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 sourcedmust 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be
added to this article.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Several different edits critical of Galli's opinion piece have been deleted with the comments that they are not relevant. If it deals with a highly controversial editorial, those edits are very relevant.
Would an administrator higher than Koncorde and Melcous please step in to defend FactCheckingWikiAgent and Calatayudboy? Thank you!
This part should be restored:
Galli notably faced criticism when 200 Christian Leaders on December 23, 2019 rebuked both Galli and his magazine for "offensively" dismissing their support of President Trump. [1]
That other people's opinions exist is not a reason to include them (most editors wiki-articles wouldn't even mention such an article) and should be neutral POV and balanced if they were included. The recent attempts to insert "criticism" is built around the idea that partisan defences of Trump are inherently notable and relevant, and that people defending themselves of criticism from a place of moral and ethical authority are obliged to have their say. That is fine in a news article, or in a review of a situation where there is a significant outcome (particularly for Galli in this case). They may be relevant on a page dedicated to criticism and defences of Trump, but are redundant for a man whose job it is to write editorials and be editor-in-chief of a paper that represents a moral and ethical evangelical POV. See
WP:NOTNEWS.
To sum up: Galli and CT has been critical of Trump since he announced he was running, many evangelicals were until Trump won. Post election that Trump supporters would defend him is like stating the sun rises each morning. That evangelicals don't like being criticised by a leading name / authority and defend themselves publicly is PR hand-waving at best. Wikipedia is not here to rehabilitate evangelicals from criticism by one of their own.
Koncorde (
talk)
08:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Thank you, Koncorde. Just as long as you stay consistent in your arguments you give above, if it had been a positive editorial (opinion, not news, in my opinion) which was positive to President Donald Trump.
If it had been a positive editorial I don't think it would have been included at all in Galli's article (just like very little is mentioned currently, who knows what controversial opinions he might hold, or have overseen previously?). His articles notability is it's divergence from the expected norm. Similarly I don't think the 200 evangelicals coming out in support would necessarily be mentioned in their articles either (unless it was shown that there was some significant outcome, or some inherent notability).
I think if CT had censured Galli, revoked the article, public apology etc or some long term outcome had cropped up (like it going out if business) then it becomes relevant to his career. Or if it later gets used politically by himself, or candidates, then it may become something important to his biography to have the full context.
Koncorde (
talk)
13:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)reply