Talk:Jim Wallis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arrests

Since I wasn't able to find a source on this, I removed it as potentially "self aggrandising." - brenneman ^{L} 04:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious addition

An anonymous user added the following to the article, which I have removed:

Wallis's denomination is the Evangelical Free Church. Jim Wallis was debated Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

I've checked Wallis's official bio, as well as one from an independent reference source (Contemporary Authors Online), and found no reference to the Evangelical Free Church. Google doesn't turn up anything obvious either. I've followed Wallis for a while, and never seen any indication of an active denominational affiliation. The second sentence doesn't make sense as written, so I assume the author meant "has debated"; this is no doubt the case, but Wallis has debated hundreds of people in the media over the years, so I don't think this qualifies as encyclopedic.

RadicalSubversiv E 21:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Though Wallis was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a seminary of the Evangelical Free Church, I don't believe he has been a member of that particular denomination for decades. Kbomb 07:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage to Joyce Hollyday??

I can find no source collaborating that Jim Wallis was ever married to Joyce Hollyday. This seems inconsistent with some of his message, include lamenting the high divorce rate, so I think it might have been added as subtle slander. The external link sheds no light on the matter.

In my own research I've found some clues that indicate that he and Joyce holiday may have been married, but nothing conclusive enough yet to merit mentioning in this article.Kbomb 08:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wallis & Hollyday were, in fact, married. See this from a book titled "Resisting Reagan, The U.S. Central American Peace Movement", page 408 for notes to pages 199-228, Note 21, "Jim Wallis and Joyce Hollyday later married." (from a search of Google Books). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jametz (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Theology

Can we get more on Wallis' theology? Is he Reformed? Arminian? Has he ever spoken or written publicly about who he believes Jesus of Nazareth was? Sojourners' website doesn't tell us much. TexasDawg 1 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

And not a word is said about which denomination or church he is with. 207.238.52.162 (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Birth

The intro to this article seems inadequate. Where was this guy born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninbronx10 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Bump

Page history shows a bump from 100 hits per day to 2000 on March 12, and 13th so this was quite a significant event for the visibility of Wallis. Bachcell (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Students for a Demo

"where he was President of Students for a Democratic Society"

Is there a cite for this? Otherwise will remove as unsupported

Google turns up a handful of hits, none particularly authoratitive, and his official bio does say "He spent his student years involved in the civil rights and antiwar movements." RadicalSubversiv E 13:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I double checked this myself; many of the sources from my own Google search included resources like The American Spectator, had to be a tough chore if you were president of the Michigan State University chapter of the hard-left SDS/tcwblog/archives/2053 The Christian Worldview, and Discoverthenetworks.org. I think it should be added back in. anthius81 17:57, 17 Mar 2010 (UTC)

discoverthenetworks.org is registered by the Southern Poverty Law center as a unreliable source. The Law Center stated discoverthenetworks.org is a "right-wing foundation and think tanks supporting efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." This segment should only be added if there are non-politically motivated sources. And the SPLC is somehow NOT a biased source?

The American Spectator doesn't actually state Jim was President of Demo it only asks a hypothetical question, "Smiling had to be a tough chore if you were president of the Michigan State University chapter of the hard-left SDS"

This is clearly meant as sarcasm in the context of the piece. It in no way negates their point about the SDS or Wallis.

The Christian Worldview article doesn't cite their source. In fact they admit no one knew of Wallis' involvement in the group. "Unbeknown to these colleges and seminaries is Wallis’ Red background. He was the president of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) while at Michigan State University."

This is entirely a misinterpretation of the piece. The "colleges and seminaries" mentioned here are from the previous paragraph, which cites Wallis's popularity as a speaker on American campuses. The author is stating that it is those colleges or seminaries inviting Wallis who are unaware of his background in the SDS. Not those of Wallis's peers at the University.

If you can find an article who cites an individual who claims they saw or knew Jim Wallis when he was President of the Demo then I think this segment could be added in. Have you found any such evidence? I'm assuming the President is a pretty public position. If Wallis was president it shouldn't be too hard to find a record.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiolag (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed this segment as the source does not claim Jim Wallis was president of the it only ask a hypothetical question. Please provide a reliable citation before putting it back in the article.

while at school, he was president of Students for a Democratic Society and then went on to attend Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois

References

commented out a link

In addition to Wallis, a number of other Protestant Christian organizations, including the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good,<ref>"Help Us Respond to Glenn Beck"</ref> and the National Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC), disputed Glenn Beck's statements on social justice.

I commented out this reference; the link returns "access denied." The only accessible article there now whose topic is Glenn Beck is "Glenn Beck Vs. God: The Bible Speaks For Itself" by David Gushee (the chair of NEPCG), originally posted on The Huffington Post.

So the sentence now reads,

In addition to Wallis, a number of other Protestant Christian organizations, including the National Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC), disputed Glenn Beck's statements on social justice.

-- LaNaranja (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy with Glenn Beck — Recentism, Undue weight, and Quotefarm

This section is, by far, the longest in the article. It gives undue weight to a very recent and relatively unimportant spat with a radio and television entertainer. Also, the section has way too many lengthy quotes. Somebody should summarize the quotes and trim the section to its bare essentials. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've attempted to cut down some stuff, and add some succinct responses Wallis made to significant criticisms Beck made towards the end of the spat, but my concern is to make sure that it fairly covers what each felt the issues were. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed below. Glenn Beck isn't important to this article, and the "must repeat every word Glenn Beck says and add it to every Wikipedia article" meme isn't acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed section

In March 2010 a controversy developed between Wallis and conservative talk radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck. On March 2 Beck told his radio audience,

"I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If I'm going to Jeremiah Wright's church? Yes! Leave your church. Social justice and economic justice. They are code words. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, 'Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?'"

On his television show March 2 and on his radio show March 11, Beck said "social justice" was the one common rallying cry of both Nazis and Communists because they both want totalitarian government.

Jim Wallis responded, writing on his God's Politics blog:

"Of course, Christians may disagree about what social justice means in our current political context — and that conversation is an important one — but the Bible is clear: from the Mosaic law of Jubilee, to the Hebrew prophets, to Jesus Christ, social justice is an integral part of God’s plan for humanity. Beck says Christians should leave their social justice churches, so I say Christians should leave Glenn Beck. I don’t know if Beck is just strange, just trying to be controversial, or just trying to make money. But in any case, what he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show."

In addition to Wallis, some Protestant Christian organizations, including the National Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC), disputed Glenn Beck's statements on social justice. The Rev. Peg Chemberlin, NCCC president, posted a statement on The Huffington Post in which she called Beck's statements, "nothing short of a call for his listeners to disregard central tenets of their faith... He is advocating that they abandon the full Gospel message in favor of a hollow idol, and he is doing so for worldly gain. His statements cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged." Some Catholics have also responded, including Fr. James Martin, S.J. with the Jesuit weekly America. The interfaith group Faithful America has also taken issue with Glenn Beck's statements, and has called on members to express concerns to Fox News.

On March 11 Jim Wallis published a brief open letter to Glenn Beck on The Huffington Post in which he said,

"You first urged Christians to leave churches that preached social justice. Today, you went further, saying that social justice 'is a perversion of the gospel.' Well, that says it all. Perhaps you don't realize that most Christians believe social, economic, and racial justice are at the heart of the gospel, not a perversion of it. You also engaged in a series of lies and distortions about me personally. Glenn, could you please dispense with the personal attacks and get to the substance of what you and I are saying about social justice? I don't want to personally attack you, and I hope you will stop slandering me. Instead, let's have a conversation about whether social justice 'is a perversion of the Gospel,' as you say, or at the heart of the Gospel, as I say."

Wallis subsequently appeared on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where he again argued that social justice is at the heart of the gospel.

On March 12 Jim Wallis published another open letter to Beck on his God's Politics blog. He told Mr. Beck, "Christians can have different views of the role of government but still agree that social justice is crucial... And while we all preach empowerment to live out the gospel, we don't think the meaning of social justice should be reduced to just private charity. Biblical justice also involves changing structures, institutional systems, and policies; as well as changing hearts to be more generous." Wallis concluded his letter with an invitation to Beck for "an open and public discussion on what social justice really means and how Christians are called to engage in the struggle for justice."

On his radio show on March 15 Glenn Beck responded to Wallis with this:

"So Jim, I just wanted to pass this on to you. In my time I will respond — my time, well, kind of like God’s time, might be a day, might be a week to you, I’m not sure. But I’m going to get to it in my time, not your time. So you go ahead and you continue to do your protest thing, and that’s great. I love it. But just know — the hammer is coming, because little do you know, for eight weeks, we’ve been compiling information on you, your cute little organization, and all the other cute little people that are with you. And when the hammer comes, it’s going to be hammering hard and all through the night, over and over…"

On his Fox News TV show two days later, Beck said Wallis is "kind of like Jeremiah Wright on sedatives," and promised a week-long look at Wallis.

On March 23, Beck spoke on TV at length about his disagreement with Wallis about the meaning of social justice, stating that "[Wallis] claims that the gospel of Jesus Christ is about a central government taking money from individuals and then distributing it the way they see fit... We know that Jesus' message was about choice." Beck goes on to claim that, "the reverend says, quote, 'Voluntary faith-based initiatives with no resources to make any serious difference in poverty reduction is not adequate.'" Wallis responded, "Hmm, don’t ever remember saying that..., or even remember any of my fellow traveler social justice Christians ever saying or supporting that." Disputing Beck's claimed definition of Social Justice, Wallis stated, "Somebody needs to tell Mr. Beck that virtually no church in America, or the world, would support anything close to that as a definition of social justice. Beck needs to hear some good church teaching — including from his own Mormon church members who fundamentally disagree with him and have said so."

Beck also claimed that, in an interview, Wallis had admitted to being a fellow Marxist with Dorothy Day. Wallis responded, "We were sharing our conversion stories from secular radicalism and Marxism to Jesus Christ and his gospel of love and justice. Glenn Beck just left that part out, as he often leaves stuff out or just makes up stuff and puts it in."

Shortened version draft

I'm proposing this as a working draft/starting point. I'm cutting nearly all of the quotes. If people like it, that's good, but I plan to work on cutting it down further. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In March 2010 a controversy developed between Wallis and conservative talk radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck. On March 2 Beck told his radio audience that social justice and economic justice are "code words," telling his audience "Leave your church," if those topics are preached. On his television show March 2 and on his radio show March 11, Beck said "social justice" was the one common rallying cry of both Nazis and Communists because they both want totalitarian government. Jim Wallis, along with Christian organizations such as the [National Council of Churches| National Council of Churches of Christ]] (NCCC), the interfaith group Faithful America, and prominent Catholics including Fr. James Martin, S.J., disputed Beck's claims. Writing on his God's Politics blog, Wallis stated that while the meaning of social justice is under debate politically, "social justice is an integral part of God’s plan for humanity," according to the Bible. Wallis also argued that Christians should no longer watch Beck's show as a result of his argument against social justice. On March 12 Jim Wallis published another open letter to Beck, stating that "Christians can have different views of the role of government but still agree that social justice is crucial," and that "private charity" is insufficient to address the need for social justice. Wallis concluded his letter with an invitation to Beck for "an open and public discussion on what social justice really means and how Christians are called to engage in the struggle for justice."

On his radio show on March 15 Glenn Beck responded to Wallis that he would dedicate a show to "hammering hard" on Wallis, Sojourners, and "all the other cute little people that are with you." He later promised a week-long look at Wallis. On March 23, Beck spoke on TV at length about his disagreement with Wallis about the meaning of social justice, stating that "[Wallis] claims that the gospel of Jesus Christ is about a central government taking money from individuals and then distributing it the way they see fit... We know that Jesus' message was about choice." Beck goes on to claim that, "the reverend says, quote, 'Voluntary faith-based initiatives with no resources to make any serious difference in poverty reduction is not adequate.'" Wallis responded, "Hmm, don’t ever remember saying that..., or even remember any of my fellow traveler social justice Christians ever saying or supporting that." Disputing Beck's claimed definition of Social Justice, Wallis stated, "Somebody needs to tell Mr. Beck that virtually no church in America, or the world, would support anything close to that as a definition of social justice."

Beck also claimed that, in an interview, Wallis had admitted to being a fellow Marxist with Dorothy Day. Wallis responded, "We were sharing our conversion stories from secular radicalism and Marxism to Jesus Christ and his gospel of love and justice. Glenn Beck just left that part out, as he often leaves stuff out or just makes up stuff and puts it in."

Looks OK, other than still being too long (which you acknowledged).--Drrll (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Two huge paragraphs and one small one now... getting warmer. I've stripped existing data pretty far. I'll have to actually remove information to get it smaller, I think. I just need to figure out which information should get stripped. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Shortened version draft 2

Wallis has had an ongoing feud with conservative commentator Glenn Beck, beginning with Beck's attempts to associate social justice and economic justice with the totalitarianism advocated by Naziism and Communism in March, 2010. Jim Wallis, along with Christian organizations such as the National Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC), the interfaith group Faithful America, and prominent Catholics including Fr. James Martin, S.J., disputed Beck's claims. Wallis also argued that Christians should no longer watch Beck's show, but invited Beck to have "an open and public discussion on what social justice really means and how Christians are called to engage in the struggle for justice.". Beck promised he would dedicate a show to "hammering hard" on Wallis, Sojourners, and "all the other cute little people that are with you," and later promised a week-long look at Wallis On March 23, Beck spoke on TV at length about his disagreement with Wallis about the meaning of social justice, claiming that social justice, and Wallis, supports forced redistribution of wealth by the governement. Wallis responded that he had not advocated any such policy, nor had any other social justice Christians that he knew of. Wallis disputed Beck's definition of social justice as supported by "virtually no church in America, or the world." Beck also claimed that, in an interview, Wallis had admitted to being a fellow Marxist with deceased Catholic activist Dorothy Day. Wallis responded, "We were sharing our conversion stories from secular radicalism and Marxism to Jesus Christ and his gospel of love and justice. Glenn Beck just left that part out, as he often leaves stuff out or just makes up stuff and puts it in."

References

Sojourners funding from George Soros and renting of Sojourners mailing list to Obama campaign

An editor has removed my additions on the basis of WP:Undue and WP:WTA. While I see that it would be better to use "reported" instead of "revealed", I don't see this as a case of WP:Undue. The funding issue was reported by at least five sources: World Magazine, Christianity Today, The Washington Examiner, National Review, and the Media Research Center's Newsbusters website. I can add the additional sources if needed. The renting of the Sojourners mailing list was reported by the very prominent Washington Post, as well as World Magazine. Drrll (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Skoojal (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)>

You'll have to say something more than a single word, True, to develop consensus on the matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to call for discussion instead of edit warring in your edit summary (after edit warring yourself before discussion), then actually discuss the issue of inclusion rather than just challenging Truetalk's method of discussion. Drrll (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. You don't get to have your way before consensus is achieved. So far a few other editors have reverted you, so let's let consensus develop before they are included.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) The Washington Post doesn't say anything about Jim Wallis renting the Sojourners mailing list to the Obama campaign. (It merely says the magazine rented the list.) Reading Wallis into the Post article is original research.

(2) An opinion column and a blog at World magazine are not reliable sources. Please provide more information about the other sources, such as links.

(3) Please explain why this isn't a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Right neither of the items have been picked up by other neutral, reliable sources. It's a passing mention in one case, and an article by the opposing party in the conflict in the other. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Both items have been picked up by reliable sources--see below for sources on the Soros funding issue. Even though National Review is not neutral, that is not a requirement for reliable sources, and Christianity Today is a neutral source. On the mailing list issue, the fact is that it is reported by the Washington Post. I challenge you to produce WP policy language that requires a reliable source to devote a particular amount of space to what it reports before something can be included in an article (such a requirement would decimate most WP articles). Drrll (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) I don't advocate changing it back to say that Wallis rented the mailing list since the source doesn't say so, even though it is extremely unlikely that Wallis was not the one who rented the list.

(2) That opinion column actually does some original reporting, as some opinion columns do, but since "without attribution" in regards to statements of fact is ambiguous in WP:RS, I'll forgo using that source. As far as blogs of reliable sources go, WP:RS is clear:

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format."

There are additional sources from Christianity Today: here and here, and from National Review: here and here.

(3) WP:UNDUE appears to be talking about viewpoints/theories rather than about statements of fact (I'm willing to be convinced otherwise). If it does apply to statements of fact, the material to be included is a small paragraph, not multiple large paragraphs. WP:RECENT does not apply, as the issue first surfaced in mid-July and continued on for several weeks during August. Drrll (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) You seem to have missed the point. The question isn't how much ink the Washington Post gave to the Sojourners mailing list, or whether it is "extremely unlikely" the list was rented without Jim Wallis' approval. At issue is the fact that the Post doesn't mention Wallis at all, which means mentioning him in connection with the mailing list is original research. It belongs in Sojourners, not here.

(2) Opinion columns and blogs are not reliable sources, and you've provided more of the same. These are not blogs on the website of major news organizations, as described in WP:RS. These are blogs, or opinion columns, in the usual sense of the term.

(3) You seem to have misread both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. From WP:UNDUE:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

WP:RECENT suggests that you ask yourself:

In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?

Is an insignificant contribution by George Soros to Sojourners really that important to a biography of Jim Wallis? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) I concede that with the current sourcing the mailing list issue does not belong in this article.

(2) The language I quoted above from WP:RS about blogs merely uses a "major news organization" as an example, not as a requirement. The essence of that sentence states that "otherwise reliable news sources...that publish in a "blog" style...may be as reliable as if published." Additional language about blogs of reliable sources in WP:RS also demonstrate that they are acceptable:

"Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

It's unclear whether the National Review articles are reporting or opinion (probably both). The Christianity Today articles are definitely just reporting; the first CT article is not even a blog article.

(3) I was willing to be convinced that WP:UNDUE applies to statements of fact, and from what you quoted, I am convinced. However, a sentence or two about this matter does not rise to the level of undue weight. With regard to WP:RECENT, yes, I do think that it will appear relevant in ten years that Wallis accepted money from Soros after having made so many protestations over the years that he (Wallis) is not on the left, denying that he received the money, saying that the one who reported it (Olasky) "lies for a living", then admitting that he did in fact receive the money, and finally issuing an apology to Olasky. Certainly more relevant than the fact that he appeared on the Daily Show (in the article now). BTW, $275,000 is not insignificant to an organization the size of Sojourners. Drrll (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead: source referring to political progressives or religious progressives?

There is a dispute as to whether the first source used in the lead is referring to political progressives or religious progressives. I contend that "progressive" is being used to describe Wallis politically, rather than his religious views. Yes, the article actually says "progressive evangelical leader Jim Wallis", but I believe that that's saying that "evangelical leader" Wallis is progressive, rather than calling Wallis a "progressive evangelical", as evidenced by the context before and after this statement, which is clearly discussing politics rather than theology:

"an unusual coalition of Christian leaders and policy experts from across the ideological spectrum...The faith-based alliance of 18 liberals and conservatives reached across the political divide...The brainchild of progressive evangelical leader Jim Wallis and Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for then-President George W. Bush..., the bipartisan alliance..."We come from different sides of the political spectrum," said Wallis."

Drrll (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wallis is called a "progressive evangelical" in both the sources you've brought up([4] and [5], and I've noticed he comes up regularly in a Google search for "progressive evangelical," as that seems to be how he refers to himself frequently. So, while it's possible that your interpretation is correct, it seems more likely that they were using the same label he prefers to use for himself. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right that Wallis is frequently described as a "progressive evangelical" and he describes himself that way (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print). You're also correct that the NYT reference I first used likely is referring to him as "progressive evangelical" rather than a politically progressive evangelical. However, the context I provided above for the WaPo reference shows that progressive is used in that article politically rather than theologically. In addition, the paragraph in the lead is also focused on politics rather than theology. I propose that we change "progressive evangelical" back to "progressive" to match the context of the reference and to fit in better with the context of the paragraph in the lead, and add either in the same paragraph or another that he describes himself as a "progressive evangelical." Drrll (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Looking at that source in comparison with others, it seems very likely that he simply told the author of the article what he preferred to be described as: a "progressive evangelical."Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Third paragraph of lead

The third paragraph of the lead covers material not covered in the body. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." That paragraph should go into the 'Theology' section or 'Political and social influence' section. I believe the essence of this material and other similar material is summed up with what's already in the lead: "Although Wallis actively eschews political labels..." Drrll (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. There's already a small paragraph with a quote on politics. I went ahead and moved it down to join with that one. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Advocates Redistribution of Wealth

Jim Wallis clearly advocates redistribution of wealth by the force of government and has pushed the Democratic Party to put that in their platform. [6] It's a very controversial position to hold and the quote is frequently cited by his detractors, but he doesn't deny it. Isn't some mention of this at least as relevant as the quote from him currently in the article about homosexuality? (Wallis said "Jesus didn’t speak at all about homosexuality. There are about 12 verses in the Bible that touch on that question. Most of them are very contextual. There are thousands of verses on poverty. I don’t hear a lot of that conversation.") -- Glynth (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you'd researched, you would have found that Wallis has, in fact, denied advocating forced redistribution of wealth quite some time ago. I would recommend not using a source now infamous for cutting out relevant parts of interviews for hit pieces. Articles here require reliable sourcing, and biographies belonging to living people are held to higher standards. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you even watch the video?

Wallis: "But what the Bible doesn't like are these tremendous gaps and chasms between the top and the bottom."

Interviewer: "Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?"]

Wallis: "Absolutely, without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is all about."

Well, laying aside the fact that the Bible says nothing of the sort, Wallis's defense is he was not talking about "forced" redistribution. This doesn't sit well with the other things he's said. Wallis has a documented affinity for Marxism and socialism and has stated that private charity is not adequate and he claims that the Bible says central government is responsible for taking care of the poor (which is patently absurd). [7]. And you claim I'm the one not doing research, while your "research" amounts to finding a post made by Wallis himself and buying it wholesale. -- Glynth (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop hyperventilating and turn off Glenn Beck for a little while. Maybe you've never read anything in the Bible about selling your possessions and giving them to the poor? Sure sounds a lot like wealth distribution to me.

PS: A word to the wise. If you cite www.discoverthenetworks.org, nobody on Wikipedia will ever take you seriously. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Attacking me personally and the sources I bring up instead of the arguments is hardly convincing (esp. when the source cites its sources, and they check out). Equally unconvincing is your attempt to shove something on the level of "willingly giving to charity" into "redistribution of wealth" (which is about permanently reducing the wealth levels of some to increase the wealth levels of others, a socialist idea through and through) as well as your mischaracterization of Jesus's teachings by implying He wanted his followers to sell all their belongings. -- Glynth (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because you so clearly don't know what you're talking about. Still, this page is for discussing the article, so let's try to stick to that. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Glynth, you falsely claimed that Wallis had not denied advocating a position, so I pointed to a post in which he did exactly that. Claiming that this somehow equals "buying it wholesale" is just a desperate attempt to distract from your failure. Trying to portray it otherwise highlights your own bias, not mine.

Secondly, your argument is irrelevant to the article. If you want to include information, you need reliable sources. So far, the sources are not reliable and do not support your conclusion. A highly-edited set of video clips that doesn't even say what you claim does not satisfy a single sourcing requirement. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wallis, a man who spreads quite un-Christianlike vitriol about his political enemies on the one hand [8] while supposedly "turning the other cheek" when it could make for good P.R., who has admitted that he lied about not receiving funding from progressive agenda-pushing billionaire George Soros [9] (but not before saying that Beck "lies for a living" in response to being asked about it) (this is relevant given Soros's stated big government goals), and who was an admitted Marxist in his past (if not now), has repeatedly worked alongside fellow radical Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright (who you'll recognize is the other of the two pastors most famously connected to Pres. Obama) and is an advocate of "liberation theology," [10] which was an offshoot perverted by Marxism. (Rev. Wright's black liberation theology is an offshoot of that, founded by extreme radical and racist (what a surprise) James Cone.) That is a documented fact, using reliable sources. Some confusion comes in because the Marxists repurposed the phrase "social justice" from the Catholics, but they are not the same thing. Wallis's "social justice" is the Far Left's social justice, which is about big government, not the Catholics', which is about justice in a more general sense. Liberation theology and its "social justice" is a perversion of the Gospel that has been condemned by mainstream Christianity, including the Catholic Church [11]. How can you, with any intellectual honesty, say that Wallis's "redistribution of wealth" is most certainly not in the political, government-driven sense when it's already been shown that 1) he's lied to cover up ties to progressive funders, 2) he is a progressive activist (a label he has embraced), 3) redistribution of wealth by the government is an identifiably progressive ideal, and 4) Wallis's book God's Politics essentially argues that the religious Left's job is to make their "social justice" religious beliefs (including redistribution of wealth) into political policy? -- Glynth (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. Even the WP article on Liberation Theology you referred to doesn't say quite what you claim, as it says that the Catholic church condemns certain forms of liberation theology, not all of it. I'm not going to argue endlessly with you on this. You simply don't have reliable sources to back up your proposed changes. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Believe whatever you want to believe. Guard the article from such "lies" about him as words coming straight from Wallis himself from sources such as his own published books. What is and is not a "reliable source" is based solely on the whims of whatever editors are hanging around. (I mean, seriously, you guys think Media Matters is a "reliable" source despite their repeated lies, purposefully editing video to take it out of context when in some cases the full context is readily available and the very next sentence destroys the entire smear they're creating.) To say Wikipedia's policy page on the subject is vague is an understatement (though there are some valid reasons for that). But things won't stay like this forever. -- Glynth (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable depends heavily on what it's being used for. Negative information about a living person requires the strictest sourcing, for good reason; this is to protect a person, whether it's Jim Wallis or Glenn Beck. Media Matters is, as a general rule, not that reliable (I would also oppose using it for negative information regarding a living person), but can be used in some cases. Without knowing what you are referring to, I can't say whether or not it was used appropriately in that case. Brietbart's site, for example, can be used, but only for information about himself and his organization, and pretty much only on articles about him and the organization. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jim Wallis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605094544/http://blog.sojo.net:80/2008/06/12/the-bible-is-neither-conservative-or-liberal-by-jim-wallis/ to http://blog.sojo.net/2008/06/12/the-bible-is-neither-conservative-or-liberal-by-jim-wallis/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100825101454/http://blog.christianitytoday.com:80/ctpolitics/2010/08/wallis_admits_t.html? to http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2010/08/wallis_admits_t.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207195509/http://www.peaceabbey.org/awards/cocrecipientlist.html to http://www.peaceabbey.org/awards/cocrecipientlist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Communitarian

I'm personally sympathetic to left-communitarianism, and could see a reasonable argument for putting Wallis in that category. However, I've searched both Google and Lexis-Nexis and found no direct descriptions of Wallis as a communitarian from any sources whatsoever. Failing a citation, characterizing him as such in a Wikipedia article would thus constitute original research, which is prohibited by policy. (Wikipedia:No original research). RadicalSubversiv E 18:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JIm rocks but is this NPOV?

He is known for pointing out just how often Christ spoke of the need of people to take care of the hungery and how rarely Christ spoke of Homosexuality.

He feels this is in contrast to the agenda of the Religious right in America today

Um, that's mostly just badly written. But it's not in the article, so what exactly are you questioning? RadicalSubversiv E 30 June 2005 03:37 (UTC)

can this be posted?

"Jesus didn’t speak at all about homosexuality. There are about 12 verses in the Bible that touch on that question. Most of them are very contextual. There are thousands of verses on poverty. I don’t hear a lot of that conversation."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/03/gods_politics_jim_wallis.html

I'm still a little confused. I suppose you add a quote section heading to the article (or even better, take it to Wikiquote), but I can probably be more helpful if you explained exactly what you're wanting to do. RadicalSubversiv E 30 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)

news on Jim

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051214/ap_on_go_co/budget_protest

Names of Children

I removed the names of Jim's children. I might be wrong, but I think they are pretty young. Doesn't the The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act protect their personal information?

Radiolag (talk)(UTC)