Talk:Scott Lively

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent articles supporting Lively[edit]

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)

This page needs work[edit]

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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
Excellent - thanks for clarifying. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
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)

Category:LGBT rights opposition[edit]


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)

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

You can see clips of Lively's own words on the topic on YouTube, for example "The gay movement is an evil institution." 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." 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. (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Feb 1, 2011

Criminalization of gays[edit]

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)

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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Dude, you need to discuss here until there is consensus. Just leaving comments, adn then reverting, isn't how this works. -- (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
How does this violate BLP, and how is The Huffington Post not a reliable source? -- (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, so is repeatedly readding a non-RS blog post for support. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Lively's "Certificate of Human Rights"[edit]

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)

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)

Please follow the guidelines[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
re DTF and ATM:
Many of the top Google search results for Abiding Truth Ministries are for the Defend the Family web site.
Also, redirects to
There are a couple of unaffiliated "Abiding Truth Ministries" results, however:
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Kevinkor2. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Lively blog quote okay in Lively article - please restore it[edit]

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)

I've had about enough of your off-topic personal attacks. Westbender (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Additions and deletions to page[edit]

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

Scott Lively lawsuit[edit]



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]" (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring WP:BRD; you must discuss and obtain WP:CONSENSUS for your change to long-standing material rather than WP:EWing.
Your assertions have no source other than a WP article, but WP is not a reliable source.
Note that the NYT quotation prefixes the word "historians" with the adjective "professional", contrary to your claim that such a qualification is a "statement of the obvious". AV3000 (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
1. I apologize for BRD, but for nothing else. You especially do not provide any reference to establish your point of view (apart from a reference to Wiki itself, which you later contend "is not a reliable source"), and the fact that Wikipedia had a long-standing redundant bit of writing which was overlooked is of little to the issues of consensus or correctness.
2. I did not refer to Wikipedia to establish my view, but rather to common sense and the well-known meanings of such basic notions as "study", "practical" and "academic".
3. Having cleared that - your edit is in conflict with another Wiki article (as suggested above), and you may wish to resort to a {{Contradict-other}} tag.
4. Note that "professional" is not an antonym of "academic", but rather of "amateur" (a distinction clearly noted in said quote), hence it is irrelevant for this issue.
5. As for external references:
"academic". Merriam-Webster. 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2012.
1. a member of an institution of learning
2. a person who is academic in background, outlook, or methods
3.a. theoretical, speculative
3.b. having no practical or useful significance
"academic". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. 2010. Retrieved 28 May 2012.
1. relating to education and scholarship
* (of an institution or a course of study) placing a greater emphasis on reading and study than on technical or practical work
* (of a person) interested in or excelling at scholalrly pursuits and activities
2. not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
historian: 1. a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis; 2. a writer or compiler of a chronicle
historian: an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon
Historians are thus not necessarily academic. AV3000 (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You haven't read a thing I've written, have you? What you quote supports perfectly what I claim. Read the definitions I've brought and my original explanation: "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." (or hobby, or whatnot. As stated before, "professional" is the antonym of "amateur". In either case the definition holds as is perfectly supported by what you quote). (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect assumption, and repeating ourselves doesn't help us come to agreement; your quoted explanation is an unsourced assertion, and my quoted definitions do not mandate "academic" or "professional". At this point you need to pursue the forms of resolution specified by the policy additions to your (blanked) Talk page. AV3000 (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect why? You don't even supply a counter-argument, you haven't supplied a single source to refute what I said, but you claim I should "purse the norms of resolution"? I'd ask if you're kidding, but you're obviously not. Also - note that you were the one to refer to "professional", not me, so I'll take it as a withdrawl of your claim from before.
Let us see the provided definition for "historian": "a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis"; "an expert in or student of history". Combine that with the definition provided for "academic": "relating to education and scholarship"; "placing a greater emphasis on reading and study than on technical or practical work"; "not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest"; and you are left with one question: Are there practical historians? That is, are there historians that are not "placing a greater emphasis on reading and study than on technical or practical work"? Are there historians that are "of practical significance" (by the sole virtue of their profession, not by proxy such as political science or sociology)? Can you note one "practical historian"? "Advising historian"? "Clinical historian"? If not, than it is because the study of history is purely academic - that is, related solely to learning and research, and not to problem-solving or application development - whether it is done in a university or at one's living room. Do you claim otherwise? (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot -- all a reader who has this question needs to do is scroll down and note that the references cited are to academic journals. My impression (glancing through the above discussion and reading the relevant text for the first time) is that it doesn't really matter one way or the other. -Pete (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I was actually amazed that we were having this discussion. For the moment I must insists, though, as the problem is twofold: First, as I have stated, this is redundant writing, and redundant writing is bad writing. Second, in this particular case this kind of phrasing risks creating a bias, a non-neutral introduction to the article: This article deals with a person of a rather extreme right-wing political affiliation, where antagonism towards academia presents more often than in other parts of the political spectrum. The redundant piece of phrasing discussed here might alienate certain readers from the criticism that comes later in the article, which is given by professional, well-informed and able historians, hence creating a bias. This is another reason why this adjective, which in this case is also redundant, should be removed. (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Defend the Family Website section confuses me[edit]

Defend the Family Website section confuses me. I'm reading along this random article and the the first section is Defend the Family Website. There is nothing about it before that. I can't even tell from the section what it has to do with Scott Lively at all. I'll guess it does somehow, so my point is I suggest it has to be worked better into the article or placed somewhere else, and I don't know enough to do that myself right now. Lawfare (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a short section that seems a little isolated. It should probably either be expanded, or if that's not possible, it could be collapsed into the lead. - MrX 13:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Updated. François Robere (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal Case section confuses me[edit]

Legal Case section confuses me. Sorry, this is the second section in a row that confuses me. I suppose I think this should be an encyclopedic article. The first section Defend The Family Website pops up out of nowhere with no context. This second section, Legal Case, also pops up out of nowhere with no context. I suggest it could be better worked into the article, moved, or something else.

Further, it makes me wonder why it is here at all. except obviously to make him look like a devil In other articles on other people, do they have a listing of the various law cases in which they were involved? I highly doubt it. It would be like listing people's police recprds on there wikipedia pages. So I'm new and really don't know what to do about this so I won't do anything. But from someone coming across this story for the first time, I'm already confused by the first two section as they are completely out of place and the legal case list simply looks like someone is spinning. So far this looks like a poorly written article. Sorry, by it is intended as constructive criticism. Lawfare (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a biography, it should cover notable aspects of his life. I'm not entirely sure if this section qualifies, but it does seem to have several sources, suggesting that it is a notable incident. Overall though, the structure of the article could use some improvement. Ideally, in a biography, we would briefly discuss his birth date and place, family, education, career and then notable activities, followed by major sub-topics that he is notable for (The Pink Swastika, Abiding Truth Ministries, anti-gay legislation in Uganda). - MrX 13:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Did some work on the introduction and removed the "Defend the Family" paragraph. Further work needed. François Robere (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Activism in Uganda section confuses me[edit]

Activism in Uganda section confuses me. Given what I said above about the other two sections being out of place or included for spin, I now see Activism in Uganda is the next section, then Criticism, then the sections that mean the end of the article. So the main meat of this story is Activism in Uganda. I cannot believe that the main meat of this story could possibly be Activism in Uganda, especially given that is coincidentally the current news. I have not yet read the content of Activism in Uganda so I'm not saying anything about the content of that section now, rather, I am once again saying this article is poorly written, only now with Activism in Uganda being the meat of the article, I am saying it looks like it is seriously poorly written. So poorly written that I ought to stop reading it even for grammar reasons like I like to do and wait and hopefully someone else will see what I am saying and somehow change and rearrange this story and significantly improve it before I work here more. Lawfare (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources that suggest this is very notable sub-topic. If you believe it's poorly written, then feel free to copy edit the content. The section gives a great deal of weight to Lively's own views and statements. Do you see other issues with this section? Perhaps the sections in the article should be re-arranged so that the more prominent material appears earlier in the article. - MrX 13:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I did not read the section and am not commenting on its contents nor changing its contents. The comment was that the section is the only beefy section in the whole story and that and its content makes it out of balance. The whole article is simply not encyclopedic. Right now it looks like someone who does not like the guy is trying to smear him. Like the only edit I made was to remove "hate group" from before FRC like it was some kind of fact. The point being that shows me someone's adding bias and others are letting it sit there. I see it is somewhat mollified in response to my comments by saying "an SPLC designated hate group", but that still presents the very problems I listed in the history comment when I removed "hate group" and shows me people are here for the smear. There's simply no need to smear FRC in an article about Scott Lively when I'm certain that same issue is already raised on the FRC page. So, so far I'm seeing people very attached to smearing others are editing this article. I'm sorry, that's just my observation based on my very limited time here and that one edit. Look, I don't know enough about the subject to edit anything, neither am I really interested in learning about it. I'm just thinking that I'm contributing by getting others to see that the story, well, looks like crap. If I were selling a hard copy version of this encyclopedia, this Scott Lively page would get an F. It's ugly, out of whack, filled with obvious bias, and now I see people are here for a purpose having nothing to do with producing a quality encyclopedia entry. Anyone here think Encyclopedia Brittanica would have this crap article in their printed version? Lawfare (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I just looked in the history of who made the change about FRC. I see it was MrX. I see his history comment evidences bias in that he apparently believes it is established fact that FRC is in fact a hate group just as SPLC says it is. "Restoring sourced content with proper attribution. The subject's involvement with recognized anti-gay hate groups is notable, and widely reported in several sources." I'm new here. Do people with such evident bias get to edit these articles so they are copied into hundreds of other pages as if factually accurate? Obviously, the answer is yes. This does not fill this newbie with joy. Lawfare (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
In the section in Talk right before I added my three is one by MrX about an RFC on what label you can put on SPLC. I looked at it here. It was started by MrX. It concluded, "The vast majority of editors seem to agree that no descriptor is needed when the organization is referenced in other articles." Yet MrX wants "hate group" to be added to FRC. You don't have to be a newbie to see the obvious double standard / bias. Lawfare (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how to respond to your analysis of my biases, but I will be happy to work with you on constructive edits that are representative of the notable, reliable sources reporting on this subject. The SPLC hate group listings have been a contentious topic on Wikipedia, but the inescapable fact is that their the SPLC has a prominent voice in these matters, and given their credibility with US media organizations and federal law enforcement, their opinions are notable, and usually backed by well-articulated rationales.
Unfortunately, some people and some organizations are notable for a legacy of spreading misinformation, disenfranchisement of people who don't conform to their world view, and propagating messages of exclusion, or sometimes even hate. It's not our role to exclude this unpleasant reality; it is our role to present the body of knowledge about each subject in verifiable, dispassionate, proportionate and summarized fashion. While this article may fall short of that ideal, I'm not sure that path to improvement is to remove all of the controversial information, or to cast other editors as somehow deficient in their ability to edit in a reasonably unbiased fashion. - MrX 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
But this page is about Scott Lively, not FRC. Further, Lively was not with FRC at the time SPLC labelled it as a hate group, so I don't even see how there is any connection at all. Besides, SPLC labeled Christian ideas based on Biblical teachings as hate, but that's not hate. It's like taking any other "sin" and calling it hate. Thou shalt not cook kid in its mother's milk. So is that milk hate? Or cook hate? Cooking hate? That's lovely that you place so much credit with SPLC that you think FRC is a hate group for exercising its freedom of religion, but it need not be repeated here on the Scott Lively page. It's already on the FRC page, is it not? And you seem driven to put it here and keep it here. Plus, you have not explained your double standard about your RFC on SPLC and how you now keep adding hate group to FRC on this Scott Lively page, the exact opposite of the RFC finding. I don't know you from a hole in the wall, but based on what I see here, you really seem driven to add and defend that "hate group" comment here. Go add it on FRC page if you want, I don't care, but you really should remove it from this page. I'm hoping you'll do that. Lawfare (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I now see "Partyclams" added the hate group label a few weeks back here. Looking at another edit of Partyclams here, he said, "She's a fundamentalist Christian. She doesn't believe in gay equality." I think it is evident he inserted his view into Wikipedia. Lawfare (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You write a lot and say very little. If you could summarise your points to a couple of paragraphs it would be much easier (not say feasible) for others to respond. François Robere (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be best to stay focused on the merits of the content, and leave contributors motivations out of the discussion. Do you have any specific, actionable ideas on how to improve this article to best present a complete understanding of the subject to our readers? - MrX 14:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
No, other than to remove the "hate group" label from FRC since, at a minimum, it was not deemed a hate group at the time of Scott Lively's involvement. I don't know enuf about the subject mater, and I'm too new to stretch my wings on a page with obvious editorial control by MrX (and Partyclams). If I had to sum up, per François Robere, it would be 1) the article looks terrible as in it is not encyclopedic and I would like others to see how to improve the article, and 2) the article is being used to tell the world that FRC is a hate group although this page is about Scott Lively. And for that second reason, I'm very discouraged from editing here at all even if I did know something as I'll bet it'll be a neverending battle and the hate group smear will remain because this is Wikipedia and the hate group smear editors outnumber those trying to write an encyclopedic article. François Robere, I am sorry I'm all talk and no action. I suppose I never imagined Wikipedia was so easily used to smear people, and that's my fault for being a total idiot. How disappointing. I hear Wikipedia is losing editors. I can see why. What an eye opener. I think I should step out of commenting further on this page. Lawfare (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
1) The AFA (I assume you referred to the FRC only by accident, since it isn't really mentioned there) IS a hate group, perhaps among other things, and Lively IS a promulgator of anti-gay prejudice and bias, so I think it is very much in place. As for the timing - the question seems to be whether the group could've been considered a hate group at the time when he was involved; that is, whether their designation as a hate group was "late" because they weren't a hate group before (in which case the paragraph should be changed), or whether it was late irrespectively of the fact that they were a hate group long before that (in which case the paragraph should probably remain the same). Looking at the quotes and references on their Wiki article it seems that the latter is true.
2) Don't shy from editing any article as long as you have something to add or improve. It's not a matter of "all talk and no action", it's a matter of concise arguments - if you have an argument that can be summarised in a paragraph on why something should be a certain way and not another, than say so. If you have a point than Wikipedia has arbitration mechanisms that will guarantee your voice is heard. If you don't - than you don't.
3) I agree that the article need further work, however it's very much not a "smear" ad. For Christ's sake - the man wrote a book blaming homosexuals in the holocaust and you're seriously claiming that he's being smeared? François Robere (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I meant AFA. As to smear, I meant AFA and thereby Lively. As to the timing issue, your judgment is encyclopedic? As to bias, I see MrX was one of the first people editing the list of SPLC hate groups page, so naturally he's here ensuring the hate group label stays attached to the AFA. I looked at a number of other pages naming the AFA and none of them labeled it as a hate group. I suppose now that I said that MrX, you and Partyclams will go edit each such page to add the hate group label. I have satisfied myself that this page is being closely guarded to maintain the bias. Even the statement, "the man wrote a book blaming homosexuals in the holocaust and you're seriously claiming that 'he's' being smeared?" reveals you are not approaching this article objectively. Objectivity here is lacking. The goal is to maintain the bias. I'd like to remove the hate group label from AFA, again, but I can see that will be put right back in immediately by everyone else using literally any excuse, like "whether the group could've been considered a hate group at the time when he was involved," etc., etc. Clearly, objective edits are not welcome on this page. And I have no interest in going up against experienced editors who will work as a group to ensure the bias stays, no matter what it takes to do that. Really, I cannot believe you made an excuse for adding the hate group label by saying it would have applied then -- and without any reliable sources. I can't believe MrX starts an RFC that decides you should not characterize the SPLC, but he defends characterizing AFA. This page is clearly biased. And if I knew how to get people to stop you from pushing your bias, I would. Only I really don't want to get involved further. It's a waste of time and we all know it and that's why Wikipedia is sometimes viewed as the joke it is. As I said before, no one would buy Encyclopedia Brittanica if it had this crappy, biased page. I'm removing this page from my watchlist. I might return in the future if the page is decent and the bias is gone. But I really expect "hate group" will be added to every other appearance of AFA in Wikipedia. Lawfare (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow, this says what I just said or meant to say, only from a much more experienced editor who explains it much better: here. Lawfare (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
You did not counter my "excuse" or my judgement. This is my point about being on point. You're calling it an excuse, but you did not counter it in any material way.
You're again trying to argue argumentum ad hominem, and it's both irrelevant and uninteresting. Be on topic.
I'll elaborate since you do not understand: The man wrote a book which seems to be a book-long lie standing against history itself. There's very little you can do to damage his credibility after that. Hence the ridiculousness of your claim about "smearing".
As for "how Wikipedia works" I suggest you read the following before ranting next: Wikipedia:Consensus; Wikipedia:Arbitration and possibly Wikipedia:Template_messages (just to add to your toolbox). François Robere (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The coffee shop[edit]

Shouldn't the article mention the Holy Grounds coffee shop Scott runs, the one that was in the news recently because one of the baristas turned out to be a convicted child molester? -- (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It can be added as "he also runs the... which purpose is..." (ie other notable occupations), but I would be careful in mentioning the barista case unless it's directly relevant to Lively's beliefs, hiring practices etc. - if it's an "it could've happened to anyone" case then we don't want it to be phrased in a manner that might affect anyone's impression of him, and should at most opt for a concise "the coffee shop was recently mentioned in the news as... Lively has said that..." description. François Robere (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Had you heard about the coffee shop? Just curious. A few sites mention the shop (which very likely doesn't exist anymore but this is neither here nor there) but I'm having trouble finding details on the barista. -- (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even hear about this article's subject before Wikipedia, and coffee isn't my thing. François Robere (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


This article needs a photo. The world needs to know what this person looks like. -- (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal life[edit]

Nothing about his personal life? Several sources say his wife is called Anne and he has two sons, Noah and Samuel. I think it's relevant to include this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, what about his conviction for physically roughing a woman up when he was working for the Oregon Citizens Alliance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard[edit]

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)