Talk:Bob Enyart

message: The line "Enyart promotes the idea that homosexuals should be put to death for their biological disposition." does not seem to be supported by the video referenced ([13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS0I5gIJIAg). After listening to the entire sermon, I suspect this is meant to be a reference to 36:40 where Mr Enyart says: "When america was founded there was actually the death penalty for homosexuality. No one was ever put to death because people - as the bible said, people would hear and fear and no longer destroy themselves." While I find this position execrable in its own way, it seems clear that Mr Enyart does not actually call for homosexuals to be put to death, and I could find no other comment which might be interpreted as supporting this position. He does quote old testament passages which state that homosexuals shall "surely be put to death", but like most Christians Mr Enyart seems to hold the position that while these verses establish the immorality of homosexuality, the associated penalties are no longer applicable under the new covenant.  Accordingly, I don't believe the line is supported by the reference, and it should be removed or some other evidence provided that Mr Enyart believes homosexuals should be executed. 74.65.136.98 (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: As the video features Mr. Enyart speaking for himself, the video is perfectly fine in describing the words of Bob Enyart, where at time index 37:42 he implies that it is bad measure that the country puts certain people to death but no longer executes people who are gay. Spintendo      23:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018 

message: A complaint has been made against 166.205.141.57 for edit warring and editing the Bob Enyart article in a manner that almost all, if not all, edits made by 166.205.141.57 have been reverted. 166.205.141.57 has participated in edit warring with several different editors in this article and 166.205.141.57's edits have almost entirely been reverted by several different editors. It is relevant to note that 166.205.141.57 has made 26 Wikipedia edits and 20 of them have been in the Enyart article. 166.205.141.57 has violated the WP:4RR rule, as well, and has replaced content that was reverted by editors at least nine times within 24 hours. Warnings were placed on 166.205.141.57's Talk page, but the practice has continued in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you have experienced 166.205.141.57's edit warring or if you would like to add your opinions to the administrator page where the complaint has been made, please go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and post your position under the paragraph "Edit warring and constant reversions of 166.205.141.57." A notice of this complaint has been added to 166.205.141.57's Talk page in accordance with Wikipedia policy. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring and constant reversions of [[User:166.205.141.57|166.205.141.57]] 

message: Originally, the wording in the lead about Enyart’s death looked like this: “Enyart opposed vaccinations and mask mandates for COVID-19. He died from COVID-19 on Monday, September 13, 2021.”  As per the above overtly long discussion, sources close to Enyart said he died on Sunday, not Monday, so it was revised to be worded as “Enyart opposed vaccinations and mask mandates for COVID-19. He died from COVID-19.”
I then updated the wording to not have a second repetitive-sounding sentence: “Enyart opposed vaccinations and mask mandates for COVID-19; he ultimately ended up dying from COVID-19.”  This reads better because it avoids a very short sentence which quickly repeats the word “COVID-19”.  That change was, strangely, reverted, which leaves me scratching my head.  
Samboy (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: While the editor who reverted my changes is now retired, since they felt that keeping the old wording was important enough to revert twice over, while I feel my wording makes the lead less awkward, it is not a hill worth dying (or retiring from the Wikipedia) over.  I will not edit that part of the lead again until when and if another editor chimes in so we can have a third opinion. Samboy (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the concern was that ultimately implied a direct cause for his death. As for repetitiveness, perhaps "He died from COVID-19the coronanvirus" could be an improvement?—Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I think it’s better wording and I’m glad we were able to hammer out consensus. Samboy (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor prefers the repetitive “COVID-19” wording; I reverted their change because of consensus already established here. Samboy (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording in the lead about Enyart’s death 

message: Originally, the page had this inaccurate wording describing Enyart’s “Real Science Friday” show: “Enyart created a radio show to "debunk" creationism and attack evolution.”
The referenced source actually says this: “Enyart and co-host Fred Williams, also named in the suit, say they are out to debunk conventional schools of scientific thought, such as Darwinism and other “old earth” theories.”, so I interpreted that, in the context to mean he supported creationism, so I revised the wording: “Enyart created a radio show to support creationism and attack evolution”, changing only one word.
That change was oddly reverted, claiming that “we don't write what we think we know about the subject. We write what the source says”, which is a really odd interpretation of my change.  No where does the source article say the show debunks creationism; it says this:
::Enyart is the self-described fundamentalist Christian pastor of the 60-member Denver Bible Church. He believes the world’s age is measured in thousands, not billions, of years because the Bible tells him so and, he said, scientific evidence backs it up. [...] Enyart and co-host Fred Williams, also named in the suit, say they are out to debunk conventional schools of scientific thought, such as Darwinism and other “old earth” theories. [...] To creationists such as Enyart, who believe Earth is several thousand years old, these rare finds are compelling evidence that Earth is young.
I think a reasonable person can summarize that as saying Enyart’s show “supported creationism”, but, in the interests of using what the source actually says, I have made the debunk quote longer: “Enyart created a radio show to "debunk conventional schools of scientific thought" and attack evolution”, although I think I would prefer something more succinct like “Enyart created a radio show advocating young earth creationism”, but I won’t make that change myself. Samboy (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support is correct. He would certainly never debunk anything: evolution cannot be "debunked" since it does not contain any bunk, and as for any real debunking, Enyart was on the wrong side (here as in any other scientific question, it seems). --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have rough consensus that “support creationism” is a reasonable summary so I have updated the article.  We can revise the wording again if consensus changes, of course. Samboy (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your explanation. It was good of you to discuss the editing. The wording as it stood required no edits. It was accurate and succinct. My point is simply that we should write only what the source tells us. Debunking "conventional schools of scientific thought" is broad and the sentence spoken by the source continued to explain what he meant, so I will make an edit there accordingly and it should satisfy us both and keep within the rules of Wikipedia. However, the change in the lead paragraph serves only to add wordiness, and the words added are meaningless. "Ultimately" violates Wikipedia guidelines (MOS:REALTIME). "Ultimately" means "in the end." We all die "in the end." "He died of COVID-19" says all that needs to be said. That he died means that he "ultimately" died, which is why "ultimately" is redundant. Redundancies are vital in aeronautics and engineering, but they are never allowed in writing. Of all the edits people have made to this article, I have been surprised by how so many of them are people who think there should be a different way to say this man died from COVID-19. There is only one way to say it: "He died of COVID-19." Encyclopedia writing requires us to state facts in the fewest words possible. Every word must be defensible and carry its weight. I truly wish those who want to find more elaborate ways to say "He died of COVID-19," or, as is often the case, want to add editorialized language, would turn their attention to the millions of Wikipedia articles that truly need their attention. Again, I am appreciative that you started a discussion about your edits. So many times editors seem reluctant to do so, so hats off to you. And, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and specifically, to this article. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, reading the language as it is now, I have no problem with it and support your new language. UPDATE: To be clear, I am referencing your language about creationism. I remain firm on the lead. I am sure you understood that, but just wanted to ensure no misunderstanding. :-) God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a little concerned about the WP:OWN type behavior I see here.  It really should not had been a long drawn out discussion on the exact day he died; third party sources are ideal, but none of them gave an exact date of his death, so it’s perfectly reasonable to use sources closer to Enyart himself, as per WP:ABOUTSELF.  Sure, a third party source would be better, but it’s Wikipedia style to put an exact date of death if known.  In terms of the wording of his death in the lead, that’s not a hill I’m going to die on, but the current wording is awkward, and reverting my edits two times in one day over it is borderline disruptive behavior.  In terms of the “supporting creationism” wording, I am glad we have come to consensus over it, but I do not think it that change should ever had been reverted in the first place.  When every change to this article becomes an edit war and talk page discussion, that’s not OK.  Samboy (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. How to even respond to that. Friend, I do not understand why you have singled my efforts here out to criticize. You seem to be criticizing every contribution I have made to this article, which is confusing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I have been thanked for my contributions to this article, and that the article was featured in "In the news," and the editor who successfully nominated this article for inclusion there attributed it to my editing. I also cannot believe you are criticizing the energetic and collaborative discussion of the date this man's death, which was the very definition of the guidelines of Wikipedia's BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK policies. The excellent editors made energetic and valuable contributions. That discussion is a perfect example of how editors can differ in good faith and work toward a proper consensus. And, forgive me, you say "none of them gave an exact date of his death" but there was a credible source that did publish his date of death, to the day. We discussed that amicably and I was happy to defer to the consensus of the group and gave them my enthusiastic support. There is nothing awkward about "He died of COVID-19." It states the facts with the fewest words required. I had hoped to avoid saying this, but the way you wrote it gave the appearance of a cause-and-effect situation that was prejudicial, against Wikipedia policy. Reverting the sentence twice was not "borderline" anything. I gave full explanations for my reasons and supported them with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. You provided little information regarding your two reversions. You reverted my edit after promising in your edit summary that you would explain in Talk, but you never did. How is it that my two reversions are "borderline disruptive behavior" but your two reversions are not? I was happy to concede your other language in an effort to be supportive of you while still being true to the facts as stated in the source, even though you inexplicably claimed a "rough consensus" was met within minutes of your discussion and despite the fact that only one person had yet responded. Still, I believed you were right about the content and I was happy to say so. I appreciated you bringing that to the attention of other editors. I have no ownership here, as you have accused. I watch every article to which I have contributed. I do this professionally and, as a matter of habit and work ethic, I put a lot of time and research into almost every edit I make. Of course I want to ensure my work is not in vain. I appreciate constructive contributions to any article and never take it personally when someone properly reverts something I've done. There has been no edit war here. There have been only fine editors who have contributed constructively and proper consensuses reached. It appears you are endeavoring to create a war. Your words are not serving you well. Your words give the appearance that you don't like to be proven wrong and so you have resorted to attacking the editor who proved it by attacking all the work that editor contributed to the article. My edits are not personal. I consider you an enthusiastic, contributing editor and would like to be considered the same. Please be kind and assume good faith and good will. That will never let you down. Again, I thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and hope we can work together amicably. I harbor no ill will here and hope we can move on from this unfortunate exchange. I am willing. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As an update, MarydaleEd is now retired and there is a current ANI discussion about their editing on another page (permalink).  Samboy (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion is now archived Samboy (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enyart’s radio show did not debunk creationism 

message: "Enyart died from the coronavirus." Just because this is announced over and over again, doesn't mean it's true. Better SOURCE XYZ reported that Enyart died from ABC.--105.0.6.249 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See the oxygen example in WP:INTEXT. Unless you have some non-loon reliable source doubting it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims are no proof