Talk:Marvin Olasky

message: On 25 December 2004 I received an email from Marvin Olasky after asking him to look at the article and suggest revisions.  Some of the information he gave me I have not been able to confirm using other sources (such as his birthdate), but I have included this information anyway, and cited my email interview in the references section.  I am not sure what the protocol is for problems like this.  I could make available the email he sent me, but it would be difficult to prove its source.  If you think changes are necessary, please let me know and, if you like, make those changes. --Spangineer ∞ 03:39, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
: I know what you did last Christmas JoshNarins 00:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Email interview as reference

message: Why is there no mention of the bizarre "religion of Zeus" thing?  That was his 15 minutes of semi-fame -- there are probably a fairly large number of people who have never heard of him except in connection to the "religion of Zeus"...  AnonMoos 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please enlighten me; I've never heard that story. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in a lot of papers at the time -- he said he opposed the McCain candidacy because it was the equivalent of the "religion of Zeus".  Frankly, I wonder how many times Olasky has received mentions in "ordinary" newspapers (i.e. not the New York Times or the Washington Post, and not in a syndicated op-ed piece) which were NOT in relation to the "religion of Zeus".  You could start here http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldbergprint030300.html AnonMoos 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeus, Zeus, Zeus!

message: This edit seems completely inappropriate. gadflymag.com (a website which is no longer active) doesn't seem to be a reliable source - in any case, it's a primary source. That is, the editors may have had criticisms, but those criticisms should not be included unless they are reported by reliable third party sources. Christianity Today would qualify, but it didn't actually report on any controversy. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  King's College controversy section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marvin Olasky. 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/20120617173307/http://www.tkc.edu/media/archives2.asp?id=159 to http://www.tkc.edu/media/archives2.asp?id=159
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) 16:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marvin Olasky. 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 http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20101107155854/http%3A//online.worldmag.com/2010/11/05/marvin%2Dolasky%2Din%2Dfull/ to http://online.worldmag.com/2010/11/05/marvin-olasky-in-full/
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) 05:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This article seems to contain a number of statements slanted in favor of the subject, such as the following:
The magazine [World] also exposed evangelical leaders who used ghostwriters without acknowledging them, pastors who were silent about abortion, Christian counselors who preferred psychobabble to the Bible, and Washington insiders who tried to manipulate evangelicals.
Beyond the use of terminology like "exposed" to describe pastors with no outspoken stance on abortion, or the pitting against of concepts like "psychobabble" and the Bible (the implication being that Christian counselors utilize psychobabble, that the Bible is preferable to said psychobabble, or that Christian counselors should prefer the Bible to said psychobabble), the citation accompanying the above quote is World magazine itself, for which the subject served as an editor. I will be removing the above quote from the article shortly, along with the associated claim that the subject "made sure World stayed aloof from the Bush administration", which appears to be original research.
Furthermore, I see that this is not the first time that the neutrality of this article has been disputed, as an above section on this talk page (Talk:Marvin Olasky#NPOV Dispute (November 2009)) indicates. In said section, User:Evaus suggested that the subject may been editing his own page. This may be the case currently, as I see that one recent editor of the page is a User:Zengerhouse (the lead section states that the subject serves as chair of the Zenger House Foundation, and as a Zenger Prize judge). —Matthew  / (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute (April 2023)