Talk:Robert Morey (pastor)

message: Due to there being heavy vandalism, and much of the objectiveness of this article being tampered with by ip address 74.212.231.138, I was forced to go back several months and copy and paste an older article. Literally every singe reference had been removed due to vandalism, and anti-Morey individuals have attempted to put their 2-cents into the writing.  Let us remember, whether or not you agree with Morey does not mean you can slant an article in your direction.  Please keep these articles unbiased to the best of your ability.  If there are clear facts that are wrong, change them and include a documented reference.  But don't insert opinions because you hate or love somebody.  Jim Line (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy and paste of an older article

message: This article has been the subject of heavy vandalism by ip address 74.212.231.138    The objectiveness is in question, not to mention a lot of the sources for the information.  Jim Line (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I'm v. busy IRL pls be patient I will be adding content. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already asked for patience. •Jim62sch• 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well be patient about it then! :P KillerChihuahua?!? 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patience

message: The OC weekly is not a reliable source. The article reads as a piece of advocacy journalism, rather than an encyclopedic article, and  is not in compliance with the policy of WP:BLP  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments in the section immediately above. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does the OC Weekly fail as a WP:RS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FGT2 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See the rest of the talk page. In short, it is all criticism and no positive content, and the OC Weekly is not considered a reliable source. It seems like this article exists, not to give a fair summary about him, but merely to collect all the negative press Morey has received. His views (whacked though they may be) are not given a neutral presentation, but are only given through the eyes of his critics. I agree that the article should be improved (or failing that, redacted, or perhaps failing that, deleted), but if it is not, we cannot declare it to then be compliant and remove the tag. It should remain tagged as long as it is non-compliant. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the rest of the talk page, and I don't see anyone explaining why the OC weekly is not a reliable source. What's wrong with it? Kla'quot 16:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's classified as a tabloid, and, as Jossi already said, the articles cited are advocacy journalism rather than attempts at journalistic objectivity like you'd find in a more reliable source. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither the Wikipedia article for OC Weekly, nor its website, indicates that it is a tabloid in the usual "sensationalist gossip and UFO stories" sense of the word. Again, what, exactly, is wrong with the OC Weekly article as a source? I also think you've misread which article Jossi was referring to as advocacy journalism. Kla'quot 05:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP article does say it is in tabloid format, which I now see refers to the size of the paper and not necessarily the content, though the proper classification for the OCW, viz. alternative weekly, does still seem less reliable as a format than an ordinary newspaper. However, I'll let Jossi respond as to why he thinks it is not a WP:RS. In any case, the other reasons given above for non-compliance still remain. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Flex. I still don't get the arguments of non-compliance though. If the article accurately reflects how the available reliable sources describe Morey, we are doing our job. The article does include some quotes from Morey. In particular, the entire "Dirty bombs in the United States" section is all his, with no criticism. In the spirit of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, I will remove the tag: "Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." If anyone chooses to re-add it, please describe why. Kla'quot 09:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   If the main point of the story, that there is a deed in the Clark County, Nevada, Clerk's office in the name given for the amount given, then the source is -- obviously -- reliable on this issue.  All somebody has to do is check the reported secondary source against the reality.  If the secondary source is correct it's a priori "reliable".  -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-compliant 

message: I'm here in response to the RfC, where the question was, Robert Morey - requesting advice on whether this article, which is nearly all criticism and has almost no positive content, should be nominated for deletion or improved. (Compare the discussion at Talk:Robert Morey.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment  While the article does seem to be present Morey in a less than flattering light, he seems a pretty offensive person - there is no need for "positive content" if there is nothing positive to be said.  Nothing in the article appears to have been flagged as untrue, so I see no reason to delete any text as is, although new text which sheds a better light on Morey can obviously be added if possible. StuartDouglas 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: This edit added a link to a blog and videos on an online site, which seem to breach WP:RSAutarch (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Current link, footnote #2:
           "Dr. Jihad: The crusading life of Islam 'expert' Robert Morey". Orange County Weekly.
           http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/dr-jihad/24608/
Correct link:
           http://www.ocweekly.com/2006-03-02/news/dr-jihad/
65.26.122.246 (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone please fix a broken link? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Robert Morey (pastor). 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/20061117155419/http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/dr-jihad/24608/ to http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/dr-jihad/24608/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525181526/http://www.faiththeological.org/contact/ to http://www.faiththeological.org/contact/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090911081219/http://faithdefenders.com/about/ to http://faithdefenders.com/about/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212140843/http://isv.org/about_us/scholars.htm to http://isv.org/about_us/scholars.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified