Talk:Brian McLaren

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]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: I have deleted a reference to a remark that Brian McLaren voted for John Kerry in the 2004 election. An article was cited that did not mention this fact. Normally I would have put a "citation needed" tag, but the Wiki standard for biographies of living persons required I delete it. If there is another source that shows that BMcL voted for Kerry I would be interested in reading it. (edit)

There was a different article on Brian McLaren at Brian Mclaren, which I have redirected to here. The content of this article can be seen here. There may be some info on this alternate page that could be integrated into this article. Proto||type 11:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

FYI - the critics section is turning into a spam fest. The purpose of the article should be to shed more light on the person/topic, not to advertise a miriad of critics. --Virgil Vaduva 04:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critics cleanup

The Emergent enthusiast Virgil Vaduva continues to censor my article The Secret Message of Brian McLaren. He calls the article "spam." It is not spam in any sense of the word. It is a factual and thoroughly sourced critique of McLaren's teachings. The article portrays McLaren in an honest light. This is something that Vaduva is thus far unwilling to allow. So much for Emergent "toleration" and "inclusiveness." -- Dave Green  :)

The attempt has been made, as the entry by Virgil Vaduva shows, to silence any view contrary to his view on the information provided in this article. The censorship demonstrated by his removal of any critical references is against the very nature of Wikipedia and is more akin to totalitarianism. --

Before you continue to spam this article with links to obscure websites, please read WP:NOT - this article is an article about a living person, not a repository of criticism by a miriad of unknown people. If you do not like this, perhaps you may create a new article dedicated to the criticism of Brian McLaren. --Virgil Vaduva 01:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with the critics links removed please speak up - most of the articles linked were to nonsensical obscure websites. I left one article linked to Christianity Today, which is written by the prominent Chuck Colson. Again, please beware of the Wikipedia rules before you add outside links which could be classified as spam. The main purpose of any Wiki entry is to provide information on a particular topic, not to flood the article with links to obscure critics and advertise such articles. --Virgil Vaduva 04:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wonder why D.A. Carson's work isn't listed as "critical", since it is considered the main refutation of McLaren's work. Or a link to Emergent No or Christian Research Network (formerly Slice of Laodicea or Callies.com. Could it be because the guy who put together this McLaren entry either has no idea what criticism really is (since he normally calls it a personal attack if anything is critical of anything he espouses) or is it because he can't stand real, honest criticism?

Lastly it is anecdotally interesting that Virgil Vaduva is the main editor of this entry, I would have thought there was at least one other person in the world that idolizing McLaren even more than Vaduva, but I guess not. Roderick E 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to Chill and Think

I recognize the pattern here. Everyone is becoming overly sensitive to any changes made to the article because of past hostilities. Virgil, if you know of someone skilled in English try running the issues involved past them. I'm an ex-English teacher who has had several works published but you may question my objectivity (oops, objective is a modern term -- just kidding Virgil). Please thoughtfully consider the content and style of my edits. I believe you will see they improve the quality and credibility of the article you are fond of. Poor writing detracts from credibility. As written, it sounded like a college sophomore wrote it (sorry all of you editors, but it is true -- see my piece titled "Before You Contribute" on my userpage). The article still needs much improvement, but the changes I made are at least a start to getting a credible, well-written article on McLaren in Wikipedia, and isn't that what we want? We have time to hammer out a thoughtful, first-rate article if you guys would like to colloborate.Will3935 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Will, I have no problems with English corrections but you've made substantial changes to the article without discussing anything first. I don't really want to get in an edit war with you but let me point out what I have problems with: McLaren questions evangelical claim to certainty or ability to interpret; he offers no concrete hermeneutic (which is contradicted by your assertion that he favors a subjective approach to it); McLaren is an advocate of liberal social causes; postmodern approach to faith and practice. If you ask me most of your changes are inflammatory and negative...also inaccurate, purposefully using labels like "liberal" and "postmodern" to bias the reader. I would hope that you would choose the way of conversation before you change major parts of the articles without asking what others thing first. Maybe it's time to TALK and "colloborate"...I am chilly already. Hammering out an article doesn't start with tearing down the entire article; rather it starts with the existing article. I will reverse your edits and I am hoping we can continue to discuss, share and talk first. --Virgil Vaduva 04:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Virgil,

For someone who interviewed McLaren you seem to be suprisingly ignorant of his views. Stating factually what he has gone on public record as believing is in no way inflammatory. It sounds like you are personally vested in this article and are so emotional you have lost some of your objectivity (there I go again with that modern term -- just kidding again). I will try to compromise with you, but you must know that repeated blanket reverts can get you blocked. I'll be around for a long time. Let's work together in a spirit of give and take to create an article that is accurate and unbiased. That may not be how things are done on a personal blog, but Wikipedia is, of course, neutral territory. We will have plenty of time for me to thoroughly document any edits I make. Please respect my right as a Wikipedian to make them. If you think I have not sufficiently documented a claim you can ask for a citation in the body of the text. That is how things are done in Wikipedia and I am sure we will get along fine as we work together. I will be most happy to document everything I say from McLaren's own works. I have read his works and am continuing to research him. A Christian publisher has asked me to write a book about postmodernism and the Church. I don't say this to brag, but to illustrate my concern with your apparent lack of knowledge of McLaren. True, he speaks out of both sides of the mouth at times but he nowhere denies being postmodern and I'm sure he would not deny that others have considered him liberal. That is a fact that responsable Wikipedians cannot censor. Censorship of the facts does not belong in an encyclopedia. Others have criticized him and it is our responsibility to give both sides of the story. This is not a McLaren authorised biography, it is a neutral reference work. Anyway, I look forward to a long and prosperous collaboration. I think it will work. Again, I suggest all of the editors let their emotions calm a little. It seems some of you have hair triggers at this time. I'll get back to you soon, Virgil. I'll bet you're not as bad as those other editors think you are and I'll bet they are not as bad as you may think. Perhaps I can be a peacemaker here. We will all have to give and take.Will3935 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Will, I could not agree more with everything you said about constructive approaches to an article; I have offered a constructive approach to this article for a very long time but when tempers flare people lose sight of it. I did not see "constructive" from you however when you came in here to make mass edits; perhaps I am wrong but that is not what I observed. The "history" tab at the top of the page is there for a reason and folks can go back and see the edits you've made. Also, please do not threaten me with "blocking" - I don't know who you are, and I don't care if you have a PHD in English, if you write one or 20 books on Postmodernism or if you are a college dropout just pretending to have credentials. On the Internet anyone is a brain surgeon; I have never flaunted my education and qualifications here or threatened anyone with anything; I have never broke any Wikipedia rules so I believe you would have a hard time selling your "block" to the admins especially with my history here. You have reverted my changes as well, so the "blocking" rule applies to you also. Let's all give and take indeed and all be peacemakers. I never asked for anything else. --Virgil Vaduva 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are right about the credentials thing, especially in an anonymous environment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you mean (here I go deconstructing -- maybe there's hope for me yet) when you say you "don't care" about my academic and professional credentials is that you believe wisdom dictates that you cannot defer to anonymous claims to such credentials and I respect that. I'm fairly "certain" you did not mean that credentials are irrelevant. I have dropped my anonymity in the past in Wikipedia, but I have found that occasionally I encounter someone who seems just a little strange (I really don't mean you!!)and prefer, for that reason, to be discrete. Perhaps I'll talk to you without such anonymity on your blog sometime. I've done that several times before with other emergents and feel like I have made genuine friends with them. No, we did not agree on everything, but if one considers perfect agreement a prerequisite to friendship they have no understanding of the teachings of Christ. Anyway, I need to move on since personal discussion of this sort does not belong on Wikipedia talk pagees.

I will defer to your preferences even though I disagree with your definition of "massive" when you refer to my edits. I have over a thousands edits at this time so I think I have a feel for what most editors consider inappropriately "massive' edits. I find your understanding of that concept unusually severe, but that is OK. I will be sensitive to your preferences and defer to them. As I said, we have lots of time.

Sounds like I shouldn't have brought up the blocking thing. I wish I could take that back. I just noticed that your history contained alot of what you call "reversals." I took these to mean reverts which was probably mistaken. Even mentioning such things is inflammatory though and I should not have done so. I have no intentions of reporting you for anything. Admins just have their own ways of seeing revert wars. I was wrong to bring it up at all though. Sorry. Please forgive my uncivil tone at that point. Anything else I need to apologize for before we go forward and change our tones to nice ones?

I am open to correction on any point. I can be a little frustrating to those who have only read materials on one side of an issue (and thus, don't realize their own pov problems) and I can be aggravating to those who think they can write but can not (there are a surprising number of them these days -- a disturbing cultural trend -- and many of them make their way to Wikipedia). Obstinate, poor grammarians tend to dislike me even though I mean them no harm. Thier poor writing undermines the credibility of their own work and improvements on their grammar and style only serve to make their contributions more effective. I'm not prejudging you and saying that is a problem for you, I'm just saying I don't believe I'm so bad a guy as you seem to think. My cat seems to like me anyway (I think my mother does to). Perhaps the emotional debate you have engaged in previously has developed a conditioned response in you. It happens to all of us. I think Wikipedia is the perfect format for Emergents and Evangelicals to engage in civil give and take, learning from one another (what you call conversation). That does not mean that I will persuade you to my pov or you will persuade me. But that too, is OK. Wikipedia is not a format for personal debates. It is simply a neutral reference work for reporting the facts. If we leave pov aside there is no reason we cannot work together in harmony for Wikipedia's goals rather than yours or mine. Agreed? Friends? I'll take a little breather and let the dust settle. When time (I am rather busy at the moment) and health (some problems there too [sorry to see you are having some of your own]) allow, I'll do some more research on McLaren and come back. Maybe all of the contributors to this article will have calmed down by then (and pigs might fly -- just kidding!).Will3935 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Links

The number of critical links is getting larger than the number of references....again it seems like people are using this article for publicity to their anti-McLaren sites and pages. I suggest mainstream critics like Carson, MacArthur and Colson should definitely remain; there are un-linked books with no ISBNs by people I never heard of. I will remove them until someone provides better references. --Virgil Vaduva 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to Study

It seems that Virgil feels if he has not heard of a book that makes the book insignificant. It seems to me it just shows how poorly read Virgil is and how he has not bothered to read critiques of McLaren. That is why you need us Virgil -- to help you in your blind spots (yes, apparently Virgil is like the rest of us in that he does not know everything). Also, we cannot help it if you are not familiar with epistemology and other crucial issues. Your ignorance should not limit the scope of this article. Furthermore, it would be nice if you would act more mature and quit picking fights. Can we at least try to act civil even if we disagree? Seriously, man. Even if you dislike others' edits they have a right to contribute (Virgil Vaduva does not own Wikipedia). If you dislike our edits try talking to us like grown ups do. You only hurt your own credibility and persuasiveness by going postal all the time. Try just talking in a mature fashion. I have had two emergent friends who did so and it was great. I'll bet you can do it if you try. Even if you feel a tantrum coming on just try to act normal. See what it does for you! Will3935 03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine...I'll file a complaint with the administration. --Virgil Vaduva 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I welcome administrator help here. I don't know why you can not colloborate with others Virgil. I know my diabetes was acting up quite a bit when I wrote the above comments. I stll feel quite bad, but I would say some things differently. Forgive me. I know you have physical problems too. Perhaps they are affecting you. I recommend you get feedback from those you know and trust about your conduct on Wikipedia. Frankly, I'm a little concerned about your health. In spite of my diabetic - inspired tone, I believe my comments were quite true. It seems you do not realize the limits of your own knowledge here which makes me suspect you are a young man. The way of Wikipedia is for us to work together. Forgive me for pointing it out but it seems that you do not want to play with others. It's either Virgil's way or he goes and complains to admins who have their hands full with real problems. Why not try talking nicely to us Virgil. We can still make this thing work. By the way, I'm colloborating with some emergent leaders on another article right now and our relationship is just fine. If anything, I think the admins will give you a little talking to once they investigate the history here. Perhaps they will temporarily block mainspace edits for the time being. I would welcome such a thing since it would prevent further censorship of the facts for now. Eventually, it will come back to all of us editors trying to work together. It is unavoidable. This is Wikipedia where we have to learn to play together.Will3935 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You have added 14 critical references to this article in the past 2 or 3 days, and there are about 10 valid references to McLaren himself as far as biographical information goes. This is nothing short of spamming the article with links that don't belong here. You are arrogant, you are flaunting your education with every chance you have and instead of stopping there you choose to take the personal route to attack me. What your attack has to do with collaborating on this article is beyond me. Since when is a biographical article on a living person a place to post more critical information than biographical information on the person? --Virgil Vaduva 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I believe factual content belongs. McLaren is not ashamed of the truth. Why should we be? Anyway, I love you too man. Blessings on you!Will3935 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikification of 1980's?

Can any of the editors contributing to this article explain why "1980's" is wikified in it? I think that seems a little over the top and thus takes away from the scholarly tone of the article. Can someone give a good reason for keeping it?Will3935 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article, "1980s" has been wikified almost since the article began in 2005, but to answer specifically, it is because User:Rj wikified the biography added in December 17, 2005 with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_McLaren&diff=31821686&oldid=31404692 I'm fairly certain you could un-wikify it without conflict as per the guideline WP:CONTEXT. Thomas Dzubin _Talk 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

I think the article might profit from further development of its structure. There seems to be ony one section (biography). Perhaps this should be further developed into sections titled "biography," "theology," "controversy," and "bibliography." Anyone have any thoughts of their own about structure?Will3935 06:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Further reflection only reinforces my opinion on this. As it stands, the article seems a little stream of consciousness. I know some editors might consider a rearranging and restructuring (without change in substance or content) to be a major revision so we should not undertake this without discussion first. Nevertheless, I propose that it be on our agenda to at least consider how the article might be improved through a little change to its organization / structure.Will3935 07:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I have asked for a third opinion from administrators in an effort to resolve the editing conflict between Virgil and I. This is not an accusation against anyone; it is simply a request for help that we might make this article live up to its potential. In the meantime, I propose a moratorium on further mainspace edits (except for minor, punctuation corrections) while we await the third opinion and see if that helps us. During such a moratorium we could discuss proposed additions, corrections etc. It seems a good idea to me anyway if others will agree to it (it will give us a chance to colloborate).Will3935 08:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the photo of McLaren and Jones is an incredibly good one! Good job Virgil. Perhaps you can teach me how to import and paste photos sometime. I think photos are an important addition to articles but I am an old goat who lacks tech-savvy. You seem quite skilled at such things and I would enjoy learning from you. I promise only to use such a skill for good!Will3935 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

Immediately upon visiting the article, I noticed two things about the references. First is a bibliography section that is not cited in-text. If that format is to be retained, I would recommend citing them directly in the article using the Harvard style. Also, critical references and newspaper articles should be combined with the bibliography, perhaps as a references section. The seperate critical references, along with the sheer number, is troubling to me and raises concerns relevent to WP:UNDUE. I would recommend all active editors take a good look over WP:CITE and work out a consensus about which reference/notes format the article will use to combine and cite the references appropriately. Another thing to look at would be paring down the number of sources by removing redundant sources. These do not need to be entirely removed from the article if that is undesirable, as a further reading section can be easily created. I'd also suggest that his biographical details, his views and his critics' views all be under seperate sections. WP:MOSBIO, WP:GTL and WP:BETTER may all be useful references for improving this article. I hope this helps. Feel free to respond with any questions or comments. Vassyana 12:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!Will3935 13:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Third Opinion

In response to Vassyana's comments I have pared down the critical sources list. I have seen this kind of list on other articles, but that does not make it policy. I accept Vassyana's observations. As to Vassyana's comments about coming to a consensus regarding which reference notes format the article will take, I defer to anyone else who feels qualified to address this. You don't need my "permission" but you may want to ask Virgil for his input / opinion. Also, I thoroughly agree with Vassyana's suggestion to divide the article into three sections. In fact, if you will look at my recent comments you will see I had already suggested the same thing. Not to boast, but I think I am pretty good at organizing materials since I have many years experience in doing this. I do not intend to bypass the community of editors in doing so. I will ask for your input and feedback. I think this reorganizing can be done without altering the substance of any existing content or adding any new content. I am quite pleased with the third opinion. If anyone has any further questions for Vassyana, this would be the time to ask. I am excited at the prospect of going forward. We are currently only rated as a start-class article (just one level above a stub). I think if we follow Vassyana's advice for improving the article we can move it up the scale a bit.Will3935 13:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I really think this restructering will help resolve editing conflicts too. If we separate "criticisms" (perhaps "controversies" would be better since McLaren himself would not consider a factual quoting of him from his published works to be "criticisms") from say biography, theology (he does have a theology), and ministry, I think this would seem more palatable to editors like Virgil. I'm excited about getting back to work. If anyone has anything else to address, let's get it settled now that we have Vassyana's attention so we can move past it. I think we can make this a first-rate article (whatever the top level is).Will3935 13:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will3935

Will3935 you are completely out of control. You came in here guns blazing and are doing so far a hatchet job on this entry (as far as I can read and see). Please chill out and cooperate with other editors. --Frank Thomas 14:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input "Frank." As this is your first time making an edit on Wikipedia I suggest you read the manual and discuss any concerns you have with Vassyana. Please do feel free to weigh in on this subject with "guns blazing" (your term for diligence). You are certainly entitled to your opinion regarding the quality of my edits. Thanks again for the input! There is nothing I can respond to though unless you give specifics. As a first time user you do not seem to understand how Wikipedia works. We work together over specifics to make the article a good one and we certianly do not chastise hard work. Please stay around to help us though, "Frank"!Will3935 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the welcome! This is not my first edit on Wikipedia. You can click on the contribs link next to my name to see my other contributions or read the Wikipedia help page for help. --Frank Thomas 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Frank. I don't know what is wrong with me. Its early here and my diabetes is still acting up quite badly. I see that you have made several edits before. Anyway it is good to see that we have such a hard working editor weighing in on this article. Remember that it involves give and take to make a good Wikipedia article. Let's discuss any specific issues of concern here on the discussion page. And by the way, it would be good if all of us could maintain a civil tone from here on out, refraining from personal attacks and limiting our comments to ones that focus on how to make the article a better one! Blesings!Will3935 14:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will3935's credentials

Will3935, as I have been reading through the history of discussions here you have made references to your credentials several times apparently in an effort to win an argument and silent cries of protests regarding your changes. Per Jimbo Wales' recent directions and to quote him,

"It's always inappropriate to try to win an argument by flashing your credentials...and even more so if those credentials are inaccurate" [1]

Therefore, would you please provide the rest of us with your real identity, your credentials and perhaps give us some more details about who you are and why you think you are superior to the rest of contributors and find it necessary to flash your credentials here while hiding behind a wall of anonymity. Thank you in advance! Hopefully this will help us all create a better entry for the entire community! --Frank Thomas 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. If you read the previous discussions you will see that I apologized for stating my credentials. I cannot reveal my true identity in an environment where I have been so vicously and repeatedly attacked. I have a family to protect. In other contexts I have discussed my identity with several emergent editors that I felt safe talking to. One of these emergent friends confided to me that personal safety concerns were the major reason he maintainded anonymity in most instances. Wikipedia is working on a way for editors to register their credentials while maintaining anonymity on the talk pages so if you are doubting my honesty, just give it some time and we will be able to verify my professional credentials.

Accusing me of thinking myself better than others is just another example of a personal attack. Why don't we all bury the hatchet? I see no reason for hostilities. In fact I am quite excited about your edits. Thanks. I have blended our quotes and thoughts together and believe we have made a good start. I think that from here on out we should limit ourselves to discussion of specific content in the article. There is a message posted at the top of this discussion page asking us to do so. Bad mouthing another editor with ad hominems does not enhance the quality of the article. I propose that from this moment forward all of the editors on this article communicate in a civil tone and observe all Wikipedia policies forbidding personal attacks. Agreed?Will3935 15:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is accusing you of anything? I just asked a question. Thanks for not answering; unfortunately Wikipedia now requires you to back up your credentials once you flash them. Perhaps an admin can step in and clarify this new policy and help us find out who you are so we can better understand why you believe you are more qualified than the rest of us, since flashing credentials implies that very thing. --Frank Thomas 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to confidentially reveal my identity and credentials to an admin. If you know of a way I can do this I will gladly cooperate, especially if policy requires it. Can we discuss the article now?Will3935 15:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why confidentially? Someone who has no problem flashing credentials in public should not seek validations of said credentials in private. That is illogical. --Frank Thomas 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how your comment relates to the article, but I find it really scary that you are so intent on discovering my identity and would not find it adequate for an admin to know.Will3935 18:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How do your comments regarding my health relate to the article exactly? --Virgil Vaduva 18:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beware of Arrogance

First, I don't blame Will3935 for being leery of revealing his true identity to postmodern/emergent types as my experience with them as represented from the very originator of this McLaren entry shows them to be an arrogant & deceitful type that will go to almost any extremes to smear someone, like a CNN/CBS spin machine. Secondly, I would suspect Virgil would be able to answer his own question about the relevancy of someone's health since Virgil is the guy that has people calling me "OCD, nutjob" & all manner of other terms (source) Lastly, the kind of strong-arm (dare I say communistic/dictatorial) approach Virgil has with how things are presented has been his modus operandi with almost everything including how he has tried to influence the wikipedia article on preterism -- but this is to be expected, after all Virgil is the guy who actually tried to trademark a theological term (see evidence). Roderick E 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

I think we have made great progress hammered out in the good old give and take of Wikipedia compromise. Good editing. The main problem that remains, as I see it, is the article is more than ever in need of organizing. Before I make any edits to this effect I would like to open the floor for discussion as to how we can best organize this material.Will3935 16:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You could start by removing quotes that are out of context and purposely cherry-picked to make McLaren look bad. The edits made earlier by the other user were excellent and your changes to his or her edits illustrate very well what your real purpose here is, namely to throw a negative light on the article. I am glad someone else is seeing this as well. --Virgil Vaduva 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly reconsider all of the quotations I inserted. I do not want to be unfair or inaccurate. Thanks for the challenge. I appreciate your critique of my edits since they may indeed be flawed without my realizing it. What will help me most is to see exactly how context is violated on specific quotes. Thanks for steering the discussion into something non-personal and potentially profitable. It will be even more helpful to discuss a specific quotation. When we do so we can forget past hostilities and just examine the merits of given edits. I will most definitely change any edits that I find to be flawed the same way I deleted several of the critical articles. I look forward to more specific critiques of my edits. I really do, as I would not want to be unfair or inaccurate. I know you have read McLaren and perhaps you can straighten me out if I have misrepresented him. By the way, I do listen and respond to gentle tones if you want to try.Will3935 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The starting ground for develping the article further will not be YOUR version of it...I assure you of that. You have made extensive changes to the article and only AFTER your changes you want to "discuss the article." That is asinine. --Virgil Vaduva 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a good observation. I counted almost 50 major changes/edits done by Will3935 without asking for any input and when challenged he invoked his credentials. As you I noticed that he seeks input when a third party is attempting to edit the article against his wishes. Something is fishy here. --Frank Thomas 18:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

1. Cool down. Take a breath. Enjoy the day.
2. Avoid getting into an edit war. Wars just make messes. Consensus builds Wikipedia.
3. Avoid making article edits for now. Don't worry about whether the current revision is a "good" or "bad" version. The article history is always there for reference and any problems can be corrected by later edits.
4. Take the time off to consider article changes. Go ahead and make a new subpage on your own user page to use as a notepad for brainstorming your ideas for edits to this article. (As easily made as putting [[/McLaren Thoughts]] on your user page.)
5. Go have a Coke, beer, glass of wine, tea or whatever beverage you really enjoy.
6. Come back, review your brainstorming, edit and revise it.
7. Post your proposed changes to this talk page.
8. Build consensus.
9. Move forward and make a great article.

This is what I'd suggest for everyone. This is just my opinion, so feel free to disagree and take it with some grains of salt. But, I certainly don't think it would hurt anyone. Cheers!! Vassyana 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. I like your suggestions.Will3935 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Mr. Credentials can take some of this advice and slow down a little bit before our heads all explode from reading the ultra-quality material he is digging up for his changes...since we are all stupid and "unread" in the ways of the English language of course. --Virgil Vaduva 17:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and comment removal

Will3935, what the hell dude, now you are deleting my comments? Can you gag me with a spoon too? Please stop removing my comments here...that is absolutely idiotic! Here again is my previous comment removed by you:

I find it fascinating that as soon as someone points out your blatant abuse here you suddenly want to "discuss the article now" and ignore the points raised earlier. So far YOU are the one initiating personal attacks here. Since you love quotes from people, let me remind you all the ways in which you attacked me for no reason:

• "Frankly, I'm a little concerned about your health" (what the hell do you know about my health?)
• "makes me suspect you are a young man" (wikipedia is age-discriminating now?)
• "It's either Virgil's way or he goes and complains to admins" (yes when you continuously bring up suspect credentials)
• "it just shows how poorly read Virgil is" (pure ad-hominem attack)
• "Your ignorance should not limit the scope of this article" (another ad-hominem attack)
• "act more mature and quit picking fights" (implying another user is not mature)
• "if you feel a tantrum coming on just try to act normal" (implying another user is not normal)

How do all these quotes refresh your mind so far? Who is attacking who? --Virgil Vaduva 17:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

--Virgil Vaduva 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is possible he did so by mistake. It happened to me before. --Frank Thomas 18:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is so, and for being around Wikipedia for as long as he is bragging about, that is quite a newbie mistake. Which one is it Will3935? Did you delete my comments by mistake or was it on purpose? --Virgil Vaduva 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete your comments. Not sure what happened there. Anyway, I'm sorry you guys feel so angry and bitter. It must be quite unpleasant. It seems the best way to settle things down so we can get on to improving the article is to ask for mediation. This does not mean that anyone is accused of anything. It just means that we will get outside help, which is what I think we need. By the way Virgil I do know about your health problems and I am praying for you (really). -- Mr Credentials himselfWill3935 18:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heheh...I love your reply. "Have no idea what happened...but it just happened that when someone quotes my ad-hominem attacks against a user, their comments just...kinda...disappeared!" Good one :) It's funny that this article didn't need any mediation until you showed up and started turning it into an inquisitional list of charges against McLaren. And I am the bitter one? Hehehe. Funny stuff dude. --Virgil Vaduva 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was experiencing some brief server problems. I ran into them as well. Edit histories were weird, recent edits vanished, etc. Please assume good faith. Vassyana 18:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As an example of proof [2]. Vassyana 19:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, according to this diff, you were the one who removed your own comment, along with Will's. Please, take a breath, walk away and come back when you're frosty. This acrimony is helping no one and certainly not helping this article. Vassyana 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I did no such thing Vassyana. Perhaps your explanation of Wikipedia problems accounts for the missing entries. Indeed the acrimony is helping no one, you are absolutely right. Perhaps you could give the same advice to Will3935 :) --Virgil Vaduva 19:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you didn't either, but the edit history says you did. Yay, server issues! ;o) Provided everyone abides by it, can you three agree to let the article sit until tomorrow? Just a cooling off period, as per my suggestion above. Will? Virgil? Frank? Vassyana 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Virgil Vaduva 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with article

Will I am nowhere near agreement with your changes. Major problems need to be fixed first, such as those false statements presented without any quotations or references:

1. McLaren does not believe in objective truth.

2. McLaren does not believe homosexuality is wrong (my quote says the opposite)

3. Replacing "critical" with "criticism" why not call a spade a spade?

Remove references to those false statements or provide exact quotations otherwise I cannot endorse your changes. --Frank Thomas 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the specifics. I gotta go for now, but I will definitely consider your objections and respond. You may be right. Brief response for now:

1)That is difficult to discuss in one sentence. Will talk at length later.

2) You seem to miss the "if" clause in your quote. I have never asserted that McLaren believes homosexuality is not wrong. He has however repeatedly said that we really can't know with certainty that it is wrong. I can suppy citations.

3)I have no problem with whatever terminology pleases you and will defer to your preferences.

Thanks. I'll get back to you.Will3935 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You can add the Driscoll quote to the list of things to be eliminated. It has no place in this article and it's there to only bias the reader. There are thousands of quotes someone can find to use to throw mud at McLaren but that is not the purpose of this article. This is a biography of a living person which should discuss the person, his education, profession, experience and bibliography. It is not a place for some Will3935 to vent his misplaced anger and criticism. If it was up to him two thirds of the article would be critical quotes of McLaren and out of context things to make him look bad. --Virgil Vaduva 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds lot we have a lot of talking to do.(UTC)Will3935 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the rebuke

Virgil you are quite right that I should not have spoken that way. Forgive me. I've been having various health problems that tend to make me a little cranky but that is no excuse. I should just shut my mouth when I feel bad. It was embarassing to see my quotes and I appreciate the work you did to reproduce them. Oh yeah, as to removing the quotes, I think if I had done so it would have left an edit trail discernible in my contributions -- at least I think so. Anyway, I believe you will find me vindicated there. Thanks to everyone for ending this round of discussion on a positive note.Will3935 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality Question / We Are Closer Than Some Might Think

I think it best to address the issues involved one at a time. First, I find us quite close on the McLaren / homosexual question, Frank. Therefore I think it is the best place for us to start since I believe we can produce something we can both be happy with (I know I end sentences with prepositions at times -- in informal conversation we all do).

1) We both agree that McLaren does not say he approves of homosexuality. To my knowledge, he has never said any such thing and any accusation that he has should be thoroughly documented.

2)It is interesting that both of the quotes we offered were from the same paragraph! Thus they are complementary and not mutually exclusive. Below is the larger quote

"Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides, but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn."

3) We both approve of McLaren's appeal to all of us to treat homosexuals kindly. Personally I support him completely on this as I am persuaded most Evangelicals do (yes, I realize there are some imprudent and mean-spirited Christian responsed to homosexuals [as opposed to homosexuality] but they are in a minority).

4)The point of contention seems to be whether McLaren has taken a dogmatic view on the issue of homosexuality. From reading the article from which the above quote is taken as well as from reading other works by McLaren, I am persuaded that McLaren does not pontificate on the issue either way. If you can produce a quotation in which McLaren pontificates that homosexuality is wrong I will stand corrected.

5)Thus it seems to me that the only real difficulty for us in coming to a consensus is semantics and tone and these should be easy to overcome. I will do some thoughtful reflection on how to best represent McLaren without sounding POV.

6) I'm working on a project that has me busy at the moment (not boasting about anything -- it could be cleaning the toilets in my home [though I am glad it is not]). Thus, it may be a little while before I get back to you.

It seems to me we are quite close on this one and thus it represents a good place to start. I promise to be senstitive to your concerns.Will3935 00:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just stopped in to suggest that the entire quote might be placed in the article in order to give full context for both quotes. It seems undesirable to me to have two separate quotes when both quotations were actually part of a larger statement (within sentences of each other.) Does anyone think that is unreasonable? Oh yeah, I was thinking about it and I do apologize for any boastful connotations associated with claiming to be "working on a project." I immediately realized the imprudenced of such a statement and then tried to compensate when I should have deleted it. Sorry. I do recognize your expertise in this field that enables you to contribute Virgil. Frank, you may have the same credentials to contribute as Virgil does, which is why I welcome your input on this article.Will3935 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Since their seem to be no objections I will be bold and put the entire quote in the article. Tell me what you think.Will3935 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

While of course the current version is m:The Wrong Version, would y'all please discuss this here; the page history would seem to require blocking everyone for three months for 3RR alone. I'm not going to look into that, but please hash out everything here first. Thank you. -- Avi 06:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.Will3935 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hash out everything first..hmmm...I wonder how that is different than what I have been saying for the last few days? --Virgil Vaduva 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It may not be different, but, unfortunately, now y'all have to, because the article is locked (temporarily) :( -- Avi 14:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going forward

I'm willing to add this page to my Watchlist as it does fall under my hyperbolic claim to research all religious movements ;) And who doesn't like to watch a fight? No but seriously, I'd be willing to contribute, once it's unprotected. Wjhonson 06:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your input would be most welcome. Maybe you can keep the rest of us from harming one another. This is the second time today you have proven to be of great help. I think our next big project with this article is to organize it. It is a little stream of consciousness and probably needs to be divided into sections for lets say, biography, theology, ministry, and controversy. What do you think? Oh yeah, do you know how long the block lasts? You are a life saver again Saint Wjohnson!Will3935 10:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing -- I think it prudent to archive this legthy discussion page (might help us to start with a sort of clean slate anyway). I am still trying to figure out how to do this on the EC article though. Digital technology has passed me by. I would ask one of my grown kids to help but they are all busy. Saint W?Will3935 10:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Driscoll

I have come to agree that the Driscoll quote does not belong due to undue weight and relevance. Good point, Virgil. Only problem is we left in the article a small section that was designed to follow it:

"Nevertheless, many participants in the emerging church "conversation" still express respect and admiration for Mclaren, and he enjoys close fellowship with many of the movement's participants."

It makes a fine point but it is not worded to fit seemlessly into the surrounding verbal landscape. I propose that we either reword it or delete it when the block is removed. Any thoughts?Will3935 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Agreement

I thought we all agreed to not edit this article for at least 24 hours. You just made a substantial change despite the direction to not make changes and not disregard this agreement. This is yet another example of disregard of what other people think and other opinions. At least now that the article is locked, we know you can't rape it anymore. Thanks to the admins for intervention! --Virgil Vaduva 12:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am most sorry. I explained to Vassanya that I was unaware of her one day cooling off period. I thought of my edit as as minor since it only fleshed out the context of one quotation you had already put on the page. Furthermore I had discussed it in some detail on the talk page. Forgive me.Will3935 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to Going Forward

Wjhonson has propose we go forward with the article. I believe he has the right spirit. Perhaps we can all agree that going forward is a good idea. The lock is a good time for us to be sure we have some consensus on what we all think. This will prevent insensitive oafs like me from trampling all over everyone's sensitivities. That was quite wrong of me and it is good for us all to be able to meet here on the discussion page in order to map out future improvements. I would like to see this article improved and I most heartily welcom Wjhonson, Virgil, and all interested parties to contribute. We can still make Wikipedia proud. Since we have some time I suggest we all take some of it to think through the organization of the article. We need not rush any discussion since we can't do anything at the moment. I propose we think through our proposed improvements and come back in time to discuss them. I think that by so doing we can have a consensus in place by the time the article is accessible once again.Will3935 13:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reflecting a little more at the moment, I think this is the key to future improvement. I have almost no quarrel with the content as it is. Virgil, you have done a good job and your objections to the Driscoll material were right on target. I do think the organiztion can be improved significantly without changing the existing content. Such a rearrangement of existing material without changing substance would help the quality of the article and I think prevent any future unpleasantness. I have ideas of my own and an admin has suggested organizational changes too. I believe such changes should be painless to all. We can improve the article, perhaps raise its status, and improve its credibility all with no debates over altering content. Of course, I cannot speak for other editors. I'm just trying to brainstorm and I feel quite encouraged that the article is very near to a place where I will feel comfortable with it since I am reasonably happy with all but its organization. Any thoughts on this? New guy Wjhonson, I think you can provide fresh, non-pov input to insure this restructuring is content neutral and offensive to none. I think the prospects are quite encouraging with your gracious presence here. Thanks.Will3935 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals

In the light of the above I propose starting the future conversation, not with any controversial issues, but with matters of structure and organization. If any one has other ideas now is the right time to discuss those ideas. I favor anything we can get some consesus on as the starting point for future "colloboration" (my embarassing spelling typo I repeated twice in one comment!)Will3935 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I additionally propose that the last edit I made before the block be reverted once the block is removed. I did not know of the agreeement Vassanya and Virgil had, so this edit (which is a trivial one anyway) violated an agreement I should have known about. I apologize for my ignorance and pledge to ammend for it by reverting my own edit once the block is finished. Then we can discuss the merits of this small edit.Will3935 13:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a two-day cooling off period, which has now been had, should be sufficient.Wjhonson 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested unprotection here Wjhonson 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. Let's hope no-one has to step in again. . -- Avi 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Avi's unlock and Will's revert of his last changes. I'm hoping we can interact at a better level from now on. --Virgil Vaduva 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted my last edit per my proposal. As I said, we can now discuss the merits of this little edit. I believe it should be seen as uncontroversial and helpful, as all it does is give a fuller context to an existing quote. The existing quote is an "if" clause in the midst of the larger quote. Taken out of context it seems unclear and ambiguous. The fuller context reveals the clear meaning of McLaren and clarifying his intent is what an encyclopedia article should do in an npov manner. By the way W (can I call you that for short?) I am looking into what organization may canonize you as a saint. The Catholics said you weren't even dead yet and wouldn't entertain my nomination. I'll put in a request with my cat since he thinks he's God. That's higher than the pope anyway. I'll let you know what my cat says.Will3935 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought calling you "W" might make people think that you are George W. Bush, and that would make you a catalyst for controversy. I'll think of something else.Will3935 19:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been a catalyst for controversy since the age of five when I told the members of my grandmother's church that my mother was a prostitute. I actually meant Protestant, but I didn't know the difference between the words. Wjhonson 02:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good one! By the way my cat says if you send him a love offering of a bag of premium catnip he is willing to wave his requirement that you work five miracles for canonization. I'll get back to you on exactly how this relates to advancing the article.Will3935 03:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry Dave

Looks like you are putting your own article as a link to this one. It may well have merits (haven't read it yet) and we do value your input, but I believe in this case linking your own article to another in Wikipedia does violate the policy against self-promotion. The only exceptions seem to be that a notable expert may cite him or herself and even link one of their works to a Wikipedia article. This doesn't exclude your work from being linked here if other editors favor its inclusion. If you have questions about the policy you may want to consult an admin who can cite all of the relevant passages from the manual. Please do not misinterpret my comments here as any kind of dislike for your input. Its just that in the light of recent history I think it best that we procede according to policies. I'll leave the article linked for the time being to give you an opportunity to confirm what I have said and to delete it. You may want to place the article up for discussion here at that time and see if other editors see fit to link it. Again, speaking for myself I value your input and do not by any means wish to make you shy about participating in the future.Will3935 05:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the warning at the top of Dave's userpage. I think I will be doing him a favor to delete the link before he gets himself indefinitely blocked.Will3935 05:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Will, thanks for pointing this out. I have been removing Dave's self-promoting link for several months now but he continues to post it here without any regard for Wikipedia rules and against deep-linking policies. --Virgil Vaduva 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikified dates

There are at least a couple of dates that are wikified in the article without sufficient warrant. This is not a matter of accuracy or grammar but of style. It seems over the top and such wikification is not practiced elsewhere in Wikipedia without some special justification. Thus I believe it detracts slightly from the quality of the article. I raised this issue some time back and no one has expressed a reason for keeping these dates wikified. I've pasted one editor's comments below:

Looking at the history of the article, "1980s" has been wikified almost since the article began in 2005, but to answer specifically, it is because User:Rj wikified the biography added in December 17, 2005 with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_McLaren&diff=31821686&oldid=31404692 I'm fairly certain you could un-wikify it without conflict as per the guideline WP:CONTEXT. Thomas Dzubin _Talk 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Consequently, I will undo such wikifications.Will3935 10:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Turns out there were several such wikifications to be undone and I undid them all.Will3935 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate this change as well. I think wikified dates are causing confusion often and they are unnecessary especially in a biographical article like this. I guess we are finally starting to agree on things...that's always a good thing. --Virgil Vaduva 12:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wikifying specific years only makes sense if we think readers need further help in understanding exactly what "2006" means or if reading an article explaining the calendar will help someone better understand McLaren. I respectfully suggest that readers who don't understand the concept of years are not likely to understand much else! Will3935 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Edit

I propose to add the word "postfoundational" after the word "postmodern" on line 17. McLaren frequently refers to his postfoundationalism and frequently speaks critically of the "bombproof certainty" he asserts foundationalism requires. If anyone would like citations to this effect I can provide them. I don't consider this a controversial proposal so if no objects after a week or so I will add the word "postfoundational" to line 17. I do not think it best to elaborate on its meaning here. That would take a whole article and Wikipedia has decent articles on foundationalism and postfoundationalism already here and here that we can link to in the text. Will3935 11:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Organization

I propose that the article be organized into five sub-headings as follows:

I) Biography

II) Theology

III) Ministry

IV) Controversy

V) Conclusion

This fivefold division would somewhat overwhelm the article as it now stands. However, the article now stands as a start class article. It needs further development and I propose giving it the above skeleton to accomodate future growth in an organized way. If no one questions or objects to such a structure in the next two to three weeks I will begin to work on organizing the article accordingly. I believe this is an important step toward raising the status of the article.Will3935 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Let's put together some sub-heading content and see we all come up with. I think we are going in the right direction with this article. --Virgil Vaduva 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about creating a sandbox (linked to the discussion page) to display suggested arrangements of material? The reason I suggest this is that to strictly follow any proposed outline would involve moving some material around. If, for example, we focused on theology early in the article we would have to move up some material from later in the article. This would probably involve some slight rewording to fit in the new, immediate context. Such rearrangements of material might be difficult to try and discuss since differences of opinion would probably look quite different (even though substance would remain the same). I've never made such a sandbox before but I have seen one, so I know it can be done.Will3935 12:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Will, for the next month my schedule will not allow me to dedicate as much time as I would like to this project, so if you could take the helm of this development I would appreciate it. So far what you have said and done since our last disagreements indicate that you are a man of your word, and I trust your judgment. I will try to participate as time allows, and I will encourage other people to hop in and out if they are interested. --Virgil Vaduva 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a terrible picture

Can we at least see his face? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Unsuitability of Apprising.org (and other blogs) as a source

One thing that needs to be settled is the complete unsuitability of apprising.org links and/or information as source material.

1) It is a blog. This, in and of itself, is reason enough for it to not be a source. Per Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (emphasis mine)

2) Apprising is poorly sourced Apprising.org is a blog for Apprising "Ministries" (sic), a one-man show run by Ken Silva, the "pastor" of a church of 5 people in rural New Hampshire. It has been documented that more than two thirds of his "research" is simply self-referential links to his own sites, and that the remaining third of his "research" is to sites he contributes to or other blogs [3].

3) Material from the apprising site in unhinged. He has claimed that God raised him up to bring down men like Erwin McManus and Rob Bell, and if you pick out articles at random from his site, like this one [4] it becomes completely apparent that this site is not of the quality required for a W:V verifiable source.

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;

In the Critical Links section, this applies to the other blogs, as well, which I will remove as violations of Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources and W:V. Criticism from reliable sources is certainly applicable, but blogs do not meet the standards set forth by Wikipedia.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of Controversy Section

I am not an expert, by any means, on McLaren. However, it appears that a number of the cited items in this section are blog references, which need to be removed per W:BLP, W:V and W:NOR policies (among others). Additionally, it seems that much of this section is contrary to w:BLP limitations on criticism and Wikipedia:Coatrack. Some cleanup is definitely in order.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the statement about D.A. Carson "being an even tempered individual" (paraphrase). These statements are conjecture and not pertinent to the page. Additionally statements as these are not scholarly and should not be included. I have however left the quote from the book by D.A. Carson. It is my belief that this is an appropiate critique.