Talk:Harrison Butker

Lead mention of his controversial comments

Opening up a discussion as to whether the lead should mention his controversial comments that have been widely covered in the media with numerous articles detailing his comments. Proposed wording for lead:

• " Butker, a traditional Catholic, made controversial comments stemming from his strong conservative beliefs in two commencement addresses in 2023 and 2024. His comments have been labeled as "misogynist", "bigoted", "homophobic", "transphobic" and "anti-semitic". In May 2024, the NFL released a statement condemning his remarks: "His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger.""

The One I Left (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Just because a comment generated some controversy does not mean it needs to go at the top of the page. It is well discussed below, in the proper section. TanRabbitry (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with TanRabbitry (though not with their edits, which I reverted): this is way too much for the lead, and even a brief mention is too much right now. There is no rush; we need to get it right. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies

I don't know why you reverted every single edit on the basis of a single reason. Regardless, the list states; "Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues," and "Most editors say that Rolling Stone a partisan source in the field of politics." Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I think, TanRabbitry, that anyone who looks at the edit history will understand that you are mischaracterizing my edit. Also, RS is fine for culture, and it seems to me that "Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution" is met here: it is attributed. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies If that is so, why did you only include one reason and yet reverse every change? And how is this not a political and "societally sensitive" issue? That's what culture is. TanRabbitry (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You know what, maybe I should have said "rv disruptive edits by POV editor, whitewashing, removal of sourced content, insertion of positive appreciation by POV source ("The speech received a standing ovation from the graduating class and others in attendance"), excessive quotations by subject, unverified paragraphs, unexplained removal of relevant Swift-related content". This set of edits contains all that. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies I did not add that line. That was a editor called "bro rick." You are making mistakes at best and making things up at worst. The other allegations are nonsense. You have also removed sourced material. You should stop accusing me of things I haven't done. TanRabbitry (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Drmies, I respectfully disagree just due to the Reliable sources and mass media coverage, I think it's notable to have a brief mention In lead but we can wait. I do however have to correct TanRabbitry, It wasn't just "a comment" it was a series of highly controversial comments in two high profile speeches which went viral and gained tremendous backlash with even the NFL distancing themselves from his statements.The One I Left (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

No. The comments were only controversial from fringe viewpoints and those intentionally being obtuse to use Butker for their aims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that just doesn't track from the litany of reliably sources. It was Butker's viewpoints which were considered "controversial". I'm afraid you're inserting your bias here.The One I Left (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

IP you're being silly. Those cringeworthy comments rightfully attracted plenty of media attention. The One I Left, you can just disagree, it doesn't have to be respectfully--and I do think we should wait. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: I agree with the latter point. But to say that the comments were "cringeworthy" shows your own bias. I attempted to balance the article to the proper neutral view. You clearly already have an opinion and want it expressed. The opinion is fine, but the article should contain facts and statements of others. Besides, a point no one has raised is the lack of contrasting opinions (beyond those of the audience, which applauded in an ovation). Why don't we add some of those? Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

TanRabbitry, my "bias" is the least interesting of all topics of discussion. I don't think you were doing a very good job of balancing, especially not if you insert commentary about a bill that he may have referenced: stick to the topic. If someone wishes to insert this, very briefly, I suppose they can go ahead and do it. So no, "the audience" was not unequivocally jubilant, as you suggest. These nuns said, “Instead of promoting unity in our church, our nation, and the world, his comments seem to have fostered division. One of our concerns was the assertion that being a homemaker is the highest calling for a woman”. Did he assert that "being a homemaker is the highest calling for a woman"? Is that accurate? It's pretty funny that the nuns at the institution are calling him out for those comments. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies

I did not add a "commentary." That is frankly almost libelous. That implies personal opinion on the subject. I find it strange that you dismissed your obvious bias out-of-hand, before accusing me of inserting my own view on the subject. I added context to the article to try to balance it. I offered no original conclusions, but simply stated what proponents and detractors had stated on the subject to provide background to the comment. You removed that due to your apparent distaste for the subject of the article (or at least his opinions).

On the other point, what does a later comment by a group connected to the school have to do with the reception of the audience?

TanRabbitry (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies

Additionally, he said "one of the most important," not "the most important." If a source twists someone else's words, it shouldn't be included without heavy clarification. To answer your question, it is not in fact, accurate. To drive home the point, he literally said that his success are dependent on his wife's accomplishments in her chosen path.

TanRabbitry (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree this should be in the page. It’s well documented and even available to watch if you are so inclined. It’s not lies, it’s not opinion…he said what he said. If Wikipedia can’t publish truth that’s well-documented they shouldn’t post for donations. Logicleigh (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Jewish comments inclusion

User:TanRabbitry keeps removing sourced content that is properly sourced and notable claiming it to be "defamatory". Not sure how. Please state your case here and gain a consensus before removing sourced material. He specifically condemned the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act" and accused the first-century Jews for being responsible for the death of Jesus. There is sourced editorials commenting on his statements which is absolutely relevant. User:Drmies noted, "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has RS as an RS", The One I Left (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left Before I answer anything else you said, I explicitly stated that someone else had said it was defamatory and removed it. I said that was not why it should be removed, even if I agree that it should be. I will assume you made a mistake rather than are being intentionally misleading, but either way, please stick to the facts. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh was that not you? I apologize. What is your reasoning then?The One I Left (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left I accept your apology. TanRabbitry (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I do recommend not engaging in multiple EditWars and instead trying to gain consensus as to avoid confusion.The One I Left (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left, Secondly, the entry for Rolling Stone says that; "Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues," and adds " TanRabbitry (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll wait for more commenters to add to this but my suggestion is that the content revolving around his jewish statements stay since he did say them, but remove RS sourcing if consensus is gained. I will add that |National Review and |The Nation also commented on the controverisal statements with the later alleging them to be anti-semitic comments. The One I Left (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left The more important point is that he didn't say anything notable or "out of line." The key line is "the church long has held that Jews could not be held collectively accountable." But he didn't say that the Jews are collectively responsible. That would be both wrong and notable. He didn't say or imply anything beyond a criticism some people had of the bill, in that some of its definitions could theoretically be construed to say that what is written in the New Testament is antisemitic. Others have disagreed with that assumption and said the bill wouldn't apply, but the wording is confusing and a rational person could have either perspective. Additionally, the reference I quoted is an opinion piece that doesn't even include his remarks on the subject. Its inclusion (especially without his actual words on the subject on the Wikipedia article itself) implies that he said something he did not. What he actually said is non-notable despite some (Rolling Stone) twisting his words. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left, I haven't read the article you mention was written by them, but would add that while it is considered reliable factually, "they identify as progressive. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed." I also would add that all of these articles are heavily interpreting and assuming malice to his words when there is no indication there was any. I don't think it is proper for a side to be taken and mentioning it at all in that context assumes there was something wrong with his comment. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I follow what you're saying. The controversial line from his speech is: "We fear speaking truth, because now, unfortunately, truth is in the minority. Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail". You could argue it was craftily worded enough that its open to interpretation however I still think his statements, reaction, and backlash was significantly covered by reliable sources and is worth noting especially since he did criticize the bill. So given that Rolling Stone, The Nation, National Review, and Kansas City Star among others commented on the story I'd say it's worthy of note. It seems you are letting your personal bias affect what could be considered noteworthy. I'm curious to see other people weigh in. The One I Left (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left, Respectfully, to my mind saying "it was craftily worded enough that its open to interpretation," shows an assumption that what he said was malicious, which is itself biased. My point is this; to include his statement in an neutral way, you would have to include his quotation and clarify any accusatory condemnations by saying that they interpreted his statement one way, but he did not explicitly say that. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I'm against removing the comments altogether. The One I Left (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left: O.K. It just seemed like that wouldn't leave anything notable. I second the idea that others should weigh in. TanRabbitry (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you deem notable. Statements perceived as anti-semitic and reporting from reliable sources are notable. Just so we're clear the part you want removed is soley the Rolling Stone material, correct? The One I Left (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder User:TanRabbitry stop EditWarring and removing sourced content. Build your case here.The One I Left (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left, I thought I had explained it clearly.

I know it wasn't you, but why was my addition removed? How is that different, if there is objection to me removing sourced materials? The additional context clearly shows the controversy surrounding the issue and adds background to a possibly confusing area. TanRabbitry (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left: Now why did you move that back? I included a rationale, both for why I think it needs to go, but more relevant to this, why it should succeed the other opinions. Moving it back without a reason seems a little petty. I could be wrong, but if so, why did you do it? Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove the addition you made but I agree with User:Drmies it was overly wordy and unnecessary. You need to be able to gain consensus before removing large texts like the sourced material for the Kansas City Star.The One I Left (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left: In one comment, I said you didn't remove it. In the other, I asked you why you moved the line from where I had placed it, not why you removed it. TanRabbitry (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We can close out this discussion since I think you are now fine with the inclusion of the Jewish commentsThe One I Left (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left Their inclusion, yes, but as they are written, no. I am still waiting for opinions from others. I'll delete the outdated comments (including this one after a while). TanRabbitry (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Opposing Reception

I think we need to add quotations from his supporters. The article says his statements were "controversial," but only includes one perspective. Here is a first draft of an addition:

Supporters also commented on the address. ESPN's Samantha Ponder said, "Personally I agreed with a few things he said… especially that most women are more excited/proud of their families than their day jobs. I love my job and have worked my butt off (and slept in my car) to get here, but it’s not even comparable to how I feel about being a mom! ESPN will not be with me on my deathbed. When did that become offensive?" The wife of the Kansas City Chiefs CEO Clark Hunt, Tavia Hunt said, "Affirming motherhood and praising your wife, as well as highlighting the sacrifice and dedication it takes to be a mother, is not bigoted. It is empowering to acknowledge that a woman’s hard work in raising children is not in vain.”

Two should be enough, right? There are two critical and two supportive opinions. Source for former quotation: Source for latter quotation: These aren't completely filled out. It wouldn't let me add them the normal way for some reason. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Before you make sweeping reversions and changes please come here and gain consensus. In these edit summaries you seem to realize these are huge changes [1], [2], before you actually make the changes open discussions and gain consensus. The One I Left (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left, That's what I did. Why would I have written this otherwise? I don't think these are "sweeping. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You are removing sourced content and condensing sections together. That's "sweeping". Also why ask before waiting to answer before doing it?The One I Left (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left I thought the condensed section made more sense. I specifically left out the Jewish section, but I believe it should also be included. I assumed you would want to do that yourself. I do not understand your second sentence. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I would want, as I've said repeatedly, for you to please gain consensus before making sweeping changes. Please don't make assumptions about what you think other users want. It makes little sense to me that you would write in the edit summary, "I combined two sections. This flows better, don't you think?" I don't think it flows, and It's not an improvement. Again you need to bring these questions to the talk page.The One I Left (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left, What was the matter with combining them? There's no reason to propose a change that isn't objected to. Why do you disagree? I genuinely don't know why that would be controversial. TanRabbitry (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There's so much in his speech that it would be unwieldy. Lets have other people weigh in.The One I Left (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left, O.K., that's a perfectly acceptable opinion. I disagree, but I will accept a consensus of several other disinterested editors. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I second Drmies, please stop with every response having three paragraphs.The One I Left (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

So you are going to "balance" the words by the former Kansas City commissioner and the NFL's senior vice president with a talking head from ESPN and the CEO's wife. I think you misunderstand "balance"; please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: What on earth does that have to do with conspiracy theories and nonsense? Yes, I included an opinion from a source similar to others referenced in the article and an opinion from someone connected to that organization. Why do you not approve? And more importantly why don't you state a reason instead of directing me to something unrelated? I put this suggestion here, so we can write a good addition. I stated that my version was a first draft. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you stop making every message consist of a minimum of three paragraphs? Please actually read: it starts with "significant viewpoints on any topic". The article cites two people who are clearly relevant, and you bring in two people who are not. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies When I went to that link, it directed to a sub-section that states you shouldn't include extraordinary claims, fringe opinions or conspiracy theories. That's fine. What does that have to do with this? Why are those two not relevant? TanRabbitry (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel like I'm talking to ... well let me not finish that sentence. It's about significant fucking viewpoints, and you are adding viewpoints that are not significant because they are not said by significant people. A CEO's wife. A sports commentator. Who give a fuck what these people say? That's why I mentioned the positions of the people who are not in the article: they are significant. The viewpoints you present are not significant: you're just doing the "OH THERE'S TWO AGAINST SO THERE SHOULD BE TWO IN FAVOR" kind of balance. Now stop pinging me: this is boring. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies Should you choose to ignore this is your decision, but you have no right to say the last word and prevent response of any kind. You have repeatedly mischaracterized my actions or blatantly lied about them (the line I didn't write, or the "commentary" accusation). You have admitted biases on this subject and yet you accuse others of the same. I have tried to maintain a polite attitude and not assumed bad motivation whenever reasonable. You have not. You insulted me and repeatedly used obscenity in a manner that is not fit for someone of your experience. Every time I answer, counter or explain, you change the subject. What are you accusing me of in regards to the vandal warning? I reported a blatant vandal, decided to take the initiative and warned them myself, so I did so and added a comment explaining that and asking for correction if needed. Why have you repeatedly criticized any action I have taken, without just cause? I proposed an addition, giving examples of support to balance the attacks. It doesn't have to be two because there are two criticisms. Rather than contribute you resort to insults. Other parts of the article include the opinions of persons no more "significant" than the ESPN person. Also, what do you mean by counterpart? Finally, this is a fairly inconsequential article that I attempted to improve, and in all these discussions there has essentially been three voices chiming in, two of wish ask for more comment from others. No consensus of any kind has been reached and yet, you word your comments in a way that seems as if I am arguing with ten other people. You keep accusing me of various things. What do you mean by an "edit war" in regards to the applause? I didn't bring it up, but it shouldn't have been deleted, so we discussed and agreed to a new sentence. You seem to only want things your way, even if you change the reasoning every five minutes. Now this is a bit long, but "if I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter." I hope you understand what I'm saying and refrain from these wrong actions. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know why you would say I am "preventing your response". You typed one, didn't you? You also managed to completely avoid the actual topic: those "balanced" responses of yours. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies Sorry, I suppose that was poorly worded. What I mean is that, while you certainly can ignore any response I give/gave, it is not right for you to do so, under the circumstances. Yet again, you change the subject. I already answered that I do not think balance means having equal pairs of contrasting opinions, but having quotations from only one side in a contentious issue isn't neutral, is it? If you didn't like the examples I gave, why not contribute, or at least be helpful and explain why you disagree, rather than just dismissing them offhand? I know you have far more experience than me, but the way I understand it, I am in the right here. What do you say in regards to all of the things you said I did that were not true? The edits I didn't make or the claim I wrote "commentary?" Were you mistaken, or did you deliberately perpetuate a falsehood? Also, what was the matter with me reporting vandalism? I genuinely don't understand what you disapprove of. What mistake did I make? And why are you, a very experienced editor resorting to personal insults and unprofessional, highly inappropriate and obscene language? Will you choose to actually answer the questions I have asked this time? I have tried as best I can to answer your charges. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I am trying out the "mute" function. Did I say something obscene? Oh, yeah, "fuck"--sorry, I suppose that was also poorly worded. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies I know you won't see this, but I take your childish mockery and incredibly unbecoming behavior as a tacit, but obvious admission of wrongdoing. I sincerely hope that you change your improper conduct, especially since you clearly do a lot of good in general. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

One more thing, before I stop listening to you: you have made no fewer than 36 edits to this talk page, and almost 50% of the text is yours, and still you are not finding consensus for your edits--so you've resorted to an edit dispute over a standing ovation and applause. Bravo: this is really important, and really contributing to the project's goal of sharing globally relevant information for free. And when you're not edit warring over content, you report someone who made ONE SINGLE EDIT to WP:AIV, minutes after warning them. BTW I wish that your counterpart would stop editing the article and the talk page too. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies Incidentally, this is yet another either mistake on your part or possible lie. I added the vandal, THEN added the warning. If you don't like something about what I did, tell me. But don't lie (and at this point, it really seems like that is what it is) about my actions. TanRabbitry (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jdmvaawesome "Controversial" means that different people disagreed heartily about or something that causes arguments and disputes. Universal condemnation or agreement would not necessitate the odd contrasting opinion, but a controversial idea does. As to an equal number, I don't know if there is. It shouldn't really matter, provided it remains neutral overall. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO The addition of several quotations from people who supported Butker's comments are less than vital to the strength of the article and the accuracy of the section. His comments were of note because they were controversial. Simply pointing out that there were people that agreed with him does not illustrate that point. Not all of them need to go but I don't think it is necessary to have an equal number of supporting quotes as critical ones.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

Remove “Jr. “ he is not a junior, he and his father have different middle names. His middle name is his mother’s maiden name. Otteller (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a source for this information. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the "Jr." was added within the past week without a source. It doesn't appear to be commonly used, as required by MOS:JR, except for sites copying its usage from here. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"Views" section

Throughout the "views" section, there are multiple introductions of Butker's commencement speech at Benedictine College when it had already been introduced prior (see the "Comments about women in the workforce" and "Political beliefs" subsections). I believe that these should be reworded so that we're not constantly reintroducing the commencement speech, or potentially consolidated into a single section covering the reaction to the speech as a whole. But what does everyone else think? Usually, I try to be bold and apply these changes on my own, but I'm on the fence with what should be done here. Thus, I will throw this one out to my fellow editors -- what do you think would be the better option? JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@JeffSpaceman I already attempted to combine them, but it was reversed. It makes little sense to me for them to separated, but the argument was it would be too long and confusing with them together. The editor who reversed it and I agreed to wait for others to weigh in. I think it's confusing as is and apparently you agree. I say they be combined. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you letting me know about this, I completely agree with you. Pinging @The One I Left:, who I will invite to discuss the matter here, and whose reverts of the above-mentioned content I will respect per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that rewording makes sense to not be repetitive but I disagree that all the subheadings should be removed and everything flow underneath a single subheading under "views". That would be too unwieldy and confusing since he covered so many topics. I guess a suggestion I would make is to rename the subheading from views to "commencement speech comments" and keep the same subheadings below? The One I Left (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I honestly think that could work. I'm not sure how good I would be at rearranging the information, so I will leave that work to someone else. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yah I agree I think it would make much more sense to have to have one subheading for his Benedictine Speech Comments and to just put everything related to it under that rather than keep reintroducing it in every other section.

Jewish Statements Link

This explanation is a bit long, but I would encourage anyone attempting to link the "Jewish Comments" section to the idea that the Jews collectively, currently and exclusively are morally responsible for the death of Jesus to consider a few things. First, read the opening of the linked article: "the notion that the Jews as a people are collectively responsible for the killing of Jesus, even through the successive generations following His death." Second, read the text of this article: "he spoke about first-century Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus." The latter statement contradicts the former.

Lastly, consider the words in his quotation: "the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus." Because of this phrasing, referencing what he is describing should illuminate the answer. Matthew 26: 3-4 reads: "Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him." After the arrest and appearing before the former high priest, the current one and the Sanhedrin, (see John 18: 19-24 and Matthew 26:57) "they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters," (John 18:28) then to Herod and back to the governor, Pilate (Luke 23: 11-12).

‭The most important part relevant to this is

Matthew 27:20-25 which reads: "Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor again said to them, 'Which of the two do you want me to release for you?' And they said, 'Barabbas.' Pilate said to them, 'Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?' They all said, 'Let him be crucified!' And he said, 'Why? What evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more, 'Let him be crucified!' So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.' And all the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!'"

Despite some people's misunderstanding of this passage, the guilt for Jesus' death is described in the Bible as being that of the world, not just the Jews and Romans.

It is important to remember in this discussion that Jesus and all his disciples are Jewish, as well. Much later, addressing a Jewish audience, Peter says: “You, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross” (Acts 2:23). L Later, Paul (also Jewish) writes "‭I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!" (Romans 11:1). The idea that all Jews are cursed and rejected is the heart of the errant theory and it is directly contradicted here. Additionally, Zechariah 12:10 reads “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn." The first verse of the next chapter reads: "‭On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness."

These quotations are completely clear and may be understood by any rational person. So we can see clearly that the idea the article was linked to is not, in fact biblical (something already claimed in both articles, so there really isn't an argument), which is what the subject of the article was referring to. The subject of this article explicitly referred to what is in the Bible. Therefore, linking it to the other article is both false and does a disservice to the reader by prejudicing them against his words without cause. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

Perhaps based on the redirect of “pro-life” links to the Anti abortion movement page, it would be more appropriate (as per modern language movements) to change the heading “Pro-life advocacy” to “Anti-choice advocacy,” however leaving this bit that he wore a “pro-life shirt” seems accurate. Thank you. 216.197.208.136 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

In both abortion position articles, the page begins with either "abortion rights," or "anti-abortion." Following this is the self-styled definition. While the former definitions may be simpler, holders of either position usually prefer to describe themselves with the latter. More importantly, "pro-life" or "pro-choice" is the more common and familiar descriptive. I think the current edit is more suitable here. TanRabbitry (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2024

Please change "The speech was met with applause and a standing ovation from the audience.[68]" to " ".

In depth:

Headline "Comments about Jews": Second Sentence: "The speech was met with applause and a standing ovation from the audience.[68]"

Issue: The description is not materially relevant at all and can be confused as an endorsement of the subjects material from Wikipedia's side. The text should be as neutral as possible, mentioning the audience reaction is not typical and too editorialized. If it is not removed a rephrasing would also be acceptable. Furthermore: The sourcing is dubious. In the source provided it is said that "he received a standing ovation from graduates and other attendees" not all or the entire audience. The rephrasing in "the audience" is not correct, it assumes the entirety of the audience was of this opinion when this is not specifically mentioned in the source.

Request: Removal of this sentence. If not removed: Rephrase the sentence. Possible Alternatives: "Some members of the audience showed their approval to this message." "Some attendees decided to vocalize their support." "Some audience members applauded this message" However as mentioned above, this is not helpful or materially relevant and thus should be removed. Proffesseurevil (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: The sentence seems important and impossible to remove, I changed it to "The speech was highly received by the audience". Is the wording okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a sufficient compromise. I disagree still on the necessity of the sentence as a whole but your rephrasing is good enough. 2A02:3037:601:A715:9D79:3766:C948:6430 (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.

@Proffesseurevil: you should be able to edit the page. RudolfRed (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

Nobody can fail to perceive that the term "pro-life" is a gross violation of the NPOV policy. The neutral descriptor is "anti-abortion". I would appreciate it if other people would also help to deal with the problematic editor who will not stop pushing their POV here. Whasha (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The disruptive editor is now pestering me on my talk page and repeatedly making false allegations of attacks against them. Their behaviour is becoming seriously problematic. Whasha (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have kindly added two assumption of good faith warnings to your page. That is not "pestering." You have repeatedly removed them and also restored the above statement which is attacking other editors. You really need to read WP:NOPA, WP:EW and WP:RPA. You also need to actually state your case. I don't want to remove the above again, but you need to remove or rephrase it as soon as possible. Please stay within the rules. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)