Talk:Tullian Tchividjian
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Names
[edit]It would be good to have his father's name and his wife's full name. Parkwells (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Note on some awkwardness
[edit]There is a sentence:
- "Tchividjian represented himself as being as conservative as Kennedy theologically."
I looked at this, and cannot see how to change it. There is no source, and so we so not know what the originating text said. So we cannot say he was as conservative, which might be offense to the memory of his deceased predecessor (whatever conservative means). So I am leaving it, until someone can look for where this came from, and source it (or failing that, delete it). 165.20.114.246 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Marriage
[edit]@StAnselm: The source is extremely low-quality, but it's nonetheless clear that it's about same-sex marriage rather than eg. women as chattel, polygamy, or other traditional aspects of marriage. Since we are an encyclopedia, we must use clear and neutral language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- What makes you say it's "extremely low-quality"? If that were the case, the whole paragraph would need to go. And I'm not sure it is necessarily talking about same-sex marriage - after all, it refers to the ministry of someone who died in 2007, when only Massachusetts had it. StAnselm (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- We could scrap the whole paragraph, sure. I'm surprised you didn't know this, but WorldNetDaily is trash. And the source mentions SSM several times, that's clearly what is being referred to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Fine, I've removed the section. StAnselm (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- We could scrap the whole paragraph, sure. I'm surprised you didn't know this, but WorldNetDaily is trash. And the source mentions SSM several times, that's clearly what is being referred to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)