Talk:Bob Enyart

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

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to hold the position that while these verses establish the immorality of homosexuality, the associated penalties are no longer applicable under the new covenant.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)

•  Not done You Tube is not a reliable source. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand this process, you misread my request. The line "Enyart promotes the idea that homosexuals should be put to death for their biological disposition." should be removed because the only reference provided ([13]) is a youtube video which does not support the assertion. If youtube videos are never reliable sources, then the line should be removed because the reference is not reliable. That is to say, your response supports the edit request. I again ask that this line be removed or alternate support provided. 74.65.136.98 (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 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)

He doesn't seem to be implying that homosexuals should be put to death, but that it is wrong for liberals to be against the death penalty but in support of homosexuality, which he refers to as causing millions to be "put to death" in the sense that they are sent to Hell. This video does not support the claim on the main page, and as such the section on the main page should be removed or other evidence should be provided to back up the claim. 97.118.59.62 (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing and motivations

For several days, I have been editing this article. As a practice, I either click on "Random article" or choose an article from the "In the news" and spend days editing those articles. This article is no exception. I share this so that any editor involved in this article will understand that I have no attachment to this subject except to ensure that the facts set forth within it are supported by proper sources. Based upon what I have learned about this subject's political and social activism, every fact within this article has the possibility of being challenged. Therefore, I encourage all editors to work together with a neutral voice (WP:NPV) to bring this article up to the highest standards, and stubbornly protect the neutral voice standard. We must ensure that all sources are above reproach and that every fact is properly supported in the source provided, which means keeping editorialized (WP:EDITORIAL) comments out. As of this timestamp, my edits are complete. Upon my extensive research of this subject, I can find no other noteworthy events that need to be included, unless someone can add more about his background. I believe as it stands, Wikipedia editors have made this is an excellent Wikipedia article. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your work and your efforts in adding reliable sources. However, I need to question one change, the removal of Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists, which you state is "not supported by the article". The category description states that is is for "people who are substantially known for promotion conspiracy theories". This article states "Enyart supported the debunked theory that COVID-19 vaccinations had been tested on aborted fetuses" with several cited sources. It seems to me that he was in fact a conspiracy theorist and substantially known for this. What is it that you are questioning here? Cnbrb (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't do categories anymore because it is a Wild West area where rules are ignored, but I'll make an exception here. I will not respond to any further reasoning though.

WP:CATV says, Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. The article does not contain the word "conspiracy", so this is not the case here. Your reasoning It seems to me is WP:OR. If you can find a source that calls him a conspiracy theorist, that hurdle will be overcome, but there may be other hurdles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources given for the claim that he said COVID-19 vaccines were tested on aborted fetuses say two things: that he said they were tested on cell lines derived from aborted fetuses, and that the vaccines were not tested on aborted fetuses. What the article now says is not true.Dakane2 (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Dakane2, I have not yet read this article today to check on the accuracy of any edits that were made overnight, but I will do that immediately. Your statement that the article as it stands is not true concerns me greatly. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying a debunked theory is not a conspiracy theory, as it stands here? Cnbrb (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Cnbrb, I am grateful for your kind words and your contributions to Wikipedia. I also can't tell you how appreciative I am that instead of reverting an edit you thought improper, that you first sought other opinions. In response to your questions, there are two issues at play. First, as Wikipedia editors it is not our place to draw conclusions or write what we think someone is "substantially known for." Our job is to take third-party published articles, paraphrase them and provide sources. The second issue here is that it appears you do not fully understand what is meant by a "conspiracy theory." A "conspiracy" is when two or more people plan together to commit a crime. A "conspiracy theory" is when someone floats the idea (and often others subscribe to it) that two or more people planned and committed a crime, and then theorizes as to the manner in which the conspiracy might have occurred. In answer to your last question, a debunked theory and a conspiracy theory, by definition, are not the same things. A conspiracy theory can be debunked, but a debunked theory is not necessarily a conspiracy theory. In all of my research on this subject, I have read nothing that indicates he supported any conspiracy theory. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Please be assured of my awareness of and commitment to WP:NPOV. Concerning the question of conspiracy: I suppose that in this case, the view that there is a secret plan to use vaccines tested on human foetuses is the conspiracy - it certainly sounds like a conspiracy to me, however ridiculous the claim. But yes, it's a weak case. That said, however, I think that the Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists category itself is problematic - I would rather that it were named "Critics of..." or "Opponents of..." - something along those lines. There are numerous Wikipedia articles about people like Enyart whose vociferous campaigning against public health measures and science is a genuinely defining characteristic (i.e. a reason for their notability), but there is no suitable category AFAIK. But that is suited to a much wider discussion, not for this talk page. Personally I don't have the energy to go further into that debate - there are too many living Enyarts just waiting to disrupt any rational conversation. Maybe someone else will come up with something sensible. Cnbrb (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

PS. Please check the citations following the article statement about foetuses. Neither the Washington Post now the Nebraska Medicine Company articles mention Enyart at all.Cnbrb (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring and constant reversions of 166.205.141.57

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)

Death date

There is conflict regarding the date Enyart died. Two editors say he died on the 12th, and while I believe they are right, there are no credible sources that say it is. In cases like this, we should write what we know for sure, and that is exactly what the sources tell us. In this case, we are absolutely sure that all credible sources located say that someone close to Enyart officially announced Enyart's death on the 13th, so that is what we should say. Therefore, I edited the appropriate sentences to "His death from COVID-19 was announced on September 13, 2021." That is all we know for sure based on credible sources. I don't want to be an ogre about things like this, but evidence supports the fact that 1. this man was and is quite controversial, and, 2. his article is attracting an enormous amount of attention. It is imperative that we get this right, and that means editing with a neutral voice and sticking to only statements of fact that can be supported by credible sources. I would love to hear from others. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Background I had originally sourced it on Sept 20, when it was already listed as September 12 on the page, but without a specific source supporting the date. An IP removed the source as part of other changes, with edit summary "... Ensured the facts presented in each sentence could be found within the sources cited ...". Presumably, it was because the content had moved and was no longer at that URL. Another editor later changed it to Sept 13.—Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The press release in question, posted on the Bob Eyart Live website, states: Despite the efforts of the hospital staff, his health continued to deteriorate and he eventually died on Sunday, September 12 at 3:00 p.m.[1] I treat the source as WP:ABOUTSELF. Sure, he's dead, and it's not technically from him. Still, the spirit is that it's a straighforward statement, and I don't see how it could be considered self-serving or where there would be reasonable doubt about why it would be fabricated to be a day earlier and listing a specific time. Without this source, even the 13th is not directly sourced, and the lead sentence should then be "c. September 13, 2021", and not an exact date.—Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That seems a credible source to me. The article should be changed to the 12th. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I found another source that stated the exact date of death was unknown see https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/14/bob-enyart-conservative-radio-covid/. I agree with Bagumba, the date of death should say "c. September 13, 2021". Jurisdicta (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The one source is a press release which we do not use on Wikipedia and the other source, Jurisdicta says, sets the death date as "unknown." Based on that information, I must again aver that we must state only what we know for sure that comes directly from the sources we can find and that is that the death announcement came on the 13th. I realize that doesn't help us at the top, but give me a moment and I will see how we have handled that in other articles. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hang on. I found something....Checking it out. MarydaleEd (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Checked it out. We have a credible source(!) that has given the exact date of death and we have an expert who confirmed for this news media group that their date was accurate.

The article states, "Bob Enyart, 62, who had proudly referred to himself as “America’s most popular self-proclaimed right-wing, religious fanatic, homophobic, anti-choice talk show host” and pastor of the Denver Bible Church, died Monday after a short battle with the coronavirus."

The next sentence says "The news was confirmed by his longtime radio and podcast show co-host Fred Williams in a Facebook post "

So, as far as the group is concerned, they got the date, was sure it was right, then sought out an expert to confirm it and he did. That would pass fact-checkers in any major newsroom or network news show as irrefutable and they would run with it.

It is up and that is done and we can turn our attention to whatever is next! God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd: The reference you added from Los Angeles Blade to support the 13th does not pan out in the FB post it cited, which does not mention a specific date. Moreover, as the lone reliable source saying it was the 13th, it's not definitive enough. Wikipedia:Inaccuracy discussed this, where a statement is verifiable but has inaccuracy concerns. FWIW, there is a Denver funeral home that also lists the 12th.[2] I still don't see reasonable doubt on why Enyart's website would fabricate the date.—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

MarydaleEd, you are incorrect that we do not use press releases on Wikipedia. They are not suitable for judging notability, but that is not the issue here. We have a statement on Enyart's own website saying that he unequivocally that he died on Sunday 12th at 3pm. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, this is a valid source and should be the one we go with.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba, thank you for your comments. I get very excited when a discussion gets opened like this and several editors contribute. It celebrates the true collaborate spirit of Wikipedia. Hats off to all of you who are participating! As to the point of your statements, I believe you are mistaken. The source does not indicate that it leaned on Facebook for its information. To be exact, the source gives the death date and in the next sentence references the fact that the information was confirmed by Enyart's "longtime radio and podcast show co-host Fred Williams." That is an important distinction to note, because it specifically does not say it got its information from Williams, but that it got the information which was then confirmed by Williams. I would never use Facebook as a source. Heaven forbid! But look...this is not a hill on which I choose to die. Honestly, I believe he probably did die on the 12th, but we must have a proper, credible source that says so. Pawnkingthree, please link to where you are getting that information. I would like to research it. Again, thank you all for contributing here. We are getting there! God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but I missed this in my post above. Pawnkingthree, a press release is not an independent source. WP:PRSOURCE tells us "'A press release is clearly not an independent source.'" In all my years on Wikipedia, I have never seen an instance where the removal of a press release as a source as been successfully challenged. In all cases, consensus was reached by editors that, given the nature of a press release and the fact that Wikipedia has deemed it as violating its independent source policy, press releases may not be used as a source. However, thanks to a link above, (Bob Enyart Live), I located the information you are referencing. You are right, it says he died on the 12th. If everyone agrees that in this instance, since no other credible sources are available, that we will rely on his website as a source, I am agreeable to changing his date of death to September 12. I hope everyone involved understands that I am only on one side - the side of stating only facts that can be supported by credible, independent sources. I don't care if they say he died in 1962, as long as we have a proper source. Looking forward to hearing from you all and hoping a consensus is forthcoming. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It's been my contention that while not independent, I do not see any reasonable suspicion why their statement about their associate's death date being the 12th would be promotional, in this specific case. Regarding The Blade, it did specifically mention the Facebook post: The news was confirmed by his longtime radio and podcast show co-host Fred Williams in a Facebook post Monday. However, there was no death date in the FB post.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am good with whatever everyone else thinks is best. I believed firmly (and still do) that we needed an independent credible source to provide our information and I found one. As far as your concern about the accuracy of the Blade article, let me point out this: it is not our role to determine if a credible source is accurate. It is our role to write what the credible source says and provide a proper citation. Readers can determine for themselves if they believe the source. The Blade article, which remains the only independent publication anyone has been able to produce that published the date, set the date on Monday, September 13, then stated it had corroborated that statement with a post by Williams on Facebook. I'd like to point out that it doesn't say which Facebook post it is citing, so we should not assume we know. The point is, we have to take independent credible sources at their word. If we don't, how would anything on Wikipedia ever get sourced? Please, do what you think is best. You will get no disagreement from me. As far as Enyart's website, I agree with you that its authors appear to have nothing to gain from misrepresenting his date of death. I trust that whatever decision comes from this will be the right one. I have enjoyed our work together. Hope we can do it again sometime. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that an independent source is preferable, but it's not always required (nor available). The community has editorial oversight over what verifiable information to include per WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. This is useful in cases such as this, where the information is verifiable, yet dubious. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba, absolutely. Job well done. Set that date and let's move forward. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I've updated to the 12th based on the rough consensus. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Your edit removed the exact death date of the 12th, citing in the edit summary that the WaPo source was a "better source". However, the rough consensus above was that the KGOV.com source was a suitable primary source in this case. I've restored the 12th, while leaving your addition of his age and the WaPo ref. Feel free to discuss if you have remaining concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The main issue I saw with KGOV was that it's a questionable source, an obituary sermon. However it indeed claims a date, that interestingly other sources (although I didn't search very long) lack, likely because the family refused to issue it... The WaPo source mentions that details were not disclosed when asked, suggesting that perhaps WP also should avoid giving details that aren't supported by better sources. —PaleoNeonate – 09:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

While some might see the overall press release as a "sermon", the limited use of his death date, a statement which doesn't seem self-serving, seems fine in the spirit of WP:ABOUTSELF.—Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

To add another opinion, I think it indisputably falls within WP:ABOUTSELF to use a subject’s own self-published sources (webpage/blog/social media) to get someone’s exact date of death when third party sources do not provide an exact death date. Samboy (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wording in the lead about Enyart’s death

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Enyart’s radio show did not debunk creationism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That discussion is now archived Samboy (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Claims are no proof

"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)

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)