Talk:Mark Galli

How?

I came to Wikipedia and find this and none of that; how? Wikipietime (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Several edits critical of Galli's opinion piece

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.

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)

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)

References