Talk:Erwin McManus

What's going on with this article?

Someone keeps replacing the article with an unwikified text dump that looks like a copyright violation, and people remove the cleanup tags as well. The article as is is horribly non-neutral too. --Delirium 07:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is some people have a vendetta against Mr. McManus. They are adding links to "Erwin "McManus" websites, most of which are slanderous and opinion at best, not based on unbiased information. I am fine if they want to add a "criticisms" section on this page (as with Rick Warrenr, Rob Bell, etc.). But don't disguize links to websites (such as myspace) as sited works. One person has even taken on the screen name ErwinMc (posing as the man himself) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.139.106 (talk • contribs)

It's true that a small group of people have a vendetta against Mr. Manus, not only for what they perceive as personal injustices done upon them but because they lump him in with a certain movement and believe they are battling against this movement.

No, its true Erwin belongs to the Emerging Church movement and he deals with his people poorly. There's perception and then there's truth. Erwin is not well and that's truth. I 'perceive' the church may be as well.Thetruth67 05:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not a blog. You are free to write anything, positive or negative, about anybody, but must do so in a way that is neutrally phrased and backed up by reliable sources. --Delirium 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we simply add a "criticsims" section with the links instead? I can do this. By the way, I am not ErwinMcManus, I am a former memeber of his organization, MOSAIC. ErwinMc is just the username that I have chosen. Just like Delerium has chosen a username "Delerium", which is obviusly not his real name; I hope.

A "criticisms" section would be fine if we can find decent sources, not just links to blogs run by people who dislike him. Have there been any published newspaper or magazine articles on why he's controversial? If so, those would be much better sources. --Delirium 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Stand-by Delirium (btw, your bias here is obvious) this is a new issue there WILL be articles. Thanks for that idea. LA Times, Fox News, Etc...here we come!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.156.199 (talk • contribs)

If that does happen, then the information of course can go in the article. I don't really care about Mr. McManus either way (I know nothing about him and had never heard of him until I stumbled across this article on Recent Changes). --Delirium 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed the "Controversy" section, as the first paragraph was unsourced and inflammatory. Removed the second paragraph because it was all blog links (violation of Wiki linking polic). This entire section (most of the article) was in violation of wiki policy:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Source: WP:BLP

Blogs are not appropriate sources for Biographies of Living Persons.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the appropriate tags to the top of the page, as there seems to be no question whether someone who is interviewed on television and radio shows, and who has written many books, would fall into the category of WP:NPF, so a notability tag does nothing. I will be changing it to the following: {{Multiple issues|blpdispute=June 2008 article=y|citations missing=June 2008 article=y|cleanup=June 2008 |article=January 2009|POV=June 2008 article=November 2008|quotefarm=June 2008}} These seem to be the most salient of problems on this page, and they should all be addressed immediately. Nihiletnihil (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added some new content, and removed some old, I think the article overall is a bit more cleaned up now. I didn't touch the biography section, I might down the line but I don't want to change the page too dramatically. Each edit was done separately and you can see my reason for each one in my edit note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihiletnihil (talk • contribs) 23:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Any material which is not WELL sourced should be removed immediately. Thanks--Tom 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC) http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/BookReviews/book_reviews.asp?ID=333

ok, thats a start.--Tom 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why other links to Erwin McManus can not be posted? Also, who is Delirium that he can "lock" a page?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FactSeekR (talk • contribs)

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)

Fix indexing

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)

Objection to protection of page by Delirium

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)

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)

deleted external links

i deleted external links that were in violation of wiki's guidance for external links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links

Links normally to be avoided

Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority

WikiProject class rating

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)

The Unsuitability of Apprising.org as a source

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 [1].

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 [2] 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)

Current Edits and Reversions

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)

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)

Removal of "Statements" Section

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)

Removal of Self-published/Blog Sourced Links

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)

Controversy Section

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)

[...] There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

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)

Actually, Lyonscc, after reading many of your edits I have come to better understand your approach. Some of the history at first seemed questionable, but now as I come to better understand methods, I see the efforts made to improve entries. I also agree with the removal of the Controversy Section. Nihiletnihil, however has left some inaccuracies in the information taken from sources used. Particularly, around the "founding" of Mosaic. I will clean this up as I can. --Usernow(talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up

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)

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)

Missing History

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)

Church Report

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Erwin McManus. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)