Talk:Eric Metaxas

Untitled
This was clearly written by Metaxas or his publicist and should be cut or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.108.161 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
Could we get someone to either edit this article into a real biographical entry or just delete it all together. It was clearly written to promote the subject's books. 76.110.200.66 (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A nobody
Not notable, should be deleted outright. 155.188.247.5 (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Promotional tone
This article is currently written in an excessively promotional tone, full of quotes which praise him. Either it should be rewritten from a neutral point of view, or the quotes should be balanced with critical ones. Robofish (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can this article be deleted?
I can't see that this article is of use to anybody. Why not just delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 03:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Notes on correcting details
I requested that this article be undeleted, and I do think the subject is sufficiently noteworthy. However, after seeing the article, I understand why there was such opposition to it, and I wanted to post a note to help prevent future mistakes. In Metaxas's bios written by either him or supporters (e.g. http://www.calvin.edu/january/2012/metaxas.htm), there are numerous exaggerations of his prominence and attempts to obscure the fact that his awards are from Christian organizations. For instance, the Calvin College bio states that he "won the 2011 John C. Pollock Award for Biography," but it is actually an award for "Christian Biography." It also claims that a monthly discussion group he founded "was mentioned in a front-page story in the New York Times." However, the only mention my search turned up was a story printed on page AR4 in the Theater section, and his group was merely mentioned in a list of clubs that had come to see the play: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/theater/freuds-last-session-prepares-to-move-closer-to-broadway.html?pagewanted=all Maybe this is just typical marketing, but it underscores the need for reliable sources. Did Woody Allen really say some of his humor writing is "quite funny" as his website trumpets (http://www.ericmetaxas.com/category/writing/humor/)? Probably, but it doesn't appear to be verifiable. Hugetim (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention - you'll see the claim that his book Bonhoeffer was a #1 NYT Bestseller. It was actually only #1 in the e-books category, for one week: http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/2011-09-25/e-book-nonfiction/list.html. (It doesn't show up on the print list that week at all but was #4 in combined print and e-book list.) Again, I'm not sure whether this is standard practice or not, but it seems misleading to me. Hugetim (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Negative tone
I'm becoming concerned about the tone and balance with respect to WP:BLPSTYLE. e.g. "populist writer," "theologically incompetent," "for the benefit of the...elite." Hugetim (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain your concerns. First, Eric Metaxas is a populist writer simply as a matter of fact, according to WP definition of populism. If you have objections then take them up elsewhere (i.e., articles that deal with the nature of populism). Second, both Victoria Barnett and Clifford Greene, both widely recognised Bonhoeffer scholars, have written scathing reviews of Metaxas. The statement "theologically incompetent" is almost a euphemism for the accusations that have been raised against Metaxas. Third, regarding "for the benefit...," take this up somewhere else, say, the article on National Prayer Breakfast, as it is just about a direct quote.Mfhiller (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * (1) "WP definition of populism": Your link is to a disambiguation page. Could you quote a specific one-sentence definition you are referring to? (3) As for the description of the National Prayer Breakfast (NPB), I agree the "elite" statement is accurate and appropriate for the NPB article (though the wording there is more informative than your altered wording here), but it doesn't seem salient here. Again, my concern is about tone and balance, not mere accuracy. For instance, should we also add that Pres. Obama was in attendance? Should we add a brief quote about the NPB from Jim Wallis? Should we raise controversies about "the family"? Make your case for your particular choice of detail about the NPB to add, but to just say that it's in the related article is not sufficient. Why should it be in this article with that particular wording? The policy is that biographies of living persons must be "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement... Criticism and praise should be...presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." (emphasis mine) (2) On the other hand, on second examination, I agree that your descriptions of those scathing reviews of the Bonhoeffer book are apt. How about adding something like "Written in an engaging way and designed to appeal to U.S. Evangelicals, it has been heavily criticized..." - this also summarizes the reviews and explains why it received the attention it did, also setting it in the context of theological rivalry which is important for understanding it. Hugetim (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I see you've already done it. Thanks. Mfhiller (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Kschar has a history of problematic edits on this page
Please see this users' talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugetim (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bonhoeffer publicity
The statement, "The book gained publicity after Laura Bush said that her husband, George W. Bush, was reading it.[6] " is poorly supported by the cited reference. The reference only mentions that Laura Bush said that her husband, George W. Bush, was reading it. There is no claim about how this affected the publicity of the book or even if publicity increased after said statement by Laura Bush. There is an inference being made about this statement and the book's publicity, and such an inference is unsupported and not neutral.

Jaredbaragar (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Jaredbaragar


 * OK. What should it say then? Maybe "Laura Bush allegedly claimed that her husband... was reading it." The fact that LB even said that her husband was reading it is also poorly supported by the cited reference - might be pure heresay. I'd be happy deleting the sentence altogether. Mfhiller (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller


 * I don't see any relevance for that statement. Why not go through then and list all the notable people who have read Eric's works? Why Laura Bush only? I would agree with your deleting the sentence altogether as you offered. Thanks for your understanding.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredbaragar (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Jaredbaragar (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jaredbaragar

National Prayer Breakfast details
The description of the National Prayer Breakfast as "a yearly event organized by a conservative Christian organization for the political, social, and business elite to assemble and build relationships" not only is unsupported by the cited reference, but also seems to go against what the article actually says. To say that the National Prayer Breakfast is organized by a conservative Christian organization makes it seem partisan, but, as the cited reference says, the event is bipartisan. It is more neutral and appropriate to describe the event by saying who attends it and what it is, as supported by the reference.

Jaredbaragar (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Jaredbaragar


 * Obviously either you are Eric Metaxas himself or his publicist or someone else of the sort. Your recent attempts to create an article titled "Eric metaxas" with self-promoting material lifted straight from your website is a giveaway. And now, since that didn't work, you have repeatedly disrupted the "legitimate" Eric Metaxas article. In any case, the point above is moot given that the article simply restates about the National Prayer Breakfast what the main article says. You won't have any luck changing the sentence in the Metaxas article because it adheres to WP guidelines. Moreover, the cited reference merely refers to the fact that EM was a speaker at such-and-such an event, and indeed is placed before the description. I don't see how this could be confusing. Mfhiller (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller


 * That's my point. Yes, the reference is placed before the description, thereby leaving the description without a reference for support. Therefore, it is simply your description that you say adheres to WP guidelines. Which guidelines are those? My description would be going off of the article's quote that the "annual prayer breakfast is a bipartisan event sponsored by members of Congress who meet weekly for prayer when Congress is in session." This description is supported directly by a reference whereas yours is not. It is also closer to being neutral, and I would question the neutrality of your statement. Does my statement, therefore, not adhere even more strongly to WP guidelines? Jaredbaragar (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jaredbaragar

Socrates
I'm putting in a legitimate source to show that Socrates did say the referenced quote about the unexamined life. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredbaragar (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All that detail seemed undue to me, but I preserved it here for posterity in case I am wrong:
 * Metaxas is also the founder of a lecture series in New York City called Socrates in the City, which hosts events about "Life, God, and other small topics." Since 2000, Metaxas has hosted a lecture series in New York City called "Socrates in the City: Conversations on the Examined Life," taking its name from the Greek philosopher Socrates who said “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Metaxas usually does an introduction of the speaker and then moderates a question and answer afterwards.  The series began in October 2000 and speakers have included Dr. Francis Collins, Sir John Polkinghorne, Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, N.T. Wright, Os Guinness, Peter Kreeft, David Berlinski, Dick Cavett, and George Weigel.  Speaking topics have included,  "Making Sense Out of Suffering," "The Concept of Evil after 9-11," and "Can a Scientist Pray?"
 * Hugetim (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it undue? I'm not so sure. I definitely do not think it is harmful. Perhaps the list of all the speakers and topics is unnecessary, but I would say everything else is relevant to Eric Metaxas' page.

Jaredbaragar (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Jaredbaragar
 * Well, the second sentence just repeats the first in different words, except for the explanation of the name which seems extraneous to me. We already know it is a lecture series, so the next sentence is redundant since it just explains the typical structure of a lecture series: intro/lecture/Q&A. Then all that's left is the lists of speakers and topics which you acknowledge may be unnecessary (and I'd argue they are - should we also include a list of topics and guests for BreakPoint? Not in an encyclopedia, I'd think). I'm not sure what you are proposing. Hugetim (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bonhoeffer book by Eric Metaxas
Hello, I have read the wikipedia page on Eric Metaxas, and the characterization of Mr. Metaxas' book on Bonhoeffer does not seem neutral. It would be more appropriate to say which publications or who praised and who criticized the book, without going into details, as the links to the reviews can provide that. I have put in what I think is a fair description. Feel free to discuss. Thanks, JonGraham (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jon Graham
 * This book seems to be the main source of Metaxas's notability, so I think it merits a thorough discussion of its reception in-article. I think it would be helpful to add descriptions of the reviews in the WSJ and TNR if you like (the Harper's link was just an interview, not anything substantial by someone other than Metaxas), but why remove the information about the content of the other reviews? Also, the scholarly reviews should be given deference in their assessment of the accuracy of the book, whereas the WSJ and TNR pieces are not by Bonhoeffer scholars but are rather by relative laymen reflecting on their reading of the book from their own perspectives. The article should acknowledge this in accordance with the NPOV policy. Hugetim (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the verb "points out" in " Bonhoeffer scholar Richard Weikart, for example, credits Metaxas's "engaging writing style," but points out his lack of intellectual background ..." is problematic. "Claims" or "states" maybe, but "points out" sounds like an editorial comment by Wiki.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry
There is a sock puppet investigation here regarding the Eric Metaxas article. Respecting WP:EQ I will ask that alleged WP:SOC refrain from editing the article in question; there have been various WP:POV complaints regarding myself - I will also refrain from editing the article until the sock issue is resolved. I will ask especially, however, that the self-acknowledged sock, JonGraham, take back all comments at Eric Metaxas talk. Mfhiller (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * By "take back" I mean physically strike-through - the comment should appear with a strike-through. I'll take back too. On a personal note, Eric Metaxas, I appreciate your point of view. In the first instance you are indeed humorous and sometimes encourage people to think for themselves - you make me laugh even when you are addressing an elite cabal and bragging about being part of the 1% who still can't afford $175.00 for breakfast. I am not a Christian, have never been a Christian, and probably never will be a Christian. That doesn't mean that I don't care about the world. In fact your comment about the 1% is disturbing: humorous, casual, without any sense whatsoever of moral responsibility. Just imagine what Jesus would have said, faced with a crowd a millionaires and billionaires? I have read your book about Bonhoeffer. I don't like it, even though it is humorous, likeable, and for other reasons exceptional: it is, however, fundamentally disconnected from the point of view of the question of the meaning of being largely written by historians, theologians, sociologists, and philosophers about the nature of fascism. Fascism in the first instance can be identified as a certain kind of "will-to-truth" - that is the revisionism/mythologisation of the sum-total of historical events. Summa cum laude. Mfhiller (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

WSJ op-ed
Metaxas' WSJ op-ed http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God is certainly notable. There has been a lot of discussion about it among scientists, although as Mark Twain said, it's not the kind of thing you want people saying about you. It should go in the entry, because it nicely encapsulates a debate between science and religion. --Nbauman (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Eric Metaxas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120922003822/http://www.ericmetaxas.com:80/media/press/deep_thrills/ to http://www.ericmetaxas.com/media/press/deep_thrills/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720041835/http://journal.ambrose.edu:80/ojs/index.php/acchquarterly/article/view/46/92 to http://journal.ambrose.edu/ojs/index.php/acchquarterly/article/view/46/92
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140530142500/http://www.humanlifereview.com:80/annual-dinner/ to http://www.humanlifereview.com/annual-dinner/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150907184007/http://theology.sewanee.edu/news/easter-convocation-will-bestow-two-doctor-of-divinity-degrees to http://theology.sewanee.edu/news/easter-convocation-will-bestow-two-doctor-of-divinity-degrees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eric Metaxas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ericmetaxas.com/media/press/deep_thrills/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://journal.ambrose.edu/ojs/index.php/acchquarterly/article/view/46/92
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140704093612/http://www.becketfund.org/the-canterbury-medal-dinner/ to http://www.becketfund.org/the-canterbury-medal-dinner/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.humanlifereview.com/annual-dinner/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This person does not qualify for Wikipedia's notability requirement
This person is not a well-known celebrity but a fringe existence whose musings are dangerous and foolish. There is no need to maintain an illogical reference to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:4381:E60:1855:EA9E:D5B5:B224 (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If only were that the case. He's since been referenced in the WaPo's "Republicans aren’t conservatives. They’re nihilists." editorial.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions about deletions/edits to Eric Metaxas page
Based on past comments posted about this page, it is clear Wikipedia editors are discriminating against Mr. Metaxas for no clear reason other than that they do not like him or have made uninformed assumptions about his work.

I am disputing the deletion of my edits to Mr. Metaxas's page. I have made edits twice, and within minutes those edits were reverted back to the original by users Snooganssnoogans and Melcous.

The truth is Mr. Metaxas IS a New York Times best-selling author of multiple books, which I listed, with citations. He IS NOT only "the author of three biographies," as the entry states previously and after my edits.

My question is why are some authors cited as NYT best sellers and others not given that credit?

For example, the Wikipedia entry of best-selling author Ibram X. Kendi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibram_X._Kendi reads "A New York Times #1 Best Seller in 2020, How to Be an Antiracist is Kendi's most popular work thus far.[23] Professor Jeffrey C. Stewart called it the "most courageous book to date on the problem of race in the Western mind".[24]

Why is Eric Metaxas not given the same credit as a NYT best seller?

In comments to my edits Snooganssnoogans and Melcous stated the edits were "promotional" and "poorly sourced puffery." Yet similar content that is posted on Kendi's page is not censored. Why?

Further, Wikipedia uses the label "conservative" to describe Mr. Metaxas's talk show. Mr. Metaxas has a radio program; it is not a "conservative" radio program. Why label him "conservative"? Isn't that a subjective opinion rather than a fact, used to discredit the author?

Wikipedia does not label Nikole Hannah-Jones as a "progressive" or "liberal" journalist and author: Her page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikole_Hannah-Jones reads: Nikole Sheri Hannah-Jones (born April 9, 1976)[1][2] is an American investigative journalist, known for her coverage of civil rights in the United States. In April 2015, she became a staff writer for The New York Times. In 2017 she was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship and in 2020 she won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her work on The 1619 Project.

Wikipedia's entry about Jones is very promotional.

Elsewhere, the original Metaxas entry included only the negative aspects of a review written by a distinguished historian, yet that very same review boasted plenty of positive material, which I included but has since been deleted.

Both entries for Kendi and Jones are highly complementary.

How do Wikipedia editors justify these changes and inclusion of certain content for one individual and not another? Do you promote one author but not another? And isn't that censorship?

Alwaysgrateful (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)AlwaysGrateful