Talk:John G. Stackhouse Jr.

Relevance of wife being former student of Stackhouse

Hi all. I'm gently questioning the relevance of stating he's married to a former student. She explains how that is true, yet not as sordid as the statement and context might imply. Perhaps rephrase as "In 2022, Stackhouse remarried. They met through one of his classes and had collaborated to improve his website." If that's too convoluted and detailed, perhaps just: "Stackhouse entered a second marriage in 2022." Robincantin (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

That link is a broken link and there is no other valid source that gives details about his divorce or remarriage. Naomi2015 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability establishes when self-published sources may be used in an article. It seems appropriate in this case, especially since the statement is worded neutrally (I think).

Robincantin (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The previous writing is not worded neutrally. It says Stackhouse divorced his Sleeth, we do not know what happened in his first marriage or divorce, this wording however suggests otherwise. The citation that is still live points to his public statement about his lawsuit against Crandall, and says nothing about dates, his marriages or his divorce so they do not support the claim either. Naomi2015 (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Paid editor request

Hello - I am declaring a conflict of interest as a paid editor, respectfully requesting editors consider the following edits:

1) Remove: "Termination for alleged sexual harassment". The section header is sensationalist. This is the only section header within the Career section, however Dr. Stackhouse has had multiple employers over his 40+ year career and there are no other section headers devoted to those employers. While the text contained within the section may be considered relevant, the section header is not. The body text within Career remains coherent without the section header.

2) Remove: "He had faced a similar investigation at Regent College, the year before his departure from that institution." There is no citation for this statement. Given that it lacks proper citation for BLP, it is also possibly defamatory and libellous.

3) Remove: "Why he left Regent is shielded by a non-disclosure agreement.[8]" The citation for this statement (Citation 8) does not verify this claim. The citation does not contain verifiable or reliable sources for this statement.

Thank you.

Morretti2024 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

References

The similar investigation at Regent College is well covered by the citations in the next statement. "Non-disclosure agreement", however, appears to be a little bit inaccurate. Rather, (per the given sources) Regent College cited privacy laws in a refusal to substantively comment. Perhaps "Why he left Regent is shielded by a non-disclosure agreement" should be replaced with "Regent refused to comment on the reason for Stackhouse's departure, citing privacy laws" or similar? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me.

Replace:

"He had faced a similar investigation at Regent College, the year before his departure from that institution. Why he left Regent is shielded by a non-disclosure agreement."

with:

"Stackhouse departed Regent College in 2015. Regent refused to comment on the reason for Stackhouse's departure, citing privacy laws.[8]"

Thoughts?

Additional considerations:

- The citation only states "Sources tell CBC", which is vague and unsupported, given the seriousness and severity of the allegations.

- Is the corresponding section header necessary? It is my belief that the same information can be relayed without the sensationalist header.

Thank you for your consideration. Morretti2024 (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, at least not by me. On revisiting, the CBC source "Professor terminated by Christian college was repeatedly accused of sexual harassment" supports the non-disclosure agreement with Regent, although it is perhaps a little on the hearsay side. (This is also covered in well-established Christian publications like [1] (likely WP:RSOPINION) and [2]; see also the MSN-syndicated article [3].) That he left Regent in the wake of a similar investigation appears to be well established by reliable sources, including the same CBC article. I do not find the section heading to be sensationalist at all, and it is similar to the titles of CBC articles. I will comment that the article here received recent attention from experienced folk at WP:BLPN, and that there has been a recent pattern of sock-puppetry and disruptive editing at the article. I am marking your request as declined, but will ping BLPN regulars @Morbidthoughts and Zaereth: (who worked on the article) in the somewhat-unlikely case that they have anything to add. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)