Talk:Gerald B. Kieschnick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
More information about this article... This article has a deprecated non-null importance= parameter. It should be replaced with priority=.

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Christianity Portal Gerald B. Kieschnick is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Gerald B. Kieschnick is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] NPOV tag

I've added a NPOV tag to the article based on the March 12, 2005 changes by the user 68.114.167.126. The user is clearly one of Kieschnick's detractors, which is fine in and of itself, but bias in favor of or against Kieschnick should not influence the text of the article. The new revisions make no attempt whatsoever at neutrality or presenting multiple sides of the debates under discussion. In one case, vote-count statistics have been removed so that a victory by a 21 percent margin could be characterized as "narrow." In particular, the problems with the user's changes are as follows:

• "The initial investigation found him guilty of syncretism and unionism in violation of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, but on appeal the CCM ruled that since he had permission from the Synodical President, he was exempt from charges." The new phrase omits the fact that on appeal Benke was also cleared of the "syncretism and unionism" charges. The user thus implies that Benke was not cleared of these charges, and his/her phrasing seems to take sides in the debate.

• "In response to Kieschnick having used the LCMS's Committee on Constitutional Matters (CCM) to overrule them on several occasions in relation to business matters in the LCMS..." Conservative members of the board felt that Kieschnick used the CCM to overrule them on business affairs (which would not be permissible), but Kieschnick and his supporters argued that the CCM overruled the board only on constitutional matters, which is a legitimate function of the CCM. The text should not take sides in this debate, as the user's changes now do by stating unambiguously that the CCM overruled the board "in relation to business matters."

• "The liberal political machine, Jesus First, mobilized against the Board of Directors to elect more liberal representatives to the Board, but failed in the attempt." The characterization of an organization supporting the current president as a "liberal political machine" is clearly meant to be derogatory, and thus takes sides in the debates being discussed. And the user does not characterize organizations in the Synod's conservative wing with the same type of phrases.

• "In the lead up to the 2004 convention, many districts of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod submitted overtures to restrict the authority of the CCM, to address the issue of participation in multi-faith gatherings with a religious dimension, the accountability of the President, and many other issues brought to a head by these events. However, the various floor committes, appointed by the President, held close to his agenda and these items were not brought before the convention of 2004." This is the interpretation of the 2004 convention held by LCMS conservatives (i.e. that the president used parliamentary maneuvering to defeat a majority); it is not, however, the view taken by the moderate wing. It's fine to present this debate over how the convention operated, but the language should present the question without bias.

• "Release of delegate information though has indicated that the sitting President authorized numerous exemptions to delegate requirements enabling more representatives to be present from those districts of the church which supported him. Without these authorizations, it is not certain Kieschnick could have won re-election." Same criticism as above: presenting one camp's claim that Kieschnick only won through clandestine parliamentary maneuvers, with no balancing point of view from the president's supporters. And again, the debate is fine to present here, but this addition makes no attempt at neutrality.

• "His supporters, rallying under the action group "Jesus First" engaged in a major effort to bear influence upon the delegate selection for the 2004 convention and the subsequent elections." The user discusses the moderate group Jesus First as if its organizing activities were an anomaly within the Synod, when in fact there are many conservative caucuses that also organized in similar fashion. The language thus suggests that moderates organize in inappropriate fashion while conservatives do not.

• "The efforts of "Jesus First" enabled Kieschnick to win with a narrow majority in a re-match with first vice-president Daniel Preus, winning 53 percent of the vote." Again, a conservative interpretation of the 2004 convention that is not held by moderates. Many would not ascribe Kieschnick's reelection solely to the activities of Jesus First. Secondly, the original language stated, "In the end, however, Kieschnick triumphed easily in a re-match with first vice-president Daniel Preus, winning 53 percent of the vote to Preus's 32 percent." The language was changed to claim that Kieschnick won reelection "narrowly," when in fact he won by a 21 percent margin. The statistics showing the margin of Kieschnick's victory were removed so that the user could characterize the victory as "narrow." There would be no other reason to remove the statistics here.

• The sentence describing the 2004 defeat of incumbent first vice-president Daniel Preus, a leading opponent of Kieschnick, has been removed. This change seems to reflect the same bias as the user's removal of statistics as noted above.

• "However, there are many in the LCMS who fear that Kieschnick and his supports are setting the synodical union ablaze by pushing for an agenda that appears to be dividing rather than uniting." This new sentence seems clearly biased toward Kieschnick's opponents. In addition, it is sloppy to say simply that "many in the LCMS" feel this way, rather than explaining what individuals, parties, wings, or camps feel this way.

• The change of "moderate" to "liberal" when referring to Kieschnick's supporters is misleading, because outside the context of the LCMS, they would still seem extremely conservative (i.e. in the context of American Protestantism in general). In addition, the adjective "liberal" is used exclusively by the LCMS conservative wing as a derogatory description for the moderate wing, and is not a label used by the moderates for their own wing. It would be more neutral to use an adjective that isn't also used as a derogatory description by one camp for the other.

• New External Links: The user adds a summary of the controversies on a conservative group's website (one highly critical of Kieschnick), but doesn't explain the website's political perspective and doesn't include a similar summary from a moderate website.

In summation, although the user adds a few new and interesting facts, they are almost all presented with a degree of bias in the writing. I suggest a rewrite or a complete revision to the old version (perhaps incorporating a few of the new facts). The user needs to refer to the NPOV policy which states, "In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts."

Ropcat 07:31, 12 March 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on NPOV issues listed above

User 68.114.167.126, if you wish to dispute Ropcat's claims, please discuss them here, don't just delete them.

Also, I removed some text (given its adoption of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" with the Roman Catholic Church. This document backpeddled from the traditional Lutheran understanding of justification by the declaration of God's forgiving grace alone which is the cornerstone for Lutheran identity) describing why the 2001 convention resolution about the ELCA, since the pros and cons of the actions between the Catholic Church and the ELCA that decision seem quite distant from Kieschnick's bio--it belongs, say on a page about the Joint Delcaration. (Aside from potential NPOV issues.) Johnh 22:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==

User 68.114.167.126: I spent quite a bit of time typing out my specific NPOV concerns because I had hoped that we could DISCUSS them and arrive at a mutually acceptable version of this article. Your response was simply to delete the entire Talk Page for this article. It is not acceptable to delete all discussion on a Talk Page. Obviously you aren't willing to discuss and work on this article with others to assure its neutrality. I don't want to get into a "revert war" with you; it would be a waste of both our time. However, I do want to get an article assembled that is neutral and that follows wikipedia NPOV rules. (Please READ these guidelines if you haven't yet.) Please leave a note on this Talk Page and we can begin working together; otherwise I will make changes myself to try to get this article to conform to wikipedia NPOV guidelines. Ropcat 00:34, 27 March 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss

User:68.114.167.126: you've deleted Ropcat's changes three times now without discussion. That's not a constructive way to address the issues he raises. According to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute, if we cannot discuss the NPOV issues, then next step would be to involve a third party via Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Johnh 20:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I echo John's comments - please discuss your edits here! Dan100 (Talk) 20:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the NPOV tag

I note it's been on the article since March, which is rather a long time. It's not great to have this on an article any longer than necessary. Is it still needed? Dan100 (Talk) 07:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's been left there pending a resolution of the NPOV issues listed above by Ropcat. Without involvement from User:68.114.167.126 it's not clear how to resolve those issues. Johnh 17:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Talk). True, it would be best to resolve this soon and remove the NPOV tag. However, I'm not sure how we proceed, because User:68.114.167.126 keeps returning in order to blank the Talk Page and remove the NPOV tag without discussing the issues in question. In the absence of User:68.114.167.126 participating in a discussion on the NPOV issues, my only suggestion would be a return to the last pre-March 12 edit, which would essentially remove all the edits that I found problematic. However, that could lead to a "revert war," which wouldn't be productive. (That's why, instead of reverting originally, I added the NPOV tag and listed my problems with User:68.114.167.126's edits on the Talk Page.) So I'm not sure where to go from here. Any suggestions would be helpful. Ropcat 0:13, 24 June 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has been on more than a year now. Any progress?--T. Anthony 05:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthony and others: I've removed the NPOV tag, and I've restored a lot of information that has slipped out of the article over the last year. I've done my best to be NPOV, but would appreciate your commentary. I've included the charge that Kieschnick "rigged" the 2004 convention election, while noting that he and his allies deny the charge. I've included the Amendment A disagreement, and noted both sides' perspective on the issue. I restored info on the voting percentages at the 2004 convention, while avoiding phrases like "triumphed easily." And I put in a passage noting the caucuses and organizations on each side that have sprung up during the 1990s. In my view this article is quite NPOV right now, since for every disagreement it notes both sides' perspective. I'd be quite glad for others to read and comment, though. Ropcat 17:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From RFC

Hey all. I looked at anon's last deletion, and it seems to me that this can be resolved by some in-line sourcing. He most recently deleted "political" as a descriptor for Jesus First, and this line: Pastors, congregations, and attorneys associated with the Lutheran Concerns Association is planning to file a class action lawsuit to challenge Kieschnicks authorization of exemptions for voting delegates.

That Jesus First is a political organization seems unquestionable -- here, from a May '04 article in its newsletter [1]: Jesus First supports political activity in a Christian manner as described above. "Political" as a descriptor should clearly stay. The planned class action lawsuit also seems easily verifiable: [2].

Dealing with a recalcitrant anon editor who refuses to discuss changes can be frustrating. It appears, though, that this particular anon is rapidly approaching 3RR, for which he can be reported. Otherwise, my personal opinion is that the best thing to do, if you continue to fail to be able to engage him in a dialog, is to form a strong consensus on the talk page among editors who are willing to talk, and just keep reverting his changes and hope he gets tired of it. Annoying, but unfortunately it's one of Wikipedia's flaws (IMHO). FWIW, as an outsider looking at the article and completely unfamiliar with the topic, I think some of its assertions could use buttressing with in-line sources. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:03, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that I perhaps am mistaken about who was inserting what. I'm afraid I will have to side with the anon in arguing that political should be a descriptor for Jesus First (and, I think that liberal political machine is loaded language and should be changed to something more simple, like political action group). I'll have to reconsider whether the other paragraph should be included in the article or not, after reading a bit more. Sorry for any confusion. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I went through and made some copyedits (there seems to be a lot of fat in this article that could perhaps be trimmed, or maybe forked into another article on the 2004 convention itself), removed some small POV language, and raised a lot of questions, mostly about sourcing. Some of the assertions later in the article really need attribution; they read to me to be way too authoritative for what they're asserting. Thanks in advance, and I apologize if some of these things have been answered by the sources referred to later in the article; I'm going to read them now. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

My comment might seem like a no-op, but I found Ropcat's objections a mixed bag. For example, I would choose a bland 'won with 53%' over the more exuberantly-satisfied 'easily triumphed with 53%'. The latter seems very POVish. But the objection that 'liberal machine' is POVish also seems clearly true. Sorry I can't be of more help. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 20:17 (UTC)

Hi Katzenjammer. Thanks for your remarks. I fully accept your criticism that "triumphed easily" might not be the best wording. But my comment above refers less to the wording, and more to the anonymous user deleting vote-count statistics and other vote results (i.e. margin of victory and surprising loss of VP slot by a Kieschnick opponent), as well as his or her implication -- without acknowledging opposing POV -- that Kieschnick won reelection through underhanded parliamentary maneuvers. (I also grant that many of the issues under discussion seem rather arcane. As just one example: the question of whether the CCM has overruled the Board of Directors on "business" or "non-business" affairs seems pretty dry and inconsequential, but it actually gets to the heart of one of the major disputes over control over the church. That's why, in that case, I recommended presenting both sides rather than just accepting the anonymous user's edit which takes the former position.) Thanks again for the comment and suggestion. Ropcat 03:16, 30 June 2005 (UTC)