Talk:Erwin McManus

message: Any material which is not WELL sourced should be removed immediately. Thanks--Tom 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, thats a start.--Tom 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has policies on biographies of living persons, reliable sources, and external links.  Generally, we only report or link to negative assertions about a person if they're published in reliable sources, such as a mainstream newspaper, magazine, or book, since Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used for gossip or anything potentially libelous.  I can "lock" a page because I'm an administrator. --Delirium 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced material

message: Why in the world has this been protected for two weeks?
Somebody needs to fix the sort key or magic word DEFAULTSORTso that it indexes properly in categories.  Add category Year of birth missing and other appropriate categories as well.  Gene Nygaard 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix indexing

message: It is at least an appearance of impropriety for User:Delirium to protect a page for a dispute he/she is involved in.  Gene Nygaard 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say I'm "involved" in the dispute.  I've never heard of this guy, but just ran across someone adding material that flagrantly violates WP:BLP on recent-changes patrol.  As a rotating group of single-purpose accounts and IPs (all likely sockpuppets or meatpuppets) continued to re-add it, I had no choice but to protect the page, as instructed by that policy ("Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves").  If someone else would like to take over managing the controversy on this page I would be happy to be rid of it; in fact, I've tried several times to get other people to deal with it, by posting on the BLP noticeboard, the WikiProject Christianity talk page, and several other places, but nobody bothered to do anything (though User:Threeafterthree did show up and make some comments). --Delirium 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to protection of page by Delirium

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: One thing that needs to be settled is the complete unsuitability of apprising.org links and/or information as source material.
1) It is a blog.
This, in and of itself, is reason enough for it to not be a source.  Per Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources
Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (emphasis mine)
2) Apprising is poorly sourced
Apprising.org is a blog for Apprising "Ministries" (sic), a one-man show run by Ken Silva, the "pastor" of a church of 5 people in rural New Hampshire.  It has been documented that more than two thirds of his "research" is simply self-referential links to his own sites, and that the remaining third of his "research" is to sites he contributes to or other blogs .
3) Material from the apprising site in unhinged.
He has claimed that God raised him up to bring down men like Erwin McManus and Rob Bell, and if you pick out articles at random from his site, like this one  it becomes completely apparent that this site is not of the quality required for a W:V verifiable source.
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;
--Lyonscc (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Unsuitability of Apprising.org as a source 

message: If we check there are growing complints of vandalism by Lyonscc on many pages.
What can be done to resolve this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernow (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal for NOR is based upon the choice selection of quotes to give a specific impression (to guide the reader to a conclusion) - which IS Original Research. Please discuss these on the talk page before adding them back.  To my knowledge, there have been no legitimate complaints of vandalism against me.  If you take note - the complaint on my page was a cut/paste job by a guy trying to piece together a criticism section on Hank Hannegraff because he's not a Calvinist.
----
This page is in need of protection from vandalism. The page has undergone extensive revisions, retractions, deletions--too many for a biography of a living person. A reasonable controversy section cannot be agreed upon, even minor details are eschewed in favor of regurgitated "about the author" bio info, et. Belowenter (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Edits and Reversions 

message: I am removing the "Statements" section, as, per WP:BLP and the direction of Wikipedia to move standalone quotes from famous persons to Wikiquotes.  As it currently stands, quotes have been cherry-picked to paint a picture of McManus via a use of coatracking and original research.  Feel free to add these quotes to Wikiquotes, as it is where they belong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyonscc (talk • contribs) 05:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Statements" Section 

message: I have removed a number of self-published and blog-sourced links, including John MacArthur and other blogs (positive and negative) not authored by McManus.  Please do not add them back, as they are clearly in violation of WP:BLP:
Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.
Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).
Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs[5] should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).
Please do not add them back.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Self-published/Blog Sourced Links 

message: This section is not sourced (WP:V), does harm (WP:NPA, WP:LIBEL, WP:HARM), and should be written in the style of WP:NPF. It is blatantly NPOV and this section's deletion is not to be justified and discussed; its being instated will go through that scrutiny. Nihiletnihil (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the changes made by Nihiletnihil - there were a boatload of criticisms/NPOV changes made a couple of weeks ago, with Usernow complaining that I was 'vandalizing' by removing the worst of it.  I added the citation flags to the remainder (as I was in a hurry), though your solution was much better...--Lyonscc (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Section 

message: Corrected comment on "founding" of Mosaic. Although the cite mentions this it is incorrect. See Mosaic Church, which is undisputed so far.  Cleaned up Book section.  Removed Category:Salvadoran Baptists: this does not seem relevant. Although the subject is Salvadoran, the category seems more appropriate for those in El Salvador.Usernow (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Usernow, it does actually say that in a magazine article that I read. I contacted Mosaic and they told me he is not the founder, it was another church previously. Hopefully we can tackle the bio section next and then remove the Issues tag and have a good quality page! Nihiletnihil (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up

message: The omission of Erwin McManus' time with The Church on Brady before it became Mosaic is of concern, as the paragraph proceding Mosaic implies that he and his brother were brought there under negative circumstances which was not the case.  This information needs updating by someone unbiased and more informed about The Church on Brady.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.33.89 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing History 

message: The lead mentioned the The Church Report's list of "50 Most Influential Christians". It isn't a reliable source at all. This came up at Joel Osteen, and we eventually dug up this article from Christianity Today which raises serious questions about if the list is part of some sort of fraud. There's no reason to think McManus had anything to do with that, but regardless, it's completely unusable as a source. The magazine's domain has since been replaced with an unrelated blog. The Church Report article is also unrelated. Grayfell (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church Report 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Erwin McManus. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://shop.mcmanus.la/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified