Talk:Gail Riplinger

message: Request to Wikipedia Editors: Due to vandalism, once again, by those who like to remove information they don't agree with and who like to call everyone else the "devil's workers", I am requesting a temporary lock be placed on this page to discourage further vandalism. The last act of vandalism removed all links at the bottom of the article, which the vandal did not like. Thank you. 96.13.195.26 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting Another Lock be Placed on This Page

message: Reminder: All information added to this article, and any of its edits, must have references to back it. Any POV wording, biased wording, removal of previous editors' references that back their information, weasel words, etc. are not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Do not cut and paste portions of the article according to your opinion or bias. Objective material has a source to back it and references must be given. One's own opinion does not count as a source or a reference. Just because the sourced information placed by another editor is not liked or agreed with is not grounds to change the article to suit one's own beliefs. Encyclopedias do not work that way. In other words, this article is not a place to defend Gail Riplinger simply because you like her, her books, and what she teaches, or because you just agree with her, unless you have factual sources to back up the information.
I am asking that another lock (accessibly by registered users only) be placed on this article the next time it is vandalized in the manner it has previously been.FannyMay (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said earlier, if you actually read the Chick Publications website, they "Visit Gail Riplinger's website at http://www.avpublications.com" which indicates that Chick publications is the affiliate site. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

text: The entire point of your earlier argument was "Chick publications is the official site."  That was incorrect.  WP:EL allows official sites, but not sites that the person has worked with a little, especially in a spammy matter by someone who has only pushed a pro-Chick POV on articles. Ian.thomson (talk)
"but not sites that the person has worked with a little" Now you KNOW that is a lie! As it is clearly stated on the site how long & what extent they are her representatives. Furhermore you are still trying to attempt to ignore the fact they are reffered to in much of her materials making them a primary source of information.
And including the HISTORICAL FACT they are her publishers is no where near it being "pro-Chick POV on articles." As they are NOT even mentioned, THATS the problem! (And you say you have no bias, but i cant help but wonder how you have come to this conclusion)
Apparently I must also warn you that you are now the subject of a discussion for abuse, so consider yourself warned!
AnthonyMark00 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

text: If you want to mention them in the article, then do it within the prose of the article.  With a citation to the reliable source that backs your claim.  Don't just add an external link in the links section. Which criterion of the external links policy do you think this meets?  It's not her official website. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't know if you're looking at it or not, but just in case you aren't: you should read the responses you've gotten on your personal talk page, which is located here: User talk:AnthonyMark00. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

text: "I don't know about something, so it must not exist" is horribly unreasonable.  Did you consider actually looking at her official website, because it's obvious to anyone who does a cursory glance over the site that AV publications publishes her works. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

text: It's okay if you're new, but you really need to calm down and discuss it here, and stop editing the article for the time being. I promise there's no secret cabal out to get anyone; it's just a few honest misunderstandings on your part about Wikipedia policy. It's not considered an official site for her because she doesn't own the site. The definition of what Wikipedia considers an official website can be found here. The first criterion says that the subject must have control over the contents of the site. But, the site you're linking isn't owned by Ms. Riplinger, and she doesn't control its content, so it's not her official website. That's why it shouldn't be included. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism and POV Wording is not Allowed on Wikipedia

message: I have now archived most of the old discussions on this talk page, with the exception of the most recent topic (just above this one), which seems to be still active. If there are any other old discussions that you believe should still be here, feel free to move them back. Most of them are quite long, however, so unless you strongly feel that any should be reinstated as an active discussion, I would suggest you leave them in the archive (which can be accessed by clicking the link in the archive box near the top of the page). --DearPrudence (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archival

message: Please don't add this back in, it's spurious and unsubstantial. Anunction (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have any concrete, verified proof that it is "spurious and unsubstantial"? Or are you just sharing your opinion based on how you feel about Riplinger?96.14.157.41 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Bias is "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair." If you think the information stated about Riplinger is biased in that it is "unfair" in your view then why don't you set yourself about proving that the information against her is incorrect, instead of just saying it is. You can't just remove material as you wish just because you think it is "not unbaised." If you think the information against her is not truthful or is somehow unfair then prove it by verifying what she claims for yourself. Do what those have done who have found gross errors in her material. Don't just talk about it, do it. Just calling it biased or untrue doesn't count. If you judge the corrections taken against Riplinger as wrong, when you have not checked the validity of her teachings for yourself, you too are biased. Bias is removed by seeking out what the truth is in a matter and then standing with the truth.96.14.157.41 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  G.A. on Modern translations 

message: The latest editing of this article sounds very biased against those who are not King-James-only and overly supportive of those who are, making it sound as if Riplinger is just a victim without responsibility for actual errors and misrepresentations in her material. It needs to be rewritten with a far less biased tone.96.15.128.103 (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Beware of Bias

message: This article is receiving some major attention on the BLP noticeboard.  A couple of editors have tried to fix the BLP issues and have gotten reverted.  I see that there are some editors with some very strong issues on this aricle, but please let me caution you that if the edit warring keeps up, this article is likely to receive some administrative attention that nobody wants.
That said, I would like for someone who cares about this article to please explain to me why there is a huge link farm in this article with links to negative sites, whenever I have never seen any other BLP with such a list.  What does this contribute to the article and why is it so important to risk an edit war?Jarhed (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that link farm is about the worst case I've seen for a long time. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That looks lovely, but similiar edits by other editors have been reverted.Jarhed (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to my watchlist. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.  Reading the talk, there are some editors that have some serious concerns about this individual.  I am fine with that, but I want to help them get their sources straight.Jarhed (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well, I've never heard of Riplinger, I know nothing about the King-James-only POV battles and I'm used to working in the Israel-Palestine conflict area of wikipedia which is about as heated as it gets...so this article is like a holiday. :) I guess the main thing is to make sure that the focus stays on Riplinger given that this should be an easily sourced BLP rather than it drifting off to become a WP:COATRACK for King-James-only POV battles...whatever they are. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The fix to a link farm is "simple": If an external link is a reliable source, then brief information from any encyclopedic content at the external link can be incorporated into the article, and the link used as a reference. That requires effort, but is the only acceptable procedure for an article in general, and a BLP in particular. That is, the link farm needs to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP violations 

message: This is a biography but has almost no information about Gail Riplinger except her birth. Is there a reason her three marriages and any children (if any) from any of these marriages are not mentioned? I don't think it unreasonable to expect these issues in a biographical page. Have they been added and removed or simply not added? Or is that information refuted?
I don't think it contentious and does not even relate directly to her work and beliefs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.130.121 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: People have repeatedly added material from an attack site and it has been repeatedly reverted as a WP:BLP violation. If you have a genuine policy compliant reliable source that contains information appropriate for Riplinger's biography by all means add it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Your comment was removed. I have restored it to respond to your question here since you are on a dynamic IP. Please note the advice that was provided in the edit summary "If you would like to provide neutral, reliable sources, please do." Click on the highlighted words, read the policies and comply with them. Compliance is mandatory. Please also read the WP:BLP that defines what editors can and cannot do in articles and talk pages related to living people. Compliance is mandatory. The site you refer to is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. It cannot be used and that is the end of the matter. This is not a negotation. Do not post it on this page or add it to the article. Now, since you asked me a question I will answer you. No, I am not KJO. I am absolutely 100% atheist and have zero interest whatsoever in the Bible, KJO or Gail Riplinger. My interest in this article is in ensuring that mandatory Wikipedia policies are followed and that Wikipedia isn't used as a battleground. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Any information that doesn't comply with the WP:BLP policy has to be removed immediately. Editors who don't comply with the policy are usually warned and then blocked if they repeatedly add information that doesn't comply. If there's information about the subject published by sources that qualify as WP:RS it can probably be included subject to there being consensus for its inclusion. If information hasn't been published by reliable sources it isn't relevant for Wikipedia. So, it's really up to editors who want to include content to make sure that they get the information from reliable sources. If it turns out that there isn't enough coverage of the subject by reliable sources, the article could be nominated for deletion. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete biography 

message: I do not want to derail what your doing but there seems to be more sources for what the author is known for; the book New Age Bible Versions. It looks like there may have once been an article for New Age Bible Versions. Probably too late, the Riplinger article may have a tough time staying alive but could be more notability for an article on the book, which would cover the author a bit. Just a thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Age_Bible_Versions&redirect=no
An academic source, but not independent. It's Baptist.
*http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1997/schrev.pdf
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basileias (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 December 2012‎ (UTC)
:Thanks, Basileias.  That cite is in the article already, but it should be added to this list as well for sake of completeness.  Should get to that later this evening.  GaramondLethe 23:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New Age Bible Versions

message: "This article has multiple issues."  Yes, and little can be done about that.  She has writen on religious matters.  Debate in the field encourages personal attacks.  A merger of this article with the King James Only movement article is not welcome there, because her coverage is already adequate (similar to that of others).  A previous debate over deletion of this article was inconclusive.
* Can't fix it.
* Can't merge it.
* Can't delete it.
* Gotta live with a problem article?
172.249.8.109 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues 

message: This article has a biased tone, appearing to be written by a supporter of Riplinger. Suggest updating and editing so that the tone of this article is more objective. It needs to be written so that both sides of the controversy surrounding Riplinger are fairly addressed. DollyArtist2013 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is obviously NOT a supporter of Riplinger. The article is an attack on her view. I agree it should be more objective. There are many sources debunking the author's sources, in her defence. 35.129.171.37 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias