Talk:Wilhelm Busch (pastor)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because . &mdash; Stephfo (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have declined the speedy delete nomination. Looks like this article is likely to survive AfD too, especially now that it has been improved since it was nominated. Good work! ~Amatulić (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Title (priest?)
I am not sure that "(priest)" is a good disambiguator. I am not a native speaker of English and may be wrong on this point, but to my ears "priest" has reasonably strong Catholic or Anglican connotations even though I understand it can be used also for Lutherans. I think "pastor" or "clergyman" might be better. Google seems to have a lot more hits for "Lutheran pastor" than for "Lutheran priest". Hans Adler 19:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree. You are correct that "priest" can be used in a broad sense, but more often carries a Catholic meaning which clearly does not apply here. "Pastor" seems preferable, since that's the term used in the article so far. Unless anyone objects, I can go ahead and make that move.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. I'd say wait until the AfD closes before making the move, though. No hurry. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's what I'm waiting for. I withdrew the nomination, so whenever an admin gets to it.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's a clear consensus that keeping the article is not controversial, you don't need an admin. As the nominator you can close your own AfD if you withdraw it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For most Protestants, pastor or minister is more commonly used than priest. Please make the change when the AfD is closed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you'd perform the change, please adjust it also in wikiquote and commons.Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not looking at the discussion before moving it. I just wanted to fix the issue of Stephfo's cut-and-paste move before the new title acquired any history. I thought "clergyman" was a sufficiently neutral term to use in a Lutheran context. --Hegvald (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but clergyman is from protestant Lutheran perspective even more odd than priest, IMHO, please revert your changes back to consensus on pastor. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't find "clergyman" odd (cf. List of Lutheran clergy), but if you prefer "pastor", I have no major objections (to me, "pastor" has some shade of non-established church use, e.g. baptist, methodist etc., but that may just be my subjective notion). --Hegvald (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It very much depends on particular Lutheran, if he is member of pietist and confessing church movement then clergy is more than odd, IMHO, please implement the consensus. Tahnx--Stephfo (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't. You need an administrator to move the article to your preferred title. That is not a result of my move but of your own original cut-and-paste move. I have already asked you to take a look at the message from User:Theroadislong on your own talk page (and you should have done so in any case). That message explains this issue. --Hegvald (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I read it several times and I cannot find there any call for action wrt. this article let alone justification for your change against consensus but rather just the general guidelines for the future. It does not explain why consensus on pastor should be replaced by clergyman whatsoever.--Stephfo (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems rather pointless to continue this discussion when you have no interest in reading explanations already given to you. --Hegvald (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Stephfo, are you even reading what other users are writing? I'm beginning to think this language barrier is too much of a problem... You copied the article to (pastor) incorrectly, and the only way to fix it was to move it to (clergyman). Now, the only way to move it back to (pastor) requires an admin, and we need to wait for that. Please be patient.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is quite odd explanation, you can revert any removal without the need to create anything on top of that, IMHO. There is nothing indicating that revert of priest to its original form should not be possible.--Stephfo (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but this is quite odd explanation, you can revert any removal without the need to create anything on top of that, IMHO. There is nothing indicating that revert of priest to its original form should not be possible, let alone any mention of clergyman.--Stephfo (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This may sound rude, but to edit Wikipedia competence is required. Several people have explained to you that there are technical restrictions. You made a copy and paste move. That was wrong. That is forbidden. Nobody blames you because you could not know it, but it was still wrong. Because it creates problems. One of the problems is that now we can no longer move the article to the best name. It was your mistake and we cannot fix it for you. Only an admin can fix your mistake. And an admin will not do it before the AfD is over. Is it so hard to wait 4 days? Is it better to make several editors angry with your absurd insistence that it is somehow our fault? Hans Adler 22:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To say it in easier language: We all agree that Wilhelm Busch (priest) is a better title than Wilhelm Busch (clergyman). But none of us is able to move the article. We must ask an admin to do it. Some people think that articles should never be moved while there is an active AfD discussion. Therefore, if we ask an admin before the AfD is over, the admin will likely not do it. Therefore we must wait until the AfD is over, and then ask an admin. Hans Adler 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that, my mistake, I took on trust the honesty of declaration "I withdrew the nomination" and had no idea that it is in discrepancy with reality. --Stephfo (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not "in discrepancy with reality". Mann jess has withdrawn the nomination with this edit by writing I'll withdraw the nomination. The next step is that an admin sees this and closes the AfD. I have seen that this is not the first time that you have accused a fellow editor for dishonesty for no valid reason at all. If you continue with this behaviour your career here will be short. Hans Adler 23:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I publicly apologize to Jess, the word "honesty" was really surplus, I could use better wording. He was writing in past tense hence I wanted to point that in discrepancy was claim with actual status of withdrawal in terms of closed AfD, my wording was really bad. Thank you for showing me my mistake. --Stephfo (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving
I can perform any move to any name, but since I participated in the AfD I cannot close it. Another admin must do that, or Jess can do that if he wants, since he's the nominator and the consensus to keep is obvious. Just decide what to call it, and I can perform the move even if the target name already exists. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? Well, I participated in the discussion, but I still closed it. As a non admin. Per WP:IAR. StAnselm (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. I was just about to close it, but StAnselm beat me to it. We should be good to go on the move. (BTW, according to Non-admin_closure, regular users can close an AfD when it qualifies for speedy keep, so no IAR necessary)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The IAR bit came from me being a participant in the discussion. WP:NACD says "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion... should be avoided." StAnselm (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For my part, I don't recall ever having to invoke IAR, but I guess that was a good call since the nominator indicated it should be closed. In any case, WP:SNOWBALL applies here, so all is well.
 * So what do you want to call this fellow? Priest is apparently out. Clergyman works as a general-purpose descriptor. Would Pastor be better?
 * Might it be best to use the way he was referred to during his lifetime? I note that some clergy are called "Vikar" in Germany (see Vicar), but I don't know if that applies here either.
 * Looking through Category:Lutheran clergy and subcategories, I find an article with the disambiguator "pastor" and another one with "Lutheran minister". There's also a whole category of articles Category:Lutheran priests and Category:Lutheran bishops, so perhaps "priest" isn't so far-fetched &mdash; or perhaps these categories need cleaning up. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say Wilhelm Busch (minister) is best. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Minister is ambiguous, and for a minor German politician (which he also was) it's even worse than that: It is more likely to be read as member of a government because German has the word only in that context. Didn't we have a consensus for "pastor"? What's wrong about that? Hans Adler 08:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with "pastor" but it would be nice to know how the sources refer to him. As far as I can tell, the online German sources refer to him as an evangelist. I also see the term "Pfarrer" which translates to either minister or pastor depending on the dictionary. If he is known primarily for his evangelism, and that is what makes him notable, then perhaps Wilhelm Busch (evangelist) would be most appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In German, I think there is a strong tendency to prefer pastor when someone is both pastor and evangelist. Probably because pastor is an office with high social prestige while an evangelist may be unemployed. For Germans that's an important difference. Whether to apply German or American standards in the disambiguation is a matter of judgement. Both are fine to me. Hans Adler 13:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I really think we are wasting way too much time with this person. Hans Adler 13:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good enough discussion. "Pastor" it is. Move complete. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:WilhelmBuschPriest1.png Nominated for Deletion

 * I have removed the image again as it was clearly copied from here without permission.Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This image copied from a 1993 book cover, has been added again. Fair use suggests it is OK to use it to illustrate an article discussing the book in question but not anything else?.Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Legacy
I have removed the content about Ulrich Parzany I don't believe it has enough relevance to the article's subject. I have also re-added the quotefarm maintenance template since the excessive quote problem has still not been resolvedTheroadislong (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on Parzany; that's irrelevant to Busch. Besides, the sources for that paragraph were rather poor: Primary sources linking Parzany to Busch, secondary sources about Busch's later importance which do not mention Busch at all. Even the primary sources did not support all we said in that paragraph. Huon (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. It's about Busch's legacy and if he's influenced an important successor to someone like Graham, that seems reasonable enough to say. Of course, citations are important, but let's give the editor a chance, rather than reverting his efforts. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From the sources we had, I cannot even tell how Busch influenced Parzany (the term used in the one source which has something to say about their relationship is "particularly affected", which does not tell much), and unless it is central to Parzany succeeding Graham, I don't see why Busch's influence on Parzany is any more relevant to Busch than his influence on all the other people who did not become Graham successors. Of course, if reliable secondary sources discuss Busch's influence on Parzany, please go ahead and add them. Huon (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed though if Ulrich Parzany really was an important successor to someone like Graham then he would surely have his own article and it might be a different matter.Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm not getting your point. As a matter of fact, Parzany was successor of Billy Graham in ProChrist evangelistic campaigns.

The information that [Billy Graham started ProChrist in Essen in 1993]  (Dan Wooding chats with Billy Graham in Essen, Germany, during Mr. Graham's Pro Christ crusade there.) can be denied only by applying a great deal of narrow-minded thinking. I hope this is clear. And if you oppose that Parzany was successor of Billy Graham in ProChrist campaigns, then I think it is utterly illogical, because you are basically trying to say that this document (that was removed from article) stating about Parzany that "since 1994 [he has been] Head of the evangelistic project “ProChrist”"; as well as thousands of people who saw him preaching both in big halls and over satellite on multiple occasions during campaigns, had a mirage. I'm not aware of any WP policy that demands that if sources claim that someone was influenced by other people (Ulrich Parzany ...Durch die Jugendarbeit des Essener Weigle-Hauses - damals geleitet von dem Pfarrer und Evangelisten Wilhelm Busch - kam er 1955 zum Glauben an Jesus und wirkte bis 1961 ehrenamtlich in der missionarischen Jugendarbeit mit. (In English: Through the youth work of Weigle-Haus Essen – that time led by the pastor and evangelist William Busch – in 1955 he came to faith in Jesus and participated on a voluntary basis in missionary work with young people until 1961.) then this information is not acceptable by WP. Moreover, it does not take too much logical thinking to realize that if YMCA house activities were led by Busch and Parzany came to faith there, that the answer to your question is very simple: Parzany was influenced by the activities Busch was doing in this house which are very well described, and by attending them, i.e. by direct face-to-face contact. That's very obvious context used by source. Moreover, it sounds completely insane that any other sources than a person himself should know by whom he was influenced. From what other source they could have it if not from the person himself? Are they living his life? Are they going to contradict him: No, you were not influenced by him, it is just your false impression! Imagine that no other sources would say that Parzany or anyone else known as living on this Earth was born, would you remove the information of his birth from article dedicated to him because according to your logic, if no other source that the one close to him/her mentions it, you are convinced that he/she is not existing, he/she never was born and the birth date should not be given and should be immediately removed? These are very strange far-fetched arguments hard to come to grips with. All this information is very well verifiable hence I'm really not sure what you are after, please explain. If possible, have a look at this if it might not pertain to you why some people are leaving Wikipedia. Also, if there is no article about Parzany on WP, then from where I had that picture of him preaching at ProChrist? en.wiki is not the whole world and if something interesting is at en.wp missing that should be motivation for making up for the leeway and not acting like "self-appointed deletionist Wikipedia topic police" as someone put it.--Stephfo (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop ranting and going at it with bad faith and personal insults. Just discuss calmly and use sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please may you go into details what you regard for personal insult and what edit was w.o sources? Please explain. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As you've been told before, calling other editors potentially malicious is not OK. Immediately speaking of "a great deal of narrow-minded thinking" when Theroadislong doubts the importance of Parzeny's succession to Graham is also not the most civil course of action. Regarding sources, the German quotation you gave above says nothing about any influence Busch had on Parzany. In particular, it does not say, as our paragraph used to do, that Parzany became a voluntary co-worker because he had found his faith or because he was influenced by Busch - to me it says rather the opposite; he found his faith through his youth work. One might interpret it as saying that the youth work itself was a more significant factor than Busch's leadership. I don't think a personal interpretation of a primary source, not backed up by a secondary source, improves the article. Wikipedia policy agrees: Material should not be based entirely on primary sources. Are there secondary sources discussing Busch's influence on Parzeny? If not, we should probably not cover it. Huon (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was using my wealth of experience I'm gaining at WP when other editors call me disruptive (cf. This is good last-chance offer for a very disruptive editor. I agree with DV that the next block should be indefinite. Binksternet (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC) -Pls. advise what do you regard for very disruptive edits of mine and, if possible, provide the hyperlinks to the ones identified as such. Thanks a lot in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)) and edit warring even though they impolitely refuse to answer my questions afterwards when I ask them what in particular they regard for disruptive or why the correction of deletion made based on false accusation should be regarded as EW. You (Elen of the Roads) have witnessed those cases and had no objections, hence I thought it is standard approved WP:etiquette to assume such things without bothering to prove them afterwards. Pls. accept my apology if I misunderstood it and if the WP rule states that anybody can claim whatever he/she like about me but I cannot even declare the very truth that removing content not associated with objections is potentially suspicious.
 * Objection#1"Theroadislong doubts the importance of Parzeny's succession to Graham" --> Please advise if he/she still doubts it in spite of this: ""Ulrich Parzany succeeded Billy Graham as the main speaker at ProChrist evangelistic meetings, held about every three years since reunification" that was used in references
 * Objection#2 "Regarding sources, the German quotation you gave above says nothing about any influence Busch had on Parzany." --> Pls. explain what in your opinion say these German quotations if nothing about any influence a Busch had on Parzany:


 * 2.1 "Rev. Ulrich Parzany: 1955 Came to faith in Christ through the youth work of the Weigle-Houses in Essen; until 1961 Volunteer co-worker at the Weigle-House and was particularly affected by youth pastor Wilhelm Busch"
 * 2.2 "Ulrich Parzany ...Durch die Jugendarbeit des Essener Weigle-Hauses - damals geleitet von dem Pfarrer und Evangelisten Wilhelm Busch - kam er 1955 zum Glauben an Jesus und wirkte bis 1961 ehrenamtlich in der missionarischen Jugendarbeit mit. (In English: Through the youth work of Weigle-Haus Essen – that time led by the pastor and evangelist William Busch – in 1955 he came to faith in Jesus and participated on a voluntary basis in missionary work with young people until 1961.)" Both were present in article when they have been removed."


 * Objection#3: "In particular, it does not say, as our paragraph used to do, that Parzany became a voluntary co-worker because he had found his faith or because he was influenced by Busch - to me it says rather the opposite; he found his faith through his youth work. One might interpret it as saying that the youth work itself was a more significant factor than Busch's leadership. I don't think a personal interpretation of a primary source, not backed up by a secondary source, improves the article. Wikipedia policy agrees: Material should not be based entirely on primary sources. Are there secondary sources discussing Busch's influence on Parzeny? If not, we should probably not cover it." If you are genuinely interested in learning the meaning, I suggest to involve user: Hans Adler as German native speaker advisor. I already answered this objections. I can add a bit. IMHO, policy on sources was introduce to prevent wp information that can be contentious or inaccurate. However stating true statement that somebody believes that his life was influenced by someone else does not make to challenge as it would require to live a life of someone else and there is no other source than person himself/herself to correctly portray his/her own views.--Stephfo (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Theroadislong, I'd like to ask you to explain why you think that it would harm Wikipedia if you would leave section on Legacy alone. I still believe all information there was 100% correct and of high interest for common Wikipedia reader. Please advise what is your objective. Thanks.--Stephfo (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I don't know what other editors called you, and it does not excuse your conduct. Several people have tried to explain the difference between assuming bad faith and calling an editor's actions disruptive on your talk page; I don't think I could do better. I will just add that bringing up the injustices done to you in the past again and again is unlikely to make you any friends. Secondly, Theroadislong did not remove content "not associated with objections" - he explained his objections on this very talk page. Per WP:BRD, that should have caused a discussion on the talk page, not suspicions. Thirdly, while I cannot tell what Theroadislong doubts or does not doubt, I am not convinced succeding Graham is sufficient to establish notability. The German article on Parzany seems to be rather light on significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The sources you gave for the now-removed paragraph did not provide what I'd call significant coverage, either. Fourthly, thank you for your advice, but I believe my German is quite sufficient for the task at hand. I already acknowledged that the English quotation says something about Busch and Parzany - but what exactly does "particularly affected" mean? How was Parzany affected? I do not know, and the source does not tell. (Technically, Parzany would also have been "affected" by Busch if he had been disgusted by him...) The German quotation does not say anything about the relation between Busch and Parzany except that Busch was Parzany's superior as a youth worker. Both are primary sources. If I claimed to have been "particularly affected" by Busch and hosted a text to that effect on my own website, would you agree that should be added to the article? If not, why should Busch's influence on Parzany be mentioned?
 * In short, I don't see how the influence Busch may have had to Parzany is relevant to Busch. This is the Busch article, not the Parzany article, and we should not provide information that is irrelevant to Busch or over-emphasize what is, from a Busch point of view, a minor incident. Huon (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you have explained rather more eloquently the reasons for removing the Parzany section.Theroadislong (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Add. "Theroadislong did not remove content "not associated with objections" - he explained his objections on this very talk page." --> Why then he/she put the book back if everything was OK adding back book to bibliography removed in error? I suggest that it was because he/she first removed content "not associated with objections" "in error".
 * Add. "How was Parzany affected?" - please provide rationale per which policy this information should be clarified beyond the clarification already given in source. I do not care how Parzany was affected in detail, the source claims he was affected and I do not go beyond that statement in the article hence I see no need to clarify something that is not stated. Let's have a look at founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales: the article claims "Personal life: Wales has been married twice, and has a daughter. At the age of 20, Wales married Pam, a co-worker at a grocery-store in Alabama. He met his second wife, Christine Rohan, through a friend in Chicago while she was working as a steel trader for Mitsubishi. The couple were married in Monroe County, Florida in March 1997, and had a daughter before separating." - Does this text and sources explain How was he divorced and what was the reason? It clearly does not and it is not important to the degree that lacking this information should disqualify this information to be presented in the article. I suggest to apply the very same standards in here.
 * Add. "I am not convinced succeeding Graham is sufficient to establish notability."   : "In 1993 Billy Graham was the main speaker at ProChrist, an series of evangelistic campaigns at which he was succeeded by Ulrich Parzany in later years." etc. Pls. explain based on what the information on wikipedia founder being married twice is regarded as notable in comparison with this case which should be not in your opinion.
 * Add. "why should Busch's influence on Parzany be mentioned?"
 * 1. Because it is true and given by sources
 * 2. Because the mission of encyclopaedia should be to inform people of information that is interesting and accurate and educates them rather than prevents them from knowledge or limits it
 * 3. Because most people would find it interesting as they probably heard of Billy Graham and this is clear interesting instance of Busch's influence on people including Billy Graham's successor in ProChrist evangelistic campaigns that affect lots of people ("More than 1,250 venues in Europe were involved in 2006, when ProChrist was transmitted from Munich")
 * Counter-question: What should be the benefit for Wikipedia in limiting peoples' knowledge? --Stephfo (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pls. also advise if you'd regard going for WP:DRN as reasonable move forward or if you still see a room for improvement of the article by text on legacy of Busch w/o searching the help of 3rd party. Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stepho you can do what ever you like I've had enough, I helped to save the article from deletion when it was first created, but I care not what happens to it now.Theroadislong (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stephfo, your continued allegations of bad faith against everybody are becoming problematic. Articles are not indiscriminate dumps of data, they need a structure, and it is therefore perfectly legitimate for someone to say "this information would be better in that article" or "this information is not sufficiently significant to include here". Some of the information above may be regarded by some as unrelated to the subject of this article. Also, information must be well sourced. One of your sources is very poor. The answer is to use better sourcing, and show how the information is particularly significant to the subject. Does Parzany have a biography or autobiography published in which he talks about Busch, for example? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Add. "Does Parzany have a biography or autobiography published in which he talks about Busch, for example?" - As a matter of fact, he clearly does, for example: "Ulrich Parzany: Leiter und Redner von ProChrist e.V.: Die Biografie von Ulrich Parzany, sowie Bilder zum Download gibt es im Pressebereich." And it was present in the article before deletion in ref quotes: "Ulrich Parzany 1955 Came to faith in Christ through the youth work of the Weigle-Houses in Essen until 1961 Volunteer co-worker at the Weigle-House and particularly affected by youth pastor Wilhelm Busch" (it was present in erased text FYI), i.e. "he talks about Busch" as you wish.
 * The Jimmy Wales line of reasoning is a red herring; I don't care about that article's problems. Each article should stand on its own merits; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While I'm providing random links to essays: WP:INTERESTING is also listed among bad arguments (and while those essays deal with deletion of articles, the points they make remain valid).
 * The policies I would cite in support of my position are WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:DUE: Content in Wikipedia should be verifiable from reliable, published sources. The primary sources given in support of Busch's influence on Parzany are not reliable sources on Busch. In particular, the claim that Parzany's volunteering was a consequence of Busch's influence was not supported by any sources and constitutes original research (it's also, for all I can tell, not true in the first place). Similarly, no sources drew a connection between Busch's influence on Parzany and his later succession of Graham; doing so in the article is forbidden as synthesis. From a more philosophical point of view, Wikipedia benefits from omitting such content because unverifiable content is inherently unreliable, because admitting it would open the door to all kinds of cruft and because we are likely to err in our personal judgement on what is "interesting" or significant and what is not, which would ultimately bury significant information under a mountain of trivia.
 * Since consensus so far seems to be that better sources would be necessary to mention the Busch-Parzany connection in the article, I don't see how the article could be improved in that regard without such sources. Feel free to ask for wider community input, but four editors agreed on that - everybody but you. I doubt involving WP:DRN would produce a significantly different result. Huon (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are lots of articles at WP that are using template if someone has reservations related to sources without anybody feeling the deletion being the better option. The reason for such approach can be easily assumed - the data provided in articles are correct and contradicting them would require denial of common sense being the one of the very basic WP principles. Also have a look at this: "Catch-22 is a general critique of bureaucratic operation and reasoning. Resulting from its specific use in the book, the phrase "Catch-22" is common idiomatic usage meaning "a no-win situation" or "a double bind" of any type. "Catch-22" is a ... self-contradictory circular logic...and the motif of bureaucratic absurdity is further explored..." I suggest that it very well might be the case that it is exactly what's going on here, especially if information on Busch influencing Parzany is present at German Wikipedia with the same or even reduced sourcing compared to the case here and nobody seems to suffer a heart attack because of that.--Stephfo (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There's an easy way for you to "win": Present reliable secondary sources about the Busch-Parzany connection. The German Wikipedia, in my experience, tends to have lower standards for sources, but even there the Busch article does not mention Busch's influence on Parzany (their Parzany article does, though much shorter than what you proposed here). Even if it did, that's not a reason to lower our own standards. Neither is the fact that other articles with insufficient secondary sources exist a reason to create another problem. Huon (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm trying to say that this guy was not completely mistaken in his observations: "When Wikipedia first started, it was a very nice project. You could contribute to existing articles or start new ones, and it was fun to watch other users improve on what you had written -- expanding it, making it clearer, adding more information, etc. It really worked well for a number of years.

But those days are over. I've found lately that if you try to contribute anything at all, '''somebody immediately deletes your contribution, citing some obscure violation of the minutiae of thousands of Wikipedia rules and policies. I've sometimes spent hours and hours arguing with someone over making even the tiniest change to an article; then after having soundly won the argument, had my contribution deleted anyway. Start a new article on some topic, and it gets almost immediately deleted. Try correcting or adding to an existing article, and your edits are immediately reverted'''. Try to look up an article you wrote a few years ago, and it's gone. There's just no point in spending time on the Wikipedia project anymore, when anything you do is immediately deleted. After many years of contributing to Wikipedia, I've finally had enough of fighting with these self-appointed deletionist Wikipedia topic police. I won't be contributing to it anymore, and will be joining the increasing number of people who are abandoning the Wikipedia project. SimpsonDG (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"--Stephfo (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We have seen you bring up SimpsonDG's message, your past grievances with unrelated editors, Jimmy Wales, Catch-22, and now, going full circle, SimpsonDG's message again. What I have not seen is reliable secondary sources covering Busch's influence on Parzany. I begin to suspect that either such sources do not exist or that you cannot find them. This does not in the least convince me we should mention Parzany in the Busch article. Huon (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To address your objections:
 * Objection#1: "Red herring. I don't care about that article's problems. Each article should stand on its own merits;" If you do not care about other article problems then I suggest you do not care about integrity of Wikipedia and this is simultaneously a prove of your specific WP:IDONTLIKEIT pattern of behaviour "that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted". I also refuse your argument on Red herring because from the definition of what the red herring is it is clear that I do not want to distract attention into any side issue but on the contrary, stay focused on the very central issue of your argument on details of certain claims and react on it by reasoning that if some sources do not provide every detail someone might dream about, it is not a reason to dismiss given information they mention. I suggest that neither Jimmy Wales example nor my erased text have any problem in this regard as they both use the very valid acceptable principle that information given by source can be reproduced within the informative extent of that source w/o violation of any WP policy if some details would be omitted.
 * Objection#2: WP:INTERESTING I do not declare that the information should be kept because it is interesting to me, but that the very fact that ProChrist [where Parzany who was influenced by Busch is the preacher] takes place approximately every 3 years and commonly involves more than 1,250 venues in Europe is per se and per WP:GNG notable and worth of attention.
 * Objection#3: Similarly, no sources drew a connection between Busch's influence on Parzany and his later succession of Graham; doing so in the article is forbidden as synthesis. Definition of SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I'm not reaching a conclusion not explicitly stated by sources:
 * 1. Sources clearly explicitly state Parzany was influenced by Busch and as they were 7 years working in the same building on the same missionary projects, it would be very naive to expect there was no interaction between them :


 * German: wesentlich durch den Jugendpfarrer Wilhelm Busch geprägt
 * English: significantly influenced by the youth pastor William Busch
 * 1.1 : "Ulrich Parzany was born 1941 in Essen, Germany. In 1955, in result of Youth Mission by Wilhelm Busch he came to faith in Jesus Christ"
 * 1.2 "Parzany Ulrich was born in 1941 in the German city of Essen. In result of youth mission performed by Wilhelm Busch, pastor and evangelist in this city, Parzany came to faith in Jesus Christ in 1955."
 * 1.3 "Rev. Ulrich Parzany: 1955 Came to faith in Christ through the youth work of the Weigle-Houses in Essen; until 1961 Volunteer co-worker at the Weigle-House and was particularly affected by youth pastor Wilhelm Busch"
 * 1.4 "Ulrich Parzany ...Durch die Jugendarbeit des Essener Weigle-Hauses - damals geleitet von dem Pfarrer und Evangelisten Wilhelm Busch - kam er 1955 zum Glauben an Jesus und wirkte bis 1961 ehrenamtlich in der missionarischen Jugendarbeit mit. (In English: Through the youth work of Weigle-Haus Essen – that time led by the pastor and evangelist William Busch – in 1955 he came to faith in Jesus and participated on a voluntary basis in missionary work with young people until 1961.)"
 * 2. Sources clearly explicitly state Parzany succeeded Billy Graham and even cooperated with him in ProChrist evangelistic campaigns and it is a statement helping WP reader to understand who Parzany is and why he is notable to be mentioned as person influenced by Busch and cooperating with him until 1962 in the same YMCA house.


 * 2.1
 * 2.2
 * 2.3
 * 2.4 : "In 1993 Billy Graham was the main speaker at ProChrist, an series of evangelistic campaigns at which he was succeeded by Ulrich Parzany in later years."
 * 2.5 "Ulrich Parzany was born in 1941 in German Essen. In cooperation with Billy Graham he participated on major project named ProChrist, which over satellite included 1200 venues in 15 states of Europe in 2000. (sita agency) etc.
 * I apologize for any inconvenience, but I really regard the requirement that secondary sources should confirm Parzany's own testimony that he was influenced by Busch for absurd. They can at the very maximum just copy his own statements, still, the secondary sources for those statements can be find and has been presented: *1.2 "Parzany Ulrich was born in 1941 in the German city of Essen. In result of youth mission performed by Wilhelm Busch, pastor and evangelist in this city, Parzany came to faith in Jesus Christ in 1955."; *1.1 : "Ulrich Parzany was born 1941 in Essen, Germany. In 1955, in result of Youth Mission by Wilhelm Busch he came to faith in Jesus Christ". What do you expect these sources to claim, something like this: "Parzany was really serious about it when he declared that he was influenced by Busch, he really did not joke". I will repeat my opinion that policy on secondary sources was introduced into WP to prevent presenting inaccurate information or prevent spreading myths, and not to be misused in far-fetched way for deletion of obvious facts that can be denied only by applying a great deal of WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude, especially if someone cooperates with other person in the same building in the same city on the same mission program as long as from 1955 until 1962, i.e. 7 years.
 * --Stephfo (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still unimpressed by your sources. The two Slovakian ones which mention Busch are not reliable secondary sources. The German one even cites ProChrist (and thus Parzany) as its source, and I doubt the Christliche Polizeivereinigung is known for editorial oversight and for fact-checking its website content. That's yet another primary source, directly based on Parzany's own CV. If we do not draw a connection between Busch and Parzany's succession of Graham, then all sources which mention the succession but not Busch (all those listed under 2.x) are completely and utterly irrelevant to this article. I could just as well add sources stating that Madeleine Albright became Secretary of State of the US - true, verifiable, irrelevant to Busch. Or, as I mentioned above, I could put up a document on my personal website stating that I was deeply affected by Busch, and then add that to the article. Not actually true, verifiable to roughly the same degree, still irrelevant to Busch. (It also shows that just because Parzany claims to have been influenced by Busch that need not be true, although I doubt Parzany has reasons to lie about his relation to Busch - on the other hand, if Parzany had considered Busch an old bore, he would be unlikely to write that.) The "seven years" are also rather unconvincing. I'm pretty confident that Busch cooperated with some of his subordinates (say, his secretary?) for even longer terms - yet they are not mentioned in the article because the cooperation is irrelevant to Busch. What I'd consider ideal would be a secondary source which states something along the lines of: "Busch's most successful pupil was Ulrich Parzany, who succeeded him in leadership of the CVJM and adopted Busch's belief in X, spreading it via the ProChrist ministry." That would tell us something about Busch's legacy and provide a link between Busch and ProChrist. But the only persons writing about Busch and mentioning Parzany are Parzany and his close associates, and even they do not draw a connection between Busch and ProChrist or the Graham succession. Neither should we.
 * ProChrist and Parzany may be notable and worthy of their own articles. I would even agree that if Parzany is found to be notable, his article should mention Busch as a significant influence on him. That's where this information belongs. See WP:COATRACK: The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there. The Parzany material is not particularly biased, but highly irrelevant. Huon (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Add. " that I was deeply affected by Busch, and then add that to the article " - sure, you can declare it, but then it would be strange why you have not written book about this influence as Parzany did (EAN: 9783761535691 von: Ulrich Parzany: Begegnungen mit Wilhelm Busch) and you would have quite difficulties to find declarations like this about your relation to Busch:


 * "Parzany ist Schüler und Mitarbeiter des Essener Pfarrers und evangelistischen Predigers Wilhelm Busch." Page 68:
 * "Parzany is student and co-worker of the Essene pastor and evangelistic preacher Wilhelm Busch." I hope this is what you were after and your good German will confirm that.
 * "Nach eigener Aussage fand Ulrich Parzany 1955 im Weigle-Haus in Essen unter dem Einfluss des Jugendpfarrers Wilhelm Busch zum christlichen Glauben."Page 257:
 * My pleasure to leave up to your translation skills...
 * Add. "Madeleine Albright became Secretary of State of the US - true, verifiable, irrelevant to Busch." - Madeline Albright probably never was in Essen's YMCA house which was under Busch's leadership, and never came to faith in Christ there in. If she would, I would include her. Parzany visited that house, house reopened after war by Busch, and the missionary work of Busch there in affected his life to such degree that he came to faith into Christ, became co-worker there in, together with Busch, from 1955 until 1961, and later become successor of Billy Graham which would probably never happened if he would not come to contact with Busch's activities in Essen's YMCA house. For that very reason, I believe readers of this dispute if not you yourself, would acknowledge my point that the legacy of Busch is such that it influences people, includeing someone as notable as Parzany, and Busch existence was relevant to Parzany's life as well as to ProChrist campaign, which would be most likely w/o Parzany if he had not come across Busch, IMHO.
 * I believe if someone decides to behave per WP:IDONTLIKEIT then there is no such source under Sun that would be acceptable for him/her. Please, advise if it is realistic at all that you can accept obvious truth.--Stephfo (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me present an obvious truth we probably all can accept. The first book citation you now give, here, is a copy of the first paragraph of the German Wikipedia article's "Leben" section, and that article predates the book. Not only does the author quote Wikipedia and you now propose quoting him again, creating quite a nice circle, he does not attribute his quote to Wikipedia, thereby probably violating the requirements of Wikipedia's licenses. Ooops!
 * The other book's statement that Parzany was pupil and co-worker of Busch is nice for Parzany, but rather irrelevant to Busch, who likely had many pupils and co-workers. In particular, there is no indication what Parzany learned, how he was influenced by Busch, or why someone interested in Busch, not Parzany, should care.
 * Your claim that Parzany would probably not have become Graham's successor if not for Busch and that Busch was relevant to ProChrist might make Parzany a worthy addition to the legacy section - if we had a secondary source and not just your humble opinion. As it is, you provide some sourced facts - Parzany was "strongly affected" by Busch, later Parzany became Graham's successor -, insinuate a connection between those events which no secondary source confirms, and thereby violate WP:SYN. You rather openly say that's what you're trying to do, don't you? Right now, the most I can see as justified would be a one-liner along the lines of: "Busch's pupils included Ulrich Parzany who said he was strongly affected by Busch." Of course it would be nice to have an article about Parzany so the readers can learn why Parzany is significant, but in the absence of such an article that information still does not belong here. Talking about Graham or ProChrist in this article is a direct violation of policy unless that connection is made by a reliable source.
 * If you really feel I am the problem here, please go ahead and seek wider community input. I would suggest a request for comment instead of the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you do, please keep me informed. Huon (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Add. "The other book's statement that Parzany was pupil and co-worker of Busch is nice for Parzany, but rather irrelevant to Busch, who likely had many pupils and co-workers."


 * --> If you read about Socrates, you find an information that his student was Plato. He likely had many pupils and co-workers, but even then nobody demands to delete Socrates as notable one.
 * --> Likewise, if you read about Plato: you find out the information that he was a student of Socrates. It is nice and relevant for both, like in here.
 * Add. "Wider community input" --> cf. Argumentum ad populum, while learning of opinions of others is nice and welcome, it can be also contraproductive when people stop addressing logical arguments and start to give way to their emotions and beliefs, and disregard sources, such approach is not very encyclopaedic.
 * Add. WP:SYN --> This was already explained, Please try to read closely WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Let's try once more: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C". You are proposing that the "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", alias "conclusion C" is the following statement: "insinuate a connection between those events which no secondary source confirms, and thereby violate WP:SYN" - however, there is no such claim in text that was deleted even though you are trying to attribute it to it, the deleted text strictly followed the explicit statements of the sources used. It is truth that I point out that if Busch would not do his missionary job in Essen's YMCA building, the Parzany's life would most likely not be affected by Busch in a sense that he converted to Christian faith and at the end become an important figure of ProChrist evangelic campaigns, but this claim is not part of the text that was erased, and is used SOLELY outside the article text, ONLY in discussion to explain why Parzany is per WP:GNG a figure worth to be mentioned in the article, in the same way as Plato is recognized as worth to be mentioned in the article about Socrates.
 * Add. "You rather openly say that's what you're trying to do, don't you?" - see above + previous arguments:
 * Add. "why should Busch's influence on Parzany be mentioned?"
 * 1. Because it is true and given by sources
 * 2. Because the mission of encyclopaedia should be to inform people of information that is interesting and accurate and educates them rather than prevents them from knowledge or limits it
 * 3. Because most people would find it interesting as they probably heard of Billy Graham and this is clear interesting instance of Busch's influence on people including Billy Graham's successor in ProChrist evangelistic campaigns that affect lots of people ("More than 1,250 venues in Europe were involved in 2006, when ProChrist was transmitted from Munich" cf. WP:GNG) I agree this sourced information about Parzany's succession to Billy Graham in ProChrist would not be needed for people involved or participating in these campaigns as it is not necessary to persuade them about what they see/saw with their bare eyes, however for those who had no chance to learn about them, this explanatory sourced sentence is worth of mention to understand why that person is deemed as notable. Not everybody is scholar and specialist in every possible field.
 * Counter-question: What should be the benefit for Wikipedia in limiting peoples' knowledge and deprive them of obvious truth?

and following statement:
 * Add. "it would be nice to have an article about Parzany so the readers can learn why Parzany is significant" - please advise if this is the proposition that I should start creating one. -yes/no? --Stephfo (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:SYN: I did hear you - but I don't see how we can mention, say, the Graham succession or ProChrist without insinuating, by their very mention in this article, a connection to Busch. WP:SYN also gives examples which show that the unsupported claim need not be made explicit - compare the "UN and wars" examples.
 * The GNG covers whether some topic is sufficiently notable for its own article; it has nothing to say about which other articles that topic should be mentioned in. This article simply is not the right place for information that is not relevant to Busch.
 * You also repeat that the removed text "strictly followed the explicit statements of the sources used" - this is wrong. The removed text first noted that Parzany was influenced by Busch and continued: "Consequently, Parzany volunteered there as co-worker in missionary work [...]" No source says that Parzany's volunteering was a consequence of anything, in particular not of Busch's influence.
 * If you agree that ProChrist and the Graham succession are not important to the Busch article, then what about my proposed one-liner mentioning Parzany as a pupil of Busch? Would that be acceptable to you?
 * Whether Parzany should receive an article of his own is hard to say. He seems to be of borderline notability, and if we omit the sources which directly or indirectly originate with Parzany himself, little remains. He's usually just mentioned in passing with next to no information about him. Google News results were not promising. ProChrist may be more notable than Parzany himself. If you feel he does satisfy the GNG, go ahead and write an article - I expect the claim of notability will be sufficiently strong that the article would survive a possible AfD, but that does not mean I consider it a good idea.
 * Finally, I am surprised by your opposition to seeking wider community input. That is acknowledged as a help towards reaching consensus, which in its turn is acknowledged as the primary way of making decisions. I have explained at length why I feel that according to the Wikipedia policies we should omit mention of Graham and of ProChrist and keep mention of Parzany to a minimum. I cannot remember you bringing up any policy (except the GNG) in support of your position. So apparently you are not swayed by the policies I cite, and you will not be swayed if the community agrees with me. You asked me what it would take to convince me; reliable secondary sources are what I ask for. How about you? Huon (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Add. "Consequently, ...": This type of argumentation is exactly what people who dislike certain topic.information per WP:IDONTLIKEIT do. They create catch-22 conditions to make sure the text/content they do not like would have no chance to be added per their far-fetched reasoning that is by some people referred to as "citing some obscure violation of the minutiae of thousands of Wikipedia rules and policies"- they gave you every choice why the content is not acceptable, but no single condition for acceptance:
 * A. If you rephrase the source even in single word, they will claim the text is not exactly in line with source and should be removed; In this particular case the word "Consequently" is defined in dictionaries "as a result : in view of the foregoing" and it is perfectly OK to be applied for given situation, as if Parzany would not "came to faith in Christ in 1955 through the youth work of the Weigle-House in Essen" performed by Busch, he would never start volunteering there "as co-worker in missionary work with youth until 1961 under Busch’s leadership". There is no contradiction whatsoever.
 * B. If you use source 1:1, they would blame it for WP:plagiarism
 * They are able to provide "citing some obscure violation of the minutiae of thousands of Wikipedia rules and policies" but none condition that would satisfy them. Go ahead my fellow good-faith editor in collaborative manner and propose how that text from given source should look like in your opinion. For the rest, I will try to address later. --Stephfo (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have proposed how that text should read:
 * Busch's pupils included Ulrich Parzany who said he was strongly affected by Busch.
 * You have ignored this twice, but maybe you just missed it while accusing me of wikilawyering. Huon (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize I really was not sure whether you meant this proposition seriously (and I'm not able to find 2nd proposition, can you pls. help me and navigate me?). Anyway, it looks much better when the text proposition is stated with full determination distinctively and with references given. Here we have however another problem: you suggest to use Wikilinks to article which existence you seem to strongly oppose: "Whether Parzany should receive an article of his own is hard to say." What is the sense to refer by wikilinks to article you do not like to be present? In such case IMHO to inform WP reader who Parzany is sounds more reasonable to me, at least until the given Wikilink would start working. Moreover, DAB pages routinely summarize hypelinks they are referring to (e.g. "Wilhelm Busch, a German caricaturist, painter, and poet"), and I do not see rationale why the same principle could not apply in here, to introduce the person that is mentioned in the text as successor of Billy Graham in ProChrist evangelistic campaigns. --Stephfo (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mean it seriously. I proposed it here and asked you whether it would be acceptable here. Maybe that second time was too inconspicious; if so I apologize. I don't see how DAB pages serve as a useful precedent here. Of course DAB pages must contain sufficient information to allow the reader to identify the topic he is actually interested in. But this is not a DAB page. It is not an article on Parzany either, and it should not discuss parts of Parzany's biography that are irrelevant to Busch. Let me again refer to WP:COATRACK. A redlink is not the end of the world if we do not yet have a Parzany article. Should Parzany be deemed insufficiently notable to ever receive his own article, we should not mention him here either. I tend to that opinion, but as I said he's a borderline case and I believe an article could be written which would probably survive a possible AfD (so in effect I acknowledge that my personal opinion will probably not become community consensus). I might even get surprised: Maybe one could write a better article than I now believe possible. Please do not expect me to start writing that article, though; I have more worthy topics on my to-do list. Huon (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, if someone has no opportunity to react right away and posts the announcement: "For the rest, I will try to address later." -then I hope it might be in somewhat civil manner accepted as excuse eligible for avoidance of comments like "You have ignored this twice". Although I'm honestly acknowledging I have not addressed that proposition when it was presented first time. I also have to admit I'm getting lost in your objections and their validity status (meaning whether you still stand up for them one by one). My up-to-date text proposal and effort to address your concerns would look something like this (I'm sorry I do not know how real sandboxes work and since there is a warning the edit might be lost I'm not going to take a risk there):
 * 
 * I believe it would be great and I would really appreciate it if you can provide a summary of your up-to-date objections, if any, while numbering them 1-N so that we can maintain succinct, concise conversation. Thanks in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be great and I would really appreciate it if you can provide a summary of your up-to-date objections, if any, while numbering them 1-N so that we can maintain succinct, concise conversation. Thanks in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Stephfo, your version seems to have ignored absolutely everything that has been said above. Since this is probably down to a language difficulty, here it is in I hope more simple English.
 * The article is about Busch. If it mentions another person, it should not have to explain who that person is in more than half a sentence.  So a sentence like "Busch's pupils included Ulrich Parzany, the successor to Billy Graham. Parzany said he was strongly affected by Busch" would be OK if we don't have an article about Parzany, as you would need to say a couple of words to explain who Parzany is.
 * If we have an article about Parzany, then a sentence like Huon proposes is better - "Busch's pupils included Ulrich Parzany, who said he was strongly affected by Busch." With an article, you don't need to say anything about Parzany, because people can go and read the article.
 * You've almost got an article on Parzany on your userpage. May I edit it slightly, so it can be moved into userspace? I do not see a problem with notability.
 * However, you don't want to include an article on Parzany in the article on Busch, because the article is about Busch.
 * This gives us a way forward - a stub article on Parzany, and a sourced reference to Busch's connection to him in the Busch article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ellen, I very much appreciate your nice effort to improve this article, however, I reserve the right to hold my own independent opinion. IMHO, the problem is not in language, but in logic. If I ask edit-opposing party to enlist all "active" objections 1-N, it cannot be dismissed with WP:WEASEL words "absolutely everything" as then I have nothing to collaborate on.
 * I deem my proposition as being superior to that promoted by you for following reasons:
 * If you read WP:Encyclopedic style you would find out that the sentence "who said" is IMHO more suitable for naive yellow press newspaper than encyclopaedic article. It would be eligible target of various templates like: "Busch's pupils included Ulrich Parzany, who said he was strongly affected by Busch." On the contrary, all these questions are addresses in my text in an encyclopaedic way - "in Weigle-Haus in Essen", in 1955, context of influence is specified encyclopaedic way that it was pertaining Christian faith and included period of mutual co-operation on youth missionary work. All this is missing in your edit, in spite that the style requires:
 * WP:OBVIOUS:State Obvious: "State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader." I doubt common WP reader is knowledgeable of Parzany and I prefer to comply to this policy than to other propositions.
 * WP:PCR: Provide Context for the reader: "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully." Context of mentioning Parzany is that he is successor of famous evangelist Billy Graham in ProChrist campaigns that are broadcasted ca every 3 years to more than 1000 places in Europe.
 * As for Objection on "The article is about Busch. If it mentions another person" - please bear in mind that section "Legacy" is about: "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past Example: " --> "received from" inevitably requires mention of the receiver; IMHO; See example: Hans_Nielsen_Hauge
 * You also overlooked obvious fact that I solved the objection "The article is about Busch. If it mentions another person, it should not have to explain who that person is in more than half a sentence."  by moving it completely out of article into the section with notes, thus both sentences kept specifically mention Busch.
 * Another aspect is that secondary sources has been added in my text:
 * User:Stephfo/Wilhelm Busch (pastor)


 * I hope this has addressed all your concerns. Pls. comment.--Stephfo (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Stephfo, on that note, I'm about to block you indefinitely on the grounds that you are simply not WP:COMPETENT to edit here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's try again, just as Stephfo requested - I don't mind jumping through arbtirary loops if it may help improve the article. In summary, I still suggest we base our coverage on the one-liner I proposed above, modified to accomodate the new reference. Huon (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Graham does not belong in the Busch article. That's what everybody who ever commented on the issue, including Mr. Stradivarius at WP:DRN, said. Putting him into a note is still putting him in the article. I expect Stephfo to disagree - but I strongly suggest that right now would be a very good time to accept that his opinion is unlikely to become consensus and to move on.
 * 2) The reference 1 in his draft is a primary source which adds nothing whatsoever above and beyond what the references 4 and 5, respectively a primary source which more details and a secondary source, say. There is no need to use it.
 * 3) The reference 2 is a plagiarism of the German Wikipedia's article on Parzany. It should be obvious why that's not a reliable source; we should not use it.
 * 4) The link for reference 3 points to a single page out of a larger article, and that page does not contain the quote it should. Apparently the quote is contained on the next page. We should probably cite not the website, but the church newsletter of which it is a scan, and provide a link to the relevant page. Apart from those problems, it's actually the best source on the Parzany-Busch connection because Parzany offers some details on Busch's influence. I would suggest using this source instead of the less explicit reference 4.
 * 5) Stephfo's version is still implying causality where it is not supported by the sources. For example, not a single source says that Parzany came to Christ through Busch's influence. In a similar vein, I am not convinced that Parzany volunteered for youth work after being influenced by Busch - reference 4 implies that he was affected by Parzany while he did the youth work, not before.
 * 6) On a more general note, the draft reads as if it's part of an article on Parzany (which is not surprising; it's a rough translation of a part of the German Wikipedia's Parzany article). For this article, we should focus on Busch, not on Parzany.
 * Stephfo has been indefinitely blocked and it's unlikely we'll see his return, so I don't think you'll come across opposition to your proposal. N o f o rmation  Talk  03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I hadn't noticed that his block had already been widely supported. I'll implement this solution later today and possibly also start the stub on Parzany suggested by Elen of the Roads. Huon (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'll understand if you thought I was a bit premature, but I've watched this guy take up the time and energy of productive editors, eventually driving them to despair, and I thought enough is enough. Hopefully this can now proceed productively. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Parzany stub is at Ulrich Parzany; it could use some scrutiny. Sources are very weak, and I assume better sources exist somewhere; I wasn't really motivated to go looking for them. Huon (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, well done.Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Opposition?
Nach anfänglichen Erfolgen wurde die Bekennende Kirche etwa ab 1937 zunehmend verfolgt, hielt aber an ihrer eigenen Organisation fest. Dennoch war sie entgegen der Selbstdarstellung vieler ihrer Mitglieder nach 1945 keine Opposition zum Nationalsozialismus als solchem. 129.69.140.138 (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)