Talk:Lou Engle

Lou Engle against Prop 8?
It says in the article that he started a prayer initiative against california prop 8, but I'm pretty sure he's for it. Also, the source doesn't explicitly say that his purpose of starting prayer houses was to oppose prop 8, only that the subject of the article (not Engle) was inspired to join one of the groups he formed in several states. Ianboggs (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a typo on my part! Lou Engle is definitely a supporter of Prop 8. I re-read the LA Times article and rephrased the bit that talked about the kids praying against Prop 8 in San Diego. I think it lines up better with the citation now. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC
An 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 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lou Engle. 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/20120207115921/http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225354/hearing-thecall/mark-hemingway to http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225354/hearing-thecall/mark-hemingway

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) 17:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive biased edit erasures by users StAnslem, Skywarrior
StAslem, a self labeled "Christian" continues to make disruptively biased edit erasures in favor of Lou Engle. Also Skywarrior. For example the edit with the explanation "(our general practice is not to have this sort of material in the lead)" is not a fair explanation. "General practice" is a general preference not a rule. There is no excuse for removing the subheading ===Radical extremism=== from the page's controversies, radical extremism is exactly how the southern poverty law center describes Mr. Engle. 2601:406:8401:1b20:a5d5:4694:f05a:8a51 labeled "radical extremism" as "hate speech" and StAselm considered this "editor's" vandalism reasonable. Instead of correcting it something more "neutral" he deletes it. This is preposterous. Mr. Engle is a controversial Christian. "Controversial" is a widely term used by reliable sources to describe Mr. Engle. A staunch opponent of abortion and LGBT rights, GLAAD has listed Lou Engle as a radical extremist who spreads misinformation and false rhetoric against LGBTQ people, youth, and allies. That may be controversial so it's in the appropriate category and that's what Mr. Engle is listed as. Engle is also on the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch extremist list. This qualifies for him for a controversial figure and deservedly in the introduction. I suspect StAslem has something against me as a female pastor for continuously removing my edits without real explanations instead of first heading into the talk section to discuss it. The same goes for the user Skywarrior, who does not give any explanations for his reversions. He had two opportunities to do so but it seems I must be the first one to engage this in an intelligent and civil manner. I have been completely neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanetChenPastor (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please note Criticism. This is an essay, but with advice worth following. I know that the criticism section was already there, but we should be trying to eliminate it rather than adding to it. StAnselm (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits have been objected to, by two different people, which means that you need to get consensus here in order to include it in the article: see WP:BRD. Since no consensus has been established yet, the content of your edits should not go into the article at this time, and continuing to edit war to include it is not acceptable. As for the actual content, I disagree with the neutrality of it and as such should not go in the article, at least not as currently written. I'll disengage from the article for now, but I strongly recommend you don't re-add the contested material again without a consensus to add it, unless you want the page to be locked from editing or find yourself blocked. SkyWarrior  19:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I waited 3 days for your engagement and you did not talk. That's a reasonable amount of time to expect someone to respond. I don't agree that removing a page completely of controversies is a stance of neutrality. Neutrality accepts both favorable and unfavorable points. No opinions were expressed, just straight facts. I made no widespread removals. I think we can agree that StAslem's desire to remove entire sections is too biased and drastic. I think being placed on the lists of two nationally known institutions is a valid inclusion. However, if you do not want a general controversial history in the description of introduction, very well, I can compromise to keep it to the confines of the "Controversies" section so long as you do not improperly remove points from that section. JanetChenPastor (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your willingness to compromise. Yeah, that's why I didn't respond for three days - I was OK with your additions on 16 September, but your addition on 19 September was something that had already been disputed and reverted previously. Anyway, I have posted this on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard so we can get some extra pairs of eyes. StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note also that your original post was not particularly conducive to discussion and consensus-building! StAnselm (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This essay on criticism again is a "generality" not a hard rule. In this, it even says to make exceptions on religious topics, ie Christianity, Christian figures. I see no valid reason to eliminate it as it is core to how Mr. Engle is known in the public arena. JanetChenPastor (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No! You have totally misunderstood it. "Religious topics" means exactly that - it is not the same as "Christian figures". "Pentecostalism" would be an example of a religious topic, which could (and does) have a controversy section. StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, your tone is quite hostile. Behave yourself. Read the example it gives. It gives an example of a "Public Figure". It says nothing about eliminating entire sections and states it can be acceptable. "The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title (when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be "Controversies", with subsection titles indicating what these are about)." If you were neutral, you would figure some way to include these valid points your reason for eliminating entire sections is you simply don't like it. That's not acceptable. JanetChenPastor (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no way someone who came in here accusing an editor of misogynistic bias is now complaining that that editors tone is "quite hostile." I see absolutely nothing hostile in their tone; the only one with a behavior problem is you. 2600:1014:B1A0:6D94:A917:C679:D070:8451 (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a very rude and worthless remark that focuses solely on attacking my character. 2600:1014:B1A0:6D94:A917:C679:D070:8451 you offer nothing valuable to the conversation and from the look of your history, nor to Wikipedia. Please focus on content if you have anything to contribute. Thank you. JanetChenPastor (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * please stop your disruptive edits. You are trying to re-introduce a controversies section, when it has been clearly explained to you why that is not a good idea - see also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive353. StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * St. Anselm, you revert my edits without discussing them first. We last left on an agreeable compromise to keep it to the confines of the "Controversies" section so long as you do not improperly remove points from that section. That's when you should have left things be. Then you went and made reports because you didn't trust our agreement. And now here you are back to breaking our agreement and bullying my minor edits again and again. Instead of helping integrate my edits you have only sought to destroy them. If you were a decent person you would help me integrate these valid points. JanetChenPastor (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)