Talk:Rachel Held Evans

Untitled
This feels like a peacock article. I'm not terribly familiar on the current guidance on notoriety, but our subject may not pass muster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.41.28 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After the recent buzz on her second book, she has made the rounds of national media such as The Today Show. I tried to remove whatever peacock stuff she had in her bio and flagged some of the awards that need notoriety review. AngusWOOF (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked LOWPROFILE and based on her appearances on the talk show circuit and self-promotion of books, she seems to be high-profile. AngusWOOF (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Unlike the case with lengthy articles with sizable leads, this article's infobox merely restates the opening sentence and pads the page with distracting clutter. I removed it but was reverted for reasons unrelated to this specific article. Should this infobox be retained? Rebb ing  04:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is (and this is the problem with infobox discussion generally) is that it seems to come down purely to personal preference: you don't like it, and I do. So we're at something of an impasse. StAnselm (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
I changed a recent edit that took Evans' truncated quote and simplified it. The full quote should have read "But I don’t use ["evangelical”] to describe myself anymore. It’s taken on political connotations that I adamantly oppose. Trump has become this figurehead of Christianity, which I think is really harmful." That gives is greater context and makes it clear that she is speaking of the Christian right even if she does not use the term directly. In other recent interviews and some podcasts I've heard, she singles them out as the reason. So, that's why "political connotations" equals "Christian right" without it being directly quoted in the reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd notice that. But I think it's fine - thanks for posting a note here. StAnselm (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

unnecessary serial comma added by anon from Ottawa
There are no serial commas in the article that I can see. The only use is inside references or quoted works. No need to introduce an unnecessary serial comma. Please show where any serial commas exist in prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the serial comma makes it easier to read and understand. As do several readers, apparently. – bradv  🍁  21:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's one anon editor who has been trolling me. I plan to revert presently until we have consensus to change the longstanding formatting. I don't see how "blogger and author" could be confused as a single concept though. Feel free to explain that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's the same editor? Because it looks like you're edit warring against 6 different IPs. And for what it's worth, I agree with the IPs. – bradv  🍁  22:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because of the pattern of editing (see WP:QUACK). The early edits are the anon from Ottawa when then started WikiHounding me on other articles. Then we have  who seems to like trolling me. No explanations, just personal attacks. The only edits from,   and  all from the same ISP in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, Quebec, are to revert me. At least  from Mountlake Terrace, Washington made an edit to other article.
 * MOS:SERIAL states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent; however, there are cases in which either omitting or including the serial comma results in ambiguity" which is why I ask you to show how it's ambiguous and needs clarity. Personal preference appears to be what you're stating. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, there are no other serial commas in the prose so it was an unnecessary introduction and the words "blogger and author" are in no way ambiguous in the sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)