Lauren Winner, Valerie Weaver-Zercher, Tyler Wigg Stevenson, and Bill Wylie-Kellermann.

99.112.213.121 (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You keep adding editors and Wikilinks to newly created stubs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful to link to the contributing editors. 108.73.114.19 (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your discussion Mr. Rubin? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, why? You haven't provided a reason for inclusion. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is a reason for exclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arthur. You have not explained how a laundry list of contributing editors aids the reader of our article in their understanding of Sojourners magazine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The List is useful for the Wikipedia:Audience, giving them context of the magazine's article's writers. It is to me an unusual viewpoint magazine, and the list is helpful as to the magazine's categorization. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the full list of "contributing editors" is useful to anyone. It's like the list of all authors of articles in a journal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume it is a complete list? Since at least 2009 this wp article has listed contributing editors (as do many other wp articles). 99.181.132.165 (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained why such a long list is necessary. Can't you provide the same information (per WP:AUDIENCE) with one-third or one-quarter of the names? You could easily start by removing the (non-notable) people without Wikipedia articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to suggest that very compromise. Listing only the contributing editors with WP articles would satisfy the desire to learn about contributors at a glance while applying a rough notability filter. Rostz (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did this, but I won't shed a bitter tear if there's no consensus for it. Rostz (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Rostz, as a reasonable compromise, although it would seem better to keep the whole list as wp articles come and go, and why lose information that we already have? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the list of chief (subject) editors in a real journal would be overkill. "Contributing editors" means authors, for this journal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rostz idea sounds reasonable. Why lose this knowledge? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say at this point - there seems to be consensus (several anon, two non-anon) to include a short list of notable authors - as I said earlier, it provides gestalt at a glance - but I'm reluctant to revert an experienced admin. Rostz (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've rarely heard of a short list having 27+ entries. I'd consider 4 to 6 "contributing editors" as a short list, and I wouldn't object. However, the list had been growing over time, as well as the members being linked as articles are created for the not-necessarily-notable people. Furthermore, the list (or at least the individual members) needs to have a source, preferably a WP:BLPRS source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC):[reply]

Sojourners is not a biography of living person. 99.181.145.221 (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "contributing editors" are living people, and I couldn't honestly say that being associated with Sojourners is not controversial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is your "logic" any wp article with any living person mentioned a WP:BLP, Art? 99.35.12.88 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any statement about a living person is subject to WP:BLP, yes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? This isn't a biography magazine. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sojourners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Sojourners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward possessive

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Singular/plural_possessive. I tried the suggestion there to replace "Sojourners' website" with "the Sojourners website", but got reverted. I've put it back, hoping this note will help, but I'm open to other ideas, too. Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By using articles, you are conflating the publication with the common noun and could be confused with "the Sojourners Community". You made two changes [4] [5] that added three articles:

"on Sojourners' website" -> "on the Sojourners website". Not necessary, and not how it's used in common practice.
"In 2011, Sojourners' website" -> "In 2011, the Sojourners' website". Possibly the largest problem, but same root cause.
Second edit, "Sojourners' letter to President Obama" -> "A Sojourners' letter to President Obama". Again, not common practice.

They should, however, all be italicized to clarify that it is the publication. You may be conflating it with removal of the common noun in publications like The New York Times, which is commonly just called New York Times when it's more like the use of a publication name like People, Time. Using the same phrasing, only the third would be close to acceptable:

"on the People's website" -> "on the Time's website".
"In 2011, the People's website" -> "In 2011, the Time's website".
"A People letter to President Obama" -> "A Time letter to President Obama".

The second example poses the largest problem as you can see from this transposition. Comments?

And for the record, it's bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, restor my preferred edit and cover my ass with a quick explanation on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the point of the edits, which was to get rid of the awkward possessive (what you said I did is not what I did, since you've kept the apostrophe where I got rid of it). Did you look at the linked discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another attempt at a fix, including the suggested italics. Please change selectively if you see a better way for some of these items. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your second attempt was better, but I did not miss the point, you did. In your attempt to fix the possessives you created ambiguity. There was no need to fix the possessives as they were being correctly used, but you did address your confusion with your recent edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the ambiguity from not italicizing? Got it. Done? Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]