Jump to content

Talk:Paige Patterson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I rewrote the article on the temp page to replace copyright violation Rx StrangeLove 02:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biography assessment rating comment

[edit]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- HornandsoccerTalk 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

This article doesn't discuss any of the controversies in which Dr. Patterson has been involved throughout his career, nor does it discuss the effects of his adminstration on SWBTS such as the precipitous drop in enrollment. Xenophore 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenophore (talk • contribs)

This article now seems to be fairly biased against Paige Patterson. Namely, but not exclusively, the fact that one of the sections is titled "Sexual Abuse Problem in the Ministry". A cursory reading of such a title, without completely reading the section, may imply that Patterson himself was involved in a sexual abuse scandal, which is simply not the case and borders on character defamation. The issue is whether or not he properly handled complaints made against an associate of his. The title should be changed in order to reflect the content since the current title is incredibly misleading. A possible alternative could be "Involvement with Darrel Gilyard". Btwebster86 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole section should go - it's not really relevant, and definitely lends undue weight to the article. StAnselm (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and would like more discussion before this stuff is deleted. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to discuss it more, but I removed it per WP:BLPREMOVE. Not only do we have the question of relevancy, but it is also unclear that ethicsdaily.com is a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rev Patterson reflexively defended men of the cloth who were accused of sexual offenses at a time when the number of predators in religious vocations was well-known. At a time when the claims of those abused were widely accepted, he was spring-loaded in an "attack the victim" mode. This seems to be important. At the very least, we can see that he does not "get it." Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The section on his family seems to be coped directly from the school's website [1], and the website says it's copyrighted. 98.27.7.29 (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm?pageid=516. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Abuse Comments

[edit]

Deleted this comment as I see we have discussed the redaction. (Still I think it is important.)Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Hi, I have had a quick look and can not see ANY reason listed here why this guy is notable, then looking at the net I see self published or his church published items only, if he is notable for controversies as hinted above surely these need to be listed with sourcesThe Original Filfi (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly passes WP:PROF, #6. StAnselm (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paige Patterson. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to apologise leads to backlash among evangelicals

[edit]

Baptist leader who advised abused women not to divorce doubles down, says he has nothing to apologize for Ed Stetzer has suggested he retire and not give the sermon at the Southern Baptist convention later this year. "“If Paige Patterson preaches at the SBC, he will, because of his past work, get a standing ovation,” Stetzer wrote in a blog post for Christianity Today. “Every news story will point to that moment … and say that Southern Baptists don’t take abuse seriously. … It’s a message to women that we must not send.”" Doug Weller talk 17:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We, that's hardly a "backlash". Stetzer has a long history with Patterson (as he mentions here). StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, but that's just one example in the article. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might be due more detail given coverage like https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/sbc-patterson/559532/ --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it looks useful and shows that this is a significant issue. Did you see the video thr article links to?[2] Look at his face. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's by Jonathan Merritt, so I take it with a grain of salt. Look, this is certainly a significant event in Patterson's life, but we won't know how significant until the SBC meeting next month. If we report on a "backlash", we also need to mention the considerable support that he has received (regardless of whether it's the "tight-knit Southern Baptist boys’ club" or not). StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced as president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

[edit]
I'm sure there's a lot.[3] Doug Weller talk 18:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New, Emeritus position in Infobox

[edit]

I'm not looked for general consensus on whether or not the new, Emeritus position should be listed in the infobox, but it seems to me to be unimportant and detract from his notability. I realize that infoboxes often have POV problems in the way they highlight some information over others, and in the discussions I've been apart of, prominence and notability have been major points in deciding what is and is not included. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check Strom Thurmond and see President pro temp Emeritus. If it is valid for a senator to have one, it should be valid. It is a high and honorable position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.81.32.241 (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a high and honorable position. If you can find some independent sources to that effect, I'd agree, or at least some that are similar to those of President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate#President_pro_tempore_emeritus. --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no sources demonstrating it being so noteworthy, I've removed it again. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's been fired. Given that, any but the briefest mention of the Emeritus position he held for a few days seems grossly undue without independent sources clearly demonstrating the value of the position and what Patterson achieved from that postion. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Women

[edit]

How should we properly interprete the sentence in Michelle Boorstein May 29 article?[4] It says: The leader of a major Southern Baptist seminary issued a statement Sunday pushing back after a 2000 tape surfaced purporting to quote him saying that abused women should focus on praying and “be submissive in every way that you can” and not seek divorce. From that some editor created a general purpose sentence: "He has encouraged abused women to pray and be submissive in every way that you can", which to my eyes looks very incredible to present his real opinions and not objective. --J. Sketter (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be extremely careful with sources and be patient as the dust settles on his firing.
As I wrote on your talk page, I'm waiting for better sources to be published. At this point I've only glanced through the press releases from the SWBTS (the most recent published June 1), and the corresponding press. What we need is an independent, reliable source that gives a detailed analysis of all that's happened. As long as we're ignoring all that's happened since, picking through past references seems a waste of time.
That said, if there is a BLP problem with the current content, outdated as it is, some tactful removal would be a better approach. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, IMO we should remove or modify the sentence that is based on the WP's "purportedly". I mean, it is a very strong claim. A number of articles now blame PP for advicing raped women to sumbit and be quiet. I fulheartedly agree we need better sources, but this kind of lousy claims, that I find purposefully hostile can't stand. Either you allow in some explanations by PP, allow removal of the unsure claim altogether or tell me what in your opinion is the suitable modification. Sorry if this sounds bully. The date of PP's sayings are not any more important as are journalists reports dates. --J. Sketter (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP should protect the article subject from insufficiently based claims and rumors - not vice versa. --J. Sketter (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The way forward in the long term is to work from better sources that include the latest revelations.
Given that you're dealing with content directly related to those revelations, working from older sources is problematic.
Given that SWBTS fired him for lying, adding his statements to counter those from others is very problematic.
If current sourcing doesn't properly verify some content, it should be removed.
A number of articles now blame PP for advicing raped women to sumbit and be quiet. I'm guessing then that you've read some of the more recent news about him and why he was fired. Why not identify those news articles so we can evaluate them for use in this article? --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding recentism is not any problem here. Just use the past temp with a date. Judgements about the worth of those statements might change when we get more information, but that in itself is not a reason to reject the contemporary sources. You didn't address my question regarding the Washington Post source and if you don't have anything else to say, I'll remove the contested claim by WP:BLP; "Purported" knowledge doesn't meet the criteria of adding it to a BLP-article. You need to add a RS that definitely states he said it in that 2000 recording. Preferably by exact whole quotation from what we can see the connection to the claimed, controversial opinion. --J. Sketter (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/05/02/southern-baptist-leaders-advice-to-abused-women-sends-leaders-scrambling-to-respond/?utm_term=.1e4550da059c verifies the information. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As do these. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I'm honestly sorry Ronz. Realized Patterson really has here another kind of, rarer but still logical angle of view to these issues. It certainly can make his position hard to defend in the current media climate or make himself understood at all to many. Even if I risk stretching the purpose of this talkpage I say I see it all stems from his dislike to divorce. Regardless, justification to his point of view should be presented when RS's are available. Please keep up the good work. --J. Sketter (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of withdrawl from speaking at the SBC annual meeting

[edit]

Re [5] [6]: I don't see how bringing up the annual meeting and/or the Task Force with no other context is due any mention. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a section to discuss it right after Ronz posted this, so I moved my reasoning here. I included info on PP stepping down from a major SBC leadership post and from giving a keynote sermon at the national SBC gathering on June 12-13, 2018. Ronz edited out this info because: "unclear what weight, if any, should be given to this - some encyclopedic context is needed"; I then reverted. The paragraph in question is important for this article and particularly this section because it's in the immediate context of his firing from SWBTS (as all the national media articles reporting PP's stepping down have noted), and because PP *explicitly stated* that he was told to step down *by several national SBC leaders*. Clearly, PP stepping down signals that his firing from SWBTS has diminished his status within the national SBC. However, I'm not sure how to say that in the article in an "encyclopedic" way, so I simply quoted PP's statement that he stepped down because several SBC leaders told him to. I thought the gist was sufficiently obvious from the evidence. Also, other editors (not me) have invited more information in that section, so it seems to go against the wishes of the community to trim out relevant information. That said, if there are any substantive objections to including that information, I'd like to hear them. Cheers, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it's an improvement.
Re: "chairman of the SBC Evangelism Task Force" Other than that sounding like a position of some importance within the SBC, it's meaningless, and there's no mention of it except from within Patterson's letter.
While looking this over, there's a new, summarizing source that should be useful: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/how-women-led-to-the-dramatic-rise-and-fall-of-southern-baptist-leader-paige-patterson/2018/06/10/eacae5a4-6a61-11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it sounds as important or not as the catalog of priviledges he lost by the decision of SWBTS Executive Committee. Taht feels as well unnecessary detailed. That WP article seems to reside behind a paywall, but it's name in itself is provocative in it's triumphantness, and hints of possibly biased reporting. --J. Sketter (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wikibojopayne, for your subsequent changes to article, especially the lede. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Ronz. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paige_Patterson&oldid=1208635051"