Talk:Ralph Drollinger

message: This article is pretty bad. It's making comments and referencing sources that don't back up statements. The truth is enough without this embellishment. Crinock (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 

message: The Counterclaim is listed on the Capitol Ministries site, but I was not convinced it was legitimate until I found it at the site of the original lawsuit filed by Capitol Commission. To see the original, scroll down to document #36 and you have to spend $6.99. It was indeed the same document. AccuracyInPosting (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Counterclaim Material

message: *Crinock has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia as a suspected sockpuppet of RK Drollinger. OCNative (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi Orange Mike. I was wondering if you could help me understand why you deleted the edits I did for Ralph Drollinger. I spent about 3 hours doing research and thought I had done a pretty good job of editing (no I am not a copy writer, but working to improve). Am I missing something? Thanks AccuracyInPosting (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the basketball stuff, your edits leaned on non-reliable sources such as Drollinger's own website. Also note that we don't generally allow links to, much less rely on, stuff like court filings by either side of a lawsuit/counterclaim situation such as this. What was needed was reportage from neutral third parties such as newspapers and books from reliable publishers. Given Drollinger's history of tampering with this article to make himself look better, combined with the non-neutral description of most of his affiliates leaving him as a "failed coup attempt", I simply rolled back instead of (as I should have) reverting with more detailed explanation. (Note that I'm going to copy this conversation to the talk page of the article, for the information of other editors.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Search engine results vary from place to place and engine to engine. If you feel there is additional useful content from reliable sources, provide us with some links here to evaluate. That's part of what a talk page is for. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I said provide links here, not in the article. I've also removed a lot of poorly sourced or unsourced added content, and restored some sourced content that you removed without an explanation. If there are relevant items to add, we need them to be properly cited: see :Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Drollinger himself is by definition not a neutral, reliable source: see :WP:SPS. And you keep removing important material sourced to the :San Diego Union-Tribune and the :Associated Press. I don't care what theories you have about OCNative: he or she has a solid reputation, and your ad hominem attacks don't change the quality of the material in question; also, please read :WP:NPA and :WP:AGF. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Please comment on Ralph Drollinger ''copied over from Orange Mike's talk page''

message: This article is now being discussed at the BLP noticeboard. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your relationship to User:AccuracyInPosting? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive204#Ralph Drollinger]] 

message: Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote on this page to User:AccuracyInPostingnote that we don't generally allow links to, much less rely on, stuff like court filings by either side of a lawsuit/counterclaim situation such as this. What was needed was reportage from neutral third parties such as newspapers and books from reliable publishers. I am sorely disappointed to see that this has once again become a problem for this article, and I'm sorry I needed to reverse some of Accuracy's edits again for the same darned reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's our anniversary, darlings! 

message: I have fully protected this article indefinitely, because of a long-running edit war between single-purpose accounts who have relied overwhelmingly on primary sources, and appear to be engaged in a POV battle to support or oppose the subject of he article.
I have left a full explanation at the BLP noticeboard: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive204#Ralph Drollinger, where I have tried to summarise the scope and history of the problems. (It stretches back several years).
Please note that I have removed all the disputed material. It may be that some of what I removed should be restored, but I do not have the time to assess it all.
Please note that I have no view on any of the issues which have been in dispute, and no view about whether the current title or contents of the article are appropriate.  My only concerns are that the controversial material relating to a BLP should be properly sourced, and that the edit war should not continue.
;To edit this article while it is protected:
:*Start a new section on the page, and place  at the top. Then explain the changes you proposed. An admin will review the request.Note that such requests are usually accepted only if the change is uncontroversial, or if there is a consensus in favour of it.
;To move the page while it is protected
:*Open a Requested move discussion. The closing admin will determine whether there is a consensus to move the article.
Please note that at WP:AN I have asked for an uninvolved admin to review my actions in relation to this page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article fully-protected indefinitely 

message: Could someone with access change the google books ref to 
Other changes need to be made to tidy references.--Auric  talk 15:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'll drop it to semiprotection then - other readers, please comment on the ministries issue before expanding/contracting it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: This sentence should be removed. It is referencing an article on bipartisonreport.com which includes information that is simply not true. I can't imagine Wikipedia allowing articles which include opinion, as references. {sigh} I would suggest taking out the sentence and then fully protecting the page so that no opinions for or against the ministry can be added.
Drollinger has previously been kicked out of a church for bigotry, refers to the Catholic church as “the world’s largest false religion,” says women working in Congress after bearing children are “sinners,” and that homosexuality is “an abomination." [14][15] 1Cor1614 (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The information has been removed. I have warned the editor who included it that they must provider reliable, non-polemic sources for information like that. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Is the quote that "Christians in government have an obligation to hire only Christians"  accurate?  It's important to know because it violates the Constitutional ban on "religious tests" for office.  2601:C2:201:2B85:B034:1239:7C8A:C0DA (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2017 

message: Requested changes:
1. UNDER CAPITOL MINISTRIES
Change 1997 to 1996 (Date found at https://capmin.org/about/)
and
"Drollinger also leads several senior Trump administration officials in a similar group at the White House,"
could be more precisely written as
In addition to House and Senate Bible studies, Ralph leads a White House Cabinet study with 10 members. (can reference one of the Bible Studies which lists members on the masthead (https://capmin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Critical-Sound-Doctrine-When-Ministering-to-Public-Servants-by-Ralph-Drollinger-2018.pdf)
2.UNDER POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Please remove "He has also asked President Trump to use his presidency to turn the American government into a "benevolent dictatorship."[19]
Reason: That particular comment within the article misinformed - the article often shares false or misleading information as fact and not sourced. This particular claim has no evidence whatsoever, in the way of transcript, audio, or video, nor is it corroborating by any other organization, except those citing this particular article. It is also contested by Capitol Ministries. https://capmin.org/capitol-ministries-responds-to-newsweek/
3. Please remove reference #16. Instead of referencing an op/ed piece, it could reference the url from Capitol Ministries' site as an ORIGINAL source about the White House Cabinet Study: https://capmin.org/ministries/washington-dc/
Beyondgr8ful (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Sources may not be considered reliable - FlightTime (open channel) 01:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

text: The sources are neither reliable nor independent of the subject and  is correct in that they cannot be accommodated in an edit request. Please also see WP:PRIMARY. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018