Talk:Ralph Drollinger

2011

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)

Counterclaim Material

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)

External links

• Courts copy of Counterclaim
• Capitol Ministries copy of Counterclaim

Untitled

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

Please comment on Ralph Drollinger copied over from Orange Mike's talk page

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)

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)

There are several additional credible, major newspaper articles that should serve to inform the ministry section of this Wiki. The information in those articles can be accessed by a search on Capitol Ministries; they are right on top.----AccuracyInPosting— Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuracyInPosting (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

Here are the two articles (the Fresno Bee article is the third but appears to be a reprint of the SacBee article: A holy war between two statehouse ministries - The News & Observer www.newsobserver.com/.../a-holy-war-between-two-statehouse.html

Bible groups battling over capitol ministries - Capitol and California ... www.fresnobee.com/2012/.../rival-bible-study-groups-compete.html

It doesn't appear I have posted them correctly to the Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuracyInPosting (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Mike, The reasons I took down the comments Drollinger supposedly made in the CA capitol years ago, is because of their mention in the new articles. First, Drollinger says the comments were taken out of context in the one source that cites them (the Capitol Weekly Report). Secondly, Jim Young of Capitol Commission states that those comments had no relation to the split (the church that supposedly disqualified him holds to those positions) in the Raleigh Observer article. And thirdly, the placement and posting of that comment was by OCNative, who throughout the history of the posting page, repeatedly cites and over writes. OC Native is a former employee of one individual who is now implicated in computer fraud. For these reasons, I think the negative comments have a questionable basis and should be eliminated from the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuracyInPosting (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive204#Ralph Drollinger

This article is now being discussed at the BLP noticeboard. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been quite some time since the disputes/discussion bars were added to the top; of this article -- and no one has registered any disputes. It seems fair that they should now be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuracymattersman (talk • contribs) 09:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What is your relationship to User:AccuracyInPosting? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's our anniversary, darlings!

Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote on this page to User:AccuracyInPosting

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.

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)

Any updates on the legal battle?

The article used to say, " The case is set for trial by jury in the US District Court of North Carolina in the spring of 2013." Is that still true? Spring is almost over, and we never had a clear source for this statement to begin with. Zagalejo^^^ 16:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm tempted to just stub the whole thing and start over. There are still useless references like "gottago.smugmug.com/keyword/.../1/1024143541_bWZeh", and some tone issues. Zagalejo^^^ 17:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that there has been an effort to update the article: [1]. I do appreciate the effort. At this point, however, it would be better to wait until something concrete happens, since the trial date could end up changing again.

I also removed the other information added. One item was sourced to primary documents, which, as has been discussed, can't be used on Wikipedia in this context. (See Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Misuse_of_primary_sources.) The other item is pretty innocuous and might be salvageable, but the link provided doesn't work. Zagalejo^^^ 23:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Article fully-protected indefinitely

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[2] 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[3] 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 {{Edit protected}} 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[4] for an uninvolved admin to review my actions in relation to this page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: How much emphasis to place on Capitol Ministries?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article has been subject to disputed editing over how much space to devote to Capitol Ministries - see this revision vs the current. We need to gain consensus on how much detail to include, so all comments invited. I won't structure this yet as I have no idea..am only trying to admin this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You could argue Drollinger is only notable for his basketball career. The Capitol Ministries content should be pretty minimal in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would reduce the ministry section to a few sentences, at most. Single-purpose accounts have been fighting over that section since 2010. As far as I can tell, there just aren't enough third-party sources available to write a complete and neutral account of the Capitol Commission stuff.

The facts of Drollinger's basketball career are much easier to document - although even there, the claim that Drollinger was "the first Dallas Maverick ever" needs some qualification. The Mavericks' expansion draft took place before Drollinger was signed. (I'm pretty sure I removed that statement before, but it has crept back in.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If Drollinger hadn't played professional basketball, briefly, this article might be at AfD. This is a biography of a marginally notable basketball player who went on to become a minister. It should not be an account of lengthy legal bickering between two Christian factions. Accordingly, devoting great detail to this dispute constitutes placing undue weight on something inappropriate for a biography of a living person. Mention of this should be brief and succinct. If this dispute is notable (and I am unconvinced that it is), then a separate, neutral article should be written. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking around, there are multiple news reports regarding his work as founder and head of Capitol Ministries. Unfortunately, these mostly involve reports about controversial remarks over the years and then the aforementioned legal dispute, but altogether I think it warrants more attention than it is presently given. His NBA career was rather short-lived and he actually spent more time in a Christian mission league, despite being picked up in the draft several times. I do not think the other version was appropriate at all, but coverage in reliable sources do suggest his involvement in various forms of Christian mission work deserve more attention in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

He had a brief NBA career, but he played for the highest profile college team of his time. If he hadn't played basketball, he wouldn't have an article. A little attention to life after basketball is fine, but this article has been incredibly controversial for a barely notable subject. Rikster2 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Could someone with access change the google books ref to <ref name="Quatro2009">{{cite book|author=Steve Quatro|title=Intentional Outreach|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=N-V2GVs1KqIC&pg=PA9|date=27 August 2009|publisher=Xulon Press|isbn=978-1-60791-850-9|page=9|chapter=Introduction}}</ref>

Other changes need to be made to tidy references.--Auric talk 15:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Auric, 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) actually never mind, I found it and did it myself. Let's try and get some direction on this issue first. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2017

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)— 1Cor1614 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2018

Admin, Could the following please be removed along with the reference 12 because 1) The referenced article is an op ed piece (and libelous); and 2) This has nothing to do with sports ministry, the category it was placed under:

Please remove, Under "Sports Ministry": An article in the New York Times stated: "Mr. Drollinger believes that social welfare programs “have no basis in Scripture,” that Christians in government have an obligation to hire only Christians and that women should not be allowed to teach grown men."[12]

• • Also #6 - The headline should be changed. If you click through you will see it now says: "Capitol Ministries state director leaves, joins new Christian group" - since Capitol Ministries was not "replaced"

• • Also, #14 could link to: https://capmin.org/ministries/washington-dc/

• • Also, could reference 15 be removed? The article contains slander and opinion versus facts. It has been disputed: https://capmin.org/capitol-ministries-ralph-drollinger-response-to-media/

• • Also, Drollinger has 7 grandchildren: reference 17 could be replaced with: https://capmin.org/about/administration/danielle-drollinger-biography/

Finally, could this page be fully protected so that only admins can make suggested additions to avoid defamation? Beyondgr8ful (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Partly done:You have made a number of requests, some of which I've done. I'll respond in order:

1. Removal of the NYT statement about social welfare, etc.:  Done but not entirely because of the reasons you gave. I agree that the statement didn't belong in the sports ministry section. And the way it cited an op-ed piece was inappropriate. There might be a proper way to write this statement, but what I removed wasn't it.
2. Rename source headline:  Done as it was a minor edit only.
3. Retarget "reference 14":  Not done as I couldn't find the offending link.
4. Remove "slander and opinion":  Not done as the Los Angeles Times source from 1995 has nothing to do with the link you provided. I have, however, added a {{notincitationgiven}} tag to that citation, since I don't really see what statement in the article is verified by that source.
5. Number of grandchildren:  Done and I have updated the dead link.
6. Full protection of this page:  Not done because you would need to make such a request at WP:RFPP. Before doing so I would caution you that article protection is meant to stop disruptive editing, not to control article content, so you would need to provide a strong argument that semi-protection of the article has been ineffective at stopping disruptive editing. Note that just because you don't like an edit doesn't make it disruptive; disruptive edits include violations of the biographies of living people policy. Furthermore, Wikipedia administrators have more of a technical role than an editorial one. They have no more editorial control over content than you or I do.

I hope all that helps. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

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)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sources may not be considered reliable - FlightTime (open channel) 01:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources are neither reliable nor independent of the subject and FlightTime 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)