Talk:Richard Roberts (evangelist)

message: The text of this page is word-for-word from Roberts' official violation on the ORU website (http://www.oru.edu/aboutoru/richardroberts.html).  Can someone who knows more about this examine for possible copyright violation?Scarletsmith 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, the copyright violation has been removed. Dmcdevit·t 19:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation?

message: those [sic] 's don't belong where they are someone more qualified than I should take care of that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.41.74 (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think when the website of any university describes its president's degrees as "a bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate" it brings up more than enough questions to qualify the quote in encyclopedic terms with [sic]. Gwen Gale 08:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Degrees

message: Including it where it's at (directly after Mrs. Roberts' peccadilloes) implies that the RNC association was somehow improper. It was not. Refrain from re-adding it until it can be properly placed in context. You will be reported for violation of WP:3RR if you revert again.K. Scott Bailey 00:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put it somewhere else then. Thanks. Gwen Gale 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is all that I felt needed to be done. I simply didn't have the inclination to try to find a spot to place it that wouldn't make it seem as if that was one of the things the school did wrong. It did plenty wrong (apparently), but working with the RNC was not one of those things.K. Scott Bailey 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. From what I gather, if they were providing material assistance to a political party it was likely illegal. Either way, text placement can sometimes mislead a casual reader and I was happy to move it. All the best. Gwen Gale 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt the wording itself was inflammatory, as the lawsuit makes VERY clear (Have you read it all yet? If not, you should. It's interesting.) that the RNC work was within the bounds of legality and appropriateness, as the university never paid anything out to any candidates or groups. It was after they started dallying in local politics (and using university funds to do so) that they ran afoul of the law.K. Scott Bailey 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Please let me know what you think of the wording now. Gwen Gale 01:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks fine. I'm not sure why it has to be in there, but if it has to, then--for the sake of fairness and accuracy--it does need to be clear that the RNC work was not improper.K. Scott Bailey 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: However, I believe the RNC work predates the Miller Campaign edict from Roberts by a good while, which might call into question linking them so closely in the narrative.K. Scott Bailey 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the whole lawsuit now and agree with your take on this. The AP got a couple of details slightly wrong which is all the more reason why the article could helpfully explain the political side. Let me see what I can do to further clarify the text. Cheers. Gwen Gale 01:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RNC information 

message: I still think this should be merged with the introduction until it does, in fact, "grow further", but at least it's not a one sentence section, which is what precipitated my merging it to begin with. Good luck with the article. I always feel like I need a shower after I dip my toe into waters like Roberts and his ilk.K. Scott Bailey 02:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still working on the family section. I didn't restore it until I stumbled across more detail and I'm looking for more. I agree with you on the other stuff too. Gwen Gale 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family section 

message: Is the article about the university or Roberts? As of right now, the part about the lawsuit is copy and pasted from the ORU article. If there is a difference between Roberts and the university, then the content should be at least a little different.
Since I posted with a summary this is more about university= removed and was told to stop " randomly removing material w/o explanation." Maybe some can explain if it is normal to have identical passages on different articles? NNtw22 05:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually read the article, you will see that the lawsuit is nearly completely about actions committed by Richard and Lindsay Roberts. As such, the material is completely appropriate for both articles, and should not be randomly removed.K. Scott Bailey 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue was more than this was a carbon copy section of another article. As Richard Roberts had a carrer as a faith healer prior to his 14 year term as the head of ORU, we should also try to expand other portions. C56C 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the article about the university or Roberts?

message: A lot of material on Richard Roberts was added today.  Much of it seems OK although it could use more references.  There are major issues, though, with POV and promotional statements.  As an encyclopedia this is a place for neutral writing, and statements like "Hundreds and thousands more receive healings and miracles as Richard preaches God’s Word and prays for the sick, moving freely in the gifts of the Holy Spirit—especially the word of knowledge—as referenced in the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians, chapter 12" are not encyclopedic.  I've started some editing and marking, but there is a lot more to do.  In short, though, not everyone believes that Christianity is true, and the article should not be written with the assumption that it is, as much as an editor may believe it.  Also, the list of all his crusades is probably more information than is needed here.  --Beirne (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the POV template.  The new material from the last few weeks reads like a corporate bio for Richard Roberts.  I have fixed some things but there are still issues.  The material about the lawsuits and his resigning as president of ORU went a bit far in the other way.  Since it is all part of Richard's story, the sections about his career and resignation should be combined into one neutral narrative. --Beirne (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I've marked a the statement about Richard seeing God's miracles as dubious.  There is no way to prove whether the miracles occurred or not.  This needs to be rephrased in a more neutral manner.  --Beirne (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with changing the wording to say that Richard stated that he saw miracles, I'm just uncomfortable with the article saying that they occurred as a matter of fact.  After reading your comment I scrolled down and reviewed the part about the lawsuits and ORU.  I took out one part that was just a statement of opinion by Brooker.  The allegations were part of the record in the lawsuit, though, and are useful for history.  Richard's response to the lawsuit is in there, and if he said more it is fine to put it in.  --Beirne (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Regarding the table, I'm not looking for proof, I just don't think it belongs in the article.  It makes the article harder to read, as it requires a lot of scrolling to get past it to get to more of the text.  Also, it is just a list of place he traveled to, which is not notable information.  It would be like listing every place a band toured, or every place that Billy Graham had a crusade, and this just isn't done.  --Beirne (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miracles 

message: I see the table of Richard's travels was put back in.  I took it out because it does not contain any useful information.  Why would anyone care that on 1983 October 2 he went to Vancouver, Canada?  What does that tell us about him?  The comment on the restoration said that other articles have tables, but that does not mean anything on its own.  Other articles may have tables with more useful information, so the existence of tables in them does not say anything about this table.  Finally, consider what it would be like if a table was added showing Richard's height over his lifetime.  This would obviously be pointless, but I'm not convinced that his travelog tells us anything more useful than the list of his heights.  The editor says she is working on adding pictures, but that will not help.  It still won't provide add useful info to the article.  --Beirne (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not just my opinion.  Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for any fact someone can think of.  See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.  The big table of Richard's travels falls somewhere in-between the excessive listing of statistics and news reports.  The travelog does not even say that he spoke or ministered in the places listed.  All it says is that it is the Travel and Ministry Log.  So maybe he traveled there to speak, or to help lay bricks for a church, or just to get away.  The table does not say and does not attach any significance to any of the places he went.  That is why the list is little more useful than a table of his heights would be.  If something noteworthy happened at some of the locations then put it in the narrative, but I'm guessing most of the visits were pretty routine and a table is not merited.  --Beirne (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard's travelog 

message: I marked the paragraph about Richard's healed colon as dubious.  The claim that he experience it is useful for his story, but his telling the story is not enough evidence for inclusion in Wikipedia.  A reliable secondary source is needed.  --Beirne (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colon healing claim 

message: In looking at this purely as a Wikipedia editor who knows nothing about Mr. Roberts, the article definitely has some neutrality and encyclopedic issues.  Using primary sources in any BLP article is tricky because, while they are useful in verifying non-controversial facts, they definitely can present issues of bias if used too heavily.  And even if neutrality were established in an article simply by having "positive" and "negative" sections this would fail simply because the "positive" section is FAR larger than the "negative" section.  Beirne is correct that neutrality needs to be throughout the article; presenting facts that are supported by reliable sources rather than simply telling Roberts' story largely using his own words.  The biggest concern I see is the frequent use of quotes from Roberts' own work.  While quotes are certainly appropriate, too much affects the tone, particularly when they are inserted the way they are.  Direct quotes should be used sparingly and only when the direct quote is the best way to present the information.  Further, it needs to be very clear that the quotes are Roberts' own words, so including "What Roberts referred to as..."  or "what Roberts called..." etc.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The text has slowly been getting less over-the-top, but it still carries way too much promotional ("peacock") content, as one would see on an organization's or a personal website: Big swaths are still not written from a neutral outlook. His own autobiography (which may not be neutral and need not be) seems to be referenced far too much. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree, with Beirne, JonRidinger, and Gwen Gale, about overall tone and about the overuse of primary sources such as Roberts' own work. The Career section reads like a paean to Roberts in its current form. Like all our articles, this one must (1) state verifiable facts; (2) from reliable sources, preferably secondary ones independent of the subject; (3) in a neutral tone. The large Career section doesn't do these things. With single-purpose user  as the standout, it appears to me that there's consensus here for a rewrite. Looks like a case for wp:bold, to me.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, I have moved the rewrite template to the career section where it makes more sense.  Now the hard part of rewriting.  It is a bit hard finding good secondary sources for Roberts.  He is famous enough to have coverage in the last few years but not so much earlier in his life.  --Beirne (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I looked some and the book Oral Roberts: An American Life shows some promise as a fair source.  Too bad it isn't at my library.  --Beirne (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good on you, Beirne; this has needed attention for a long while. Re the book, I'm sure you know that many public libraries ( in the U.S.A. anyway ) will undertake an "interlibrary loan" for you at no charge, borrowing the book on your behalf from a library system that has it, and making it available to you just as if it were in their own collection? Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I ended up ordering the book for 85¢ at Amazon.  I couldn't pass on a good deal. --Beirne (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Break for convenience

message: I removed (I think) all of the unsourced material, and reworked some problematic phrasings, where the language seemed fairly peacocky, or was just poorly-worded. I also removed some peacocky stuff that was sourced to OREA press releases and things like that. Please don't add back in unsourced material without discussing here. LHM 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely reworked this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Richard Roberts (evangelist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011040106/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5j9XJtq8scoszIFZLWUjrR8mPuBFQD8S38PR80 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9XJtq8scoszIFZLWUjrR8mPuBFQD8S38PR80
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071128061040/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5j9XJtq8scoszIFZLWUjrR8mPuBFQD8T2BTUO0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9XJtq8scoszIFZLWUjrR8mPuBFQD8T2BTUO0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Richard Roberts (evangelist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012185208/http://chronicle.com:80/subscribe/login?url=/daily/2007/10/2007100303n.htm to http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=/daily/2007/10/2007100303n.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213050453/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/23/national/a165630S41.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/23/national/a165630S41.DTL
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified