Jump to content

Talk:Scott Lively

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.64.116.186 (talk) at 06:39, 27 May 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Recent articles supporting Lively

Recent articles supporting Lively I am placing here for others who know this page better to determine how to use them (and I am not likely to edit here much):

The above articles are in response to this one:

As an aside, Lively is the subject of minor debate here:

Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs work

This page is not up to Wikipedia snuff. It needs a lot of work. Right now it looks like people who hate Scott Lively worked together to use Wikipedia to smear him. For the uninitiated, that is not Wikipedia's fault, neither does it represent the position of Wikipedia on Scott Lively. Rather, it means more editors, and unbiased editors, need to get involved to produce an accurate page that complies with the worthy goals of the Wikipedia project. I apologize ahead of time that this page does not tickle my fancy, so I'll likely not edit here too much, but as a member of the Wiki community I can say this page needs serious help. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article is so loaded with POV, one way or another, that even the history comments claiming the removal of POV appear on POV edits: [1]. People working on this article better discuss these things on the Talk page before the encyclopedia drags its reader through vasts swings of POV that appear then disappear then reappear on this page. This Talk page is largely empty of such discussion.

Further, calling people things like "anti-gay" may be a WP:BLP violation if I cannot be backed up in accordance with Wiki policy. Hence I'll change that.

Wikipedia is for accurate portrayals of the subject of the page, not for skirmishes by political adversaries to battle out who is the most willing to violate Wiki policy. You want to battle? Use the Talk page--politely. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Good idea to resolve POV issues through talk page - sensible discussion. Would likewise avoid turning the page into the Scott Lively fan club! Contaldo80 (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh! Thank goodness! Another editor editing on Talk! Thanks, Contaldo80.
Be clear I intend to follow wiki policy. I do so on any page, no matter the political stripe. I edit here, on Jay-Z, on Felice Picano, etc. My goal is Wiki compliance. I assure you I have no interest in creating fan pages (though I am a fan of Polka Floyd). I have merely cleaned out a lot of POV and left in a lot of material that would not be in anyone's fan page. If I recall your edits here and elsewhere, you are similarly interested in adhering to Wiki policy.
In all my years editing here, I rarely see so many quotes just wholesale copied out of sources. I rarely see quite a lot of other things on this page. Notice I made a general comment a while back about how poor this page was. Then I did not edit here for a while until it became obvious no one was. So I finally acted. I have no interest in making this a fan page. I try to work with the community and encourage others to edit as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, regarding your last main page edit, "thousands" comes from the NYT. Did I forget to add a ref to that? I have no idea if it is true, other that what the NYT is reprting that it thinks it guesses. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - thanks for clarifying. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we try and beef up the biographical info? We don't even have a date or year of birth. I moved the qualifications sentence from the intro into the body of the text as it made him sound as if he is well qualified, which I think is over-stating the case. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT rights opposition

WP:BLPCAT says:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

I don't see how the article text and its reliable sources (as well as Lively's own materials - i.e. self-identification) could be any clearer that he opposes LGBT rights, and his beliefs are clearly relevant to his only notable activity - which is opposing LGBT rights. AV3000 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This isn't particularly ambiguous. 68.2.244.69 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see clips of Lively's own words on the topic on YouTube, for example "The gay movement is an evil institution." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU0dwjsLCUU Not ambiguous. In regards to the anti-gay death penalty bill in Uganda, he states, "Like I said, I would not have written the bill this way. But what it comes down to is a question of the lesser of two evils, like many of the political choices we have. What is the lesser of two evils here? To allow the American and the European gay activists to continue to do to that country (Uganda) what they've done here? Or to have a law that may be overly harsh in some regards for people who are indulging in voluntary sexual conduct? I think the lesser of the two evils is for the bill to go through." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08HpzqZAQ_g He then goes on to contradict that statement and says he does not support the death penalty, so you should not put that quote on the main page. But he clearly considers himself to stand in opposition to "gay activists" and gay rights. 209.6.34.193 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Feb 1, 2011[reply]

Criminalization of gays

My edit that added the fact that Lively called for criminalizing gays has been reverted on the grounds that it wasn't covered by a reliable source (actually [and admitted by the editor who reverted me], it was a direct quote of one of his publications). When I quoted The Huffington Post it was reverted again on the grounds that it constituted an original synthesis (no, it's not, it's an observation covered by The Huffington Post). I wonder what rationalization comes next to remove unflattering facts (that are facts nevertheless).--DVD-junkie | talk | 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the HuffPo ref. Would you please post it here?
May I also suggest we resolve the issue in a friendly fashion and WP:AGF? Your attitude ("I wonder what rationalization comes next....") is already evidencing your possible WP:SOAPBOX. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. I just looked at the HuffPo ref. It is essentially a glorified blog and may violate WP:RS. It is authored by "Alvin McEwen". Per the HuffPo, "Alvin McEwen is a resident of South Carolina and the blogmaster of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters where he has covered the Kevin Jennings story as well as how religious right groups distort legitimate research and rely on junk studies to stigmatize the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. He is also a contributor to Truthwinsout.org and Pam's House Blend."
A "blogmaster" is not a WP:RS. Please remove the non-WP:RS ref or I'll do it eventually. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It gets even worse. The HuffPo piece is a substantial republication of the blogmaster's own blog which was published the day before. Therefore, I am reverting immediately for violation of WP:RS / WP:SOAPBOX. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted to remove the HuffPo republication of a blog. I am certain I have not violated WP:3RR as the HuffPo ref and its use here, combined with the evident soapbox, may violate WP:BLP. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you need to discuss here until there is consensus. Just leaving comments, adn then reverting, isn't how this works. --174.102.202.179 (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When WP:BLP is involved, that's how it works. You don't need consensus to remove BLP. Where the BLP issue was possible before, I believe it has been confirmed when people restore blog posts by non-reliable sources, etc. So I removed it yet again. Remember, reverting BLP violations does not trigger 3RR. If you have restored it, I will remove it again. It violates BLP. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this in violation of Wiki rules is BLP: "Lively has called for the criminalization of 'the public advocacy of homosexuality' as far back as 2007." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does this violate BLP, and how is The Huffington Post not a reliable source? --174.102.202.179 (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, so is repeatedly readding a non-RS blog post for support. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I believe that the Defend the Family reference is sufficient to add the statement to the article.
This is covered by the section, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. The section has a five part test:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving: I believe calling for criminalization of "the public advocacy of homosexuality" is not self-serving.
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities): The rest of the open letter does make claims about homosexuals, but the statement, "Third, criminalize the public advocacy of homosexuality." does not.
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject: The statement does not talk about specific events
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity: The statement is published by a web site controlled by Scott Lively, and it has a tag at the top, "Author: Scott Lively".
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources: Currently, the article has 15 sources that are not self-published, and only 7 sources that are.
On this basis, I support adding the statement to the article.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kevinkor2, thanks. So it appears you agree the biased blog masquerading as a HuffPo post is not a RS. If that's the kind of thing HuffPo presents as news, I would have serious doubts as to the reliability of HuffPo generally. That was blatant soapboxing right on HuffPo.
As to the issue of adding the statement by itself based solely on the Scott Lively ref as you are suggesting, that is a possibility. I'll look into it, perhaps other editors as well. I have to say that its being cherry picked by the same guy who repeatedly pushed the HuffPo blog even after its being identified as a copy of a personal blog makes me immediately suspect. So I'll think about it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, forgive my attitude, but, judging by their edit summaries – first, a reliable source (Lively himself) is struck for supposedly being unreliable (which it isn't as you admitted), and, next, me citing The Huffington Post is labeled (again, incorrectly) original synthesis –, both edits were ill-founded. So, the idea did cross my mind that by repeatedly removing certain information about him you might be pushing a point of view. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies.
You claim The Huffington Post is not a legitimate source, but it is highly acclaimed – Time Magazine, for example, described it as one of the best political blogs – and has won several awards. I'm not certain what blogs are considered a reliable source, but that, at least to me, seems to be a fitting description. It's beyond me that you consider a blog that admittedly is liberal but reports an undisputed fact as "suspect", but not WorldNetDaily or the author of a book that is widely discredited (not even a bit?). How are we to resolve this issue if you keep removing this information?
By the way, "the guy who repeatedly pushed the HuffPo blog", wouldn't be a reference to me, would it? I merely undid two reverts which – as I stated above – were ill-founded, and before you "identified" The Huffington Post article as a personal blog entry.--DVD-junkie | talk | 14:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone,
I have added a different version of the statement.
Let's see if this survives editing!
For me, the concept of reliable source is close to the concept of "neck". That is, who can I choke (or sue for libel) if the information they publish about me is wrong?
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, I agree that the particular article from HuffPo is an editorial and/or blog. As evidence, there are several "I" statements in the article that would not be there in a news article: "I will refrain from editorial comments about ..."; "I don't think anyone with a modicum of sense believes that ..."; "I will also refrain from editorial comments regarding ..."
Dvd-junkie, I think that HuffPo is overall a reliable source. It is trying to be "The Internet Newspaper". However, like a city newspaper, it has news articles and editorial articles. For news articles, it puts its own "neck" on the line. According to About Us there are plenty of editors who should be checking facts in articles that reporters submit. For editorials, a newspaper does not put its "neck" on the line. When complaints come, they can say, "We are Not Responsible For and Do Not Necessarily Hold the Opinions Expressed by Our Content Contributors." (see Terms and Conditions, section 5)
Finally, I think that the statement, "Lively has called for the criminalization of the public advocacy of homosexuality", matches Lively's current statements about the Uganda bill. He has said he will endorse the bill if the death penalty is removed. "Criminalization" does not imply "death penalty". Because of this, I don't think his statement in the open letter has been cherry-picked or quoted out of context.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lively's "Certificate of Human Rights"

So, Lively attended a workshop on human rights. Where is the reliable source stating that his certificate is not a mere certificate of participation?--DVD-junkie | talk | 00:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ooo... good question, Dvd-junkie.
In the International Institute of Human Rights web site, the Diploma page describes the diploma they issue. It contrasts the diploma with a session's Participation Certificate.
A Participation Certificate "is designed to test general knowledge acquired during the Session."
"The Diploma of the International Institute of Human Rights is open to participants of the Institute's annual teaching session who already have extensive knowledge of International and Comparative Human Rights Law. The diploma exam is open only to those already possessing a post-graduate degree or equivalent.(Master’s or higher)" A candidate for the diploma has to go through a three-part exam.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the guidelines

My recent edits were undone and should not have been. I removed the "[sic]," although it was NOT intended to make the subject look "stupid," it was to clarify why the spelling was changed to a rarely-used alternate.

The guidelines for Verifiability forbid using the subject's OWN website/blog as the sole source of self-serving information regarding awards, achievements, etc. The human rights "certificate" has already been challenged here, and if it can't be verified by another source, it shouldn't remain in the entry.

My changes to the description of the assault accurately reflected the source article, while the previous description did not; my edit should stand.

My changes regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center corrected conclusory language ("which discusses SPLC's..."), making it neutral ("which accuses the SPLC..."). It should stand.

I changed "Abiding Truth Ministries" to "Defend the Family" to avoid confusion, since 1) DTF is the website's name and 2) there is a website called "Abiding Truth Ministries," but it has nothing to do with Lively.

Ivy Shoots (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you are making an effort at legitimate edits instead of merely pushing a POV. So let's talk. You say ATM has nothing to do with DTF. I am certain you are mistaken. Would you please dig deeper into that? More soon on the other issues you raised.
But let me say generally you have changed the article significantly so it has on obvious edge. What made me instantly suspect about your edits is your history comment when you significantly changed the article. Your comment was, quoting, "corrected or removed uncorroborated claims." That looked harmless. But when you looked at the actual change, and the number of them piled together, you got the sense that the history comment did not accurately depict the edit, at least I did. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion. As a result, I will be reviewing your edits carefully until I am certain compliance with Wiki policy is your motivation, and not anything of a POV/BLP nature. Understand my carefulness is not necessarily the result of your single edit, and it is partially based on person after person using Wikipedia to attack Scott Lively in a manner that violates WP:BLP. It happens so often, and your edit, given the above, gave me cause for alarm.
Be that as it may, I'll work with you here to ensure compliance with Wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to the "thrown against the wall" claim, that was made in an article that said it occurred nine years ago. One source saying what happened 9 years ago does not impress me much. I'll bet the author merely used the terminology to sort of summarize what she thought happened or to reflect what she was told by someone doing the same thing. Saying someone "threw someone up against the wall" or whatever and basing it on a source that is summarizing what happened nine years ago and on no other source violates WP:RS's call for common sense. We have WP:BLP concerns to be worried about, and we are using a source summarizing something as it has from nine years previously? That has got to be removed or it has to be supported with RSs as the existing one is not. Right now it violates WP:RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't even about Scott Lively. It's about other people and the collection of damages from an old legal matter. The text literally was used to summarize what happened 9 years ago to get the conversation started about the other people. Again, this is evidence that this ref is not a RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you removed his Juris Doctor degree and his Certificate in Human Rights claiming, in a history comment, quoting, "no self-published sources allowed!" I gotta tell you, removing his JD degree and his Certificate on his own page looks POV/OR/BLP/SOAPBOXish in nature. But saying you did so because "no self-published sources allowed!" evidences a complete lack of understanding of WP:RS, or an intentional one, especially where you use RSs that are not and remove RSs that are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you had to add in "the blog" just to give your POV hint about how unreliable it was instead of just citing to his response and letting people come to their own conclusions. We all know in WP that blogs are inherently not RSs, so adding "the blog" just goes to make your personal point sotto voce. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, you changed "discusses SPLC's 'hypocrisy and anti-Christian extremism'" to "accuses the SPLC of 'hypocrisy,' 'anti-Christian extremism,' and 'poisoning the minds of an entire generation of American children.'" By changing "discusses" to "accuses," you add in another sotto voce slap at Scott Lively on his Wikipedia. You subtly indicate that Wikipedia thinks Lively is wacky for possibly believing this or that about SPLC. Ivy Shootsopedia can use such language but Wikipedia may not, especially where you add in "poisoning the minds of an entire generation of American children" which may be in the ref, but which, in conjunction with "accuses," makes Lively look like a weirdo. He may or may not be a weirdo, but it is not your place to spoon feed that to the public on Wikipedia. Use your own blog to do that WP:SOAPBOXing, not Wikipedia.
For the above reasons, I will revert your changes in a number of days if you have not countered my arguments with your own. It appears to me all of your edits, particularly where they are considered together and in light of your misleading history comments, may violate WP:BLP. But, they are so subtle that I am not 100% certain, so I'm not reverting now without further discussion or the passage of time as mentioned above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the phrase "...discusses SPLC's 'hypocrisy and anti-Christian extremism'" seems to suggest that his accusations are facts. At least it should read "what he perceives as their 'hypocrisy and anti-Christian extremism'". But, seriously, he can't be quoted because that would make him appear wacky? We are not his public relations manager.--DVD-junkie | talk | 14:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re DTF and ATM:
Many of the top Google search results for Abiding Truth Ministries are for the Defend the Family web site.
Also, http://www.abidingtruth.com redirects to http://www.defendthefamily.com/
There are a couple of unaffiliated "Abiding Truth Ministries" results, however:
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kevinkor2. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate, you seem to be the only one with a personal agenda here. Whenever I read an entry with bias, I correct the bias. The Lively entry was full of pro-Lively bias, such as treating his accusations against the SPLC as if they were established fact, and white-washing his assault on a female. You complain to me that it was all of nine years ago (OJ Simpson was what, 15?), but I didn't add the incident to the entry, it was already there; I just edited it to agree with the source -- something you had a huge problem with! If that doesn't clue you in to your OWN bias here, nothing will. This wouldn't be the first time my neutrality was perceived as bias by someone with their own bias. Neutrality will always seem to "unfairly" lean away from whatever biased POV you yourself hold.

"Sotto voce?" spare me. Lively accused the SPLC of "poisoning the minds of an entire generation of American children," and you insist it should be presented as if it were indisputable FACT? Sorry, it's Lively's rather hyperbolic opinion only, and if YOU think that makes him a "weirdo," well, don't blame me, honey. He can't spell, he can't corroborate the achievements he alleges on his own website, and he espouses ignorant, inflammatory opinions which YOU embrace as facts. Why are you trying so hard to whitewash this guy? He is what he is; that's the NEUTRAL position, period. Ivy Shoots (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Shoots, that situation being over a month ago, I simply have no recollection of the situation, and I have not taken the time to read my comments immediately above. How about you and me and everyone else just start from scratch and keep working to improve this page. It's more fun to work together than with month-old battles going on. So let's all forgive and forget and move on. I'll assume that'll be cool by you. Just to be sure, anything I may have said about your editing practices in the past I hereby retract. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lively blog quote okay in Lively article - please restore it

This was just removed from the article and should be restored. I cannot at the moment:

Lively has responded with the blog HatewatchWatch which accuses the SPLC of "hypocrisy," "anti-Christian extremism," and "poisoning the minds of an entire generation of American children."

That was removed by Dr.enh once and I reverted as WP:SPS allowed it. 4 days later, is was removed by Dr.enh again, and again I restored.

9 minutes later, my revert was reverted by Westbender. Westbender is someone who follows my edits to revert and harass. As is his pattern, his revert is not meant to improve the story. Indeed, it is his first edit ever on this story. Rather, it is meant to get me to revert him, at which point he will move to have me banned for violating the 1RR restriction I am under because of his involvement in his last harassment of me and because I had just reverted Dr.enh 9 minutes earlier. Another revert would violate 1RR, and I would be banned.

It has been in the article for a while, was based on past consensus, and, although a self published source, is perfectly appropriate here, as the source is also the subject of the Wiki page. It makes the story more complete/accurate as well, leaving it up to the reader to decide what's what. I would like consensus on restoring that material. Will someone look into restoring the material? Thank you.

Notice to my friends editing here. I have been editing here for a while (since January), as have many of you. New people are always welcome, but Westbender exists on Wikipedia to harass me, just look at his edit history. He makes subtle traps into which I'm supposed to fall. I have fallen into enough to know not to fall for this one. I do not let him even comment on my Talk page anymore as it is persistently for harassment. His interest here is not the page, rather is it to goad me into violating the 1RR so I will be banned. He will see this comment of mine and, as is his practice, feign complete innocence, then talk about bad faith, ANI, harassment, banning, things like that. So please expect that and do not be swayed by his attempts to smooth over this harassment. It is part of his pattern of harassment. I am reluctant to say what I have about Westbender because of rules regarding good faith and the like, but if I do not, this page may be irreparably harmed as he uses it to carry out his harassment of me. I need to say this so you know what is happening so you can best keep this page wikiworthy despite his efforts to change it now and in the future to harass me. He has changed other pages just to harass me. This is just one more.

Will someone please restore the revert he made for the purpose of trying to get me banned? Thank you very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had about enough of your off-topic personal attacks. Westbender (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that nearly all of your edits mirror the articles that LAEC works on? It sure looks like you're following him around. WP:ABOUTSELF does allow self-published sources to be used in articles about themselves. Since part of that policy requires that "it does not involve claims about third parties", I'll remove the claims about the SPLC but add back the rest. Drrll (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your insertion appears to violate condition #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF: "it does not involve claims about third parties". This self-published site isn't about lively, but entirely about third parties. THe link also appears to violate WP:ELNO. Westbender (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The addition appeared to violate condition 2 when it included claims about the SPLC, but I removed them. Now it just makes claims about the subject of this article--that Lively has a blog. As far as WP:ELNO, it is an official site of Lively's. Are you going to respond to the fact that most of your edits mirrors the articles that LAEC works on? Drrll (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a question about my edit history, leave me a message on my talk page. Westbender (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additions and deletions to page

Here's a new section for discussing any deletions or additions to the Scott Lively page. Pjefts (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lively lawsuit

[2]

Historians...

The modern study of history is by definition an academic profession: Study for the sake of study (and all that follows), with no practical branches, and hence purely academic (or scholarly). The word "academic" in this case is not a testament to a person's organizational affiliation (ie university department) but rather to one's profession. By definition, all modern historians are "academic" and many ancient historians would be considered so if they were to author and publish in our times. Hence this constitutes a "statement of the obvious". You may also see the Wiki article for historian.

As for your example - let me quote: "...scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and "outright falsehoods".[5][6][7][8] According to the New York Times, "many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible." [9]" 85.64.116.186 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Lively&oldid=494576821"