Talk:Steve Chalke

Conflict of interest - text added from Oasis Trust IP address

I have removed the following text from the article:

"Oasis Academies have been established to provide a rich and balanced educational environment catering for the whole person - academically, vocationally, socially, morally, spiritually, physically, emotionally and environmentally. The goal of every Oasis academy is to serve its students as well as to provide a life-long learning hub for the entire surrounding community, including an array of facilities such as adult learning courses, community workers, fitness suites, healthy living programmes, sports courts and a wide range of out-of-hours youth activities. Oasis Academies benefit from the depth and breadth of educational, healthcare, youth work and community experience and resources within the wider Oasis family, as well as from being part of Oasis global family of schools and, more specifically, of its Academies in the UK. All Oasis Academies share in a common purpose, ethos and set of values."

This text was added from an Oasis Trust IP address. It is full of jargon and reads like a PR statement. It lacks a neutral point of view. I have replaced it with an attempt to describe the organisation in a more neutral way - please don't just add this back in. It needs to be neutral. --Rbreen (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Autochthony writes: I agree with Rbreen. Further, I suggest that the main article would benefit from a consistency in naming the subject. Is he 'Chalke', or 'Steve'? It varies. 'Chalke' would, I suggest, be better. It also removes any perceived 'my mate Steve' imputations, that I am sure the author would wish not to have present. My Opinion. Autochthony. 1852z, 26 July 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.194.33 (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

DaveJewell writes: I found much of this article disjointed and hard to understand. One of the key paragraphs, headed "Controvertalist" (I'm not at all sure this is a real word!) contains many grammatical mistakes and even stops in mid-sentence. For example, "this, in spite of the fact that."...... In spite of the fact that what? The core controversy here is penal substitution and the original author makes no effort to explain the real issues involved. DaveJewell (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a cleanup is needed. The word "controversialist" is a real world with the intended meaning (admittedly I had to look it up!) - I have corrected the spelling. The second part of the section looks woefully short of references for a section claiming that Chalke is controversial. Halsteadk (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Some general clean-up; and, also, support for monogamous same-sex relationships

I completely agree with this box that's now (as of this writing, anyway) at the top of the article...

...and so, yes, a LOT of work still needs to be done on the article. I came to it to see if it had been updated to reflect Chalke's declaration of his support for monogamous same-sex relationships, and even two days after the news broke, it had not been so updated. I presume that that can be explained by that the article seems to originally have been largely the creation of Chalke's people (a big Wikipedia no-no), and given that they kinda' had their wrists slapped, here, for it, I'm not surprised that none of them updated; and also that most others who know and care about Chalke tend to be conservatives who probably are none too happy about what he did, and so would be just as happy if it weren't reflected in his Wikipedia article.

I, however, have now added the "Support for Monogamous same-sex relationships" sub-section, along with what is now the article's third paragraph which alludes to it. Unlike most of the rest of the article, my work is, I think, pretty consistent with Wikipedia standards; so now all someone (and I'm willing to try to do it when I have time) has to do is get the rest of the article properly Wikified so that that box at the top may be removed. There's no question that Chalke deserves a Wikipedia article; it's just too bad his people so screwed it up. It really needs a lot of work.

As long as I was on the page, though, I did at least try to clean-up a few things, as is reflected in the page's history. It only scratches the surface, though: again, there's just much to do.

I'll circle back when I can and see how else I can help. I hope that someone will jump in and continue the clean-up.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Trajectory Hermeutics

I think we should include in a reference to Trajectory Hermeneutics, as this is the main theological method that Chalke uses to arrive at his conclusions about same sex marriage. It would also be noted that other christian leaders who are adopting a similar position, such as Rob Bell, Brian Mclaren etc are also utilizing this same hermeneutic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.158.81 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest / single purpose accounts / article is not neutral

This article appears to me to have neutrality issue of the sort often associated with conflict of interest editing, notably the very detailed narrative of the subject's life, and in particular the controversies section, which appears to take the point of view of the subject in the form, almost, of an apologia, rather than balancing more equally a treatment of concerns raised with rebuttal (or acceptance) of those concerns.

A number of single purpose accounts, listed below, and spanning 2007 to 2019, have brought the article to its current problematic state.

• Notepad Mary (talk · contribs)
• Bedside boy (talk · contribs)
• Runway54321 (talk · contribs)
• Oasisuk (talk · contribs)
• 1mattc (talk · contribs)
• Otto Reeves (talk · contribs)
• 1KRoad (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia depends upon neutrality. The neutrality of an article which has been massaged over the course of 12+ years by a set of SPAs, and which has a slant noticably close to being promotional, cannot be trusted.

The article needs robust editing from a neutral user. Until that happens the article should remain tagged as non-neutral and COI such that readers are not misled as to its lack of balance. Given the voluminous detail in the article, it may be that such a review from a neutral user may a long time in coming; if so, the tags should remain for that long period, since their purpose is to qualify the article whilst it remains in its non-neutral state. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Reverted to last version without the vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:6a05:a501:1509:14cc:1b65:b934 (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)