Talk:Michael Voris

Broadcast television

Programs he has made appears on a EWTN affiliate - http://stmichaelbroadcasting.com/specials/generic_schedule_channel_16-3-tv.html I do not know if other affiliates are doing the same.Wowaconia (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I found a more direct ref to this and have added it to the article. Still only aware of it being aired on UHF in MN.--Wowaconia (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Local Emmys

Multiple reliable sources point out that he won a number of local Emmys, if we could find more specific info on this I think it would add to the article. Such awards are very notable and indicate a level of professionalism, but right now I can only find several sources giving the number of times he won and nothing further.Wowaconia (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I agree that this is a notable achievement, but I cannot find any reliable sources attesting to it. Many articles cite "four Emmys" without any specific details. The link given in this article links to a biography that refers to Mr. Voris as "Emmy-winning" (not citing any specific number) in the title as its only mention of the fact. My fear is that this is simply a claim made by Mr. Voris or his supporters which, after being repeated sufficiently, has been accepted as fact.The tamale (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Need two sides for a controversy

A segment was added relating comments he made about global warming, these were placed in a segment titled "Global Warming controversy", this raises some questions. Unlike the other segments in this section there is no one listed as responding to his positions, you can not have a controversy without an opposing side. Someone notable has to respond to these statements for them to merit inclusion in this segment and perhaps in the article as a whole. It seems close to original research to include them here if the only ones responding to these comments are editors of wikipedia. --Wowaconia (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Diocese of Scranton and Judaism

Although it's plausible that the Diocese of Scranton banned Michael Voris for his remarks on Judaism, the statement does not make this clear - it talks about "other religions" - and I can't find anything that says makes the link apart from a (previously linked) blog which doesn't meet WP:RS (and then implies that this was why he got disinvited rather than giving any evidence). Is there a better source for this linkage?

JASpencer (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seperated out the Rabinical Judaism and Scranton remarks as they are not linked except in a blog post which I don't think meets WP:RS. However this does mean that the Rabinical Judaism remakrs don't seem to have any controversy attached to them (and no, Conte's blog doen't count unless it meets WP:RS). JASpencer (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree Conte does not reach notablity. People had been putting so much Original Research in the article which I had to remove that when someone cited him - I wished to show that I had good faith and added to their post upon seeing that he was an author. Unfortunately upon review all his claims for notability are through self-publishing (blog and books) which fails under wiki standards and so it can not be included. ---Wowaconia (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Marc Brammer interveiw

A link to an inteview with Marc Brammer financial backer of Voris on meeting him and coming together: http://rpconradio.com/our-guest-marc-brammer-senior-director-at-moodys-analytics-new-york-ny-to-discuss-his-institute-for-new-media/

Notable blogger on Voris

There does seem to be a desire to express the views of people who are more vocal in their criticisms of Voris, quotes from bloggers without notability do not live up to wikipedia standards but there has been criticism of Voris by a notable Catholic blogger Mark P. Shea it does seem pretty exstensive and would require some work to present it fully and neutrally, but I believe he could be quoted on Voris due to his notability and the recognition of his work by others in the field of Catholic apologetics.

I saw a rundown over some of Shea's remarks here: http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/07/25/shea-v-voris/

You would probably have to find Shea's own pages and quote him directly if you wanted to present his critiques.

--Wowaconia (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Further I think it could be argued that if a Catholic priest wrote on Voris one could point to his position within the Church to argue notability on this topic. This would extend to religious authorities in other denominations or faiths if they spoke on Voris as well, but while I have seen some wrting by priests on Voris, I don't think he is well known outside of Catholic circles.--Wowaconia (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Voris' apostolate and public work is often controversial due to..."

To be honest, there is few on this planet and beyond which is not "often controversial due to" some issues. The point is just: Why is it mentioned in some peoples' WP entries and in some others' not? My guess: It depends on who is writing the article.

Meaning of "controversial": I don't like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.215.45 (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has standards about what kind of articles can be made, one of the standards is that the person must be notable. Part of Voris' notoriety is the amount of people who take issue with what he says. To put it simply a large percentage and maybe the majority of people who know about him are angry about something he has said. So his notability isn't limited to just the people who like him, but in a large part based on the vigor of his opposition - many people would have never heard of him if his opponents did not feel his comments needed an energetic and time consuming response. I think this is probably why you see mentions of a person being controversial in some wiki-articles and not in other. --Wowaconia (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Estimating the number of adherents or opponents may be difficult, even more as production of public opinion is organized mostly by engaged media industries and not by a free discussion of citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.192.96 (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I should have been clearer, I would say that most of the on-line sites that mention him are critical of him - some online authors notable in their own right, others not wiki-notable but critical of him. --Wowaconia (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that, as many before him, homosexuals who claim some form of "healing" from their homosexuality are just in profound denial. I am straight, not better or worst than any homosexual, I was born heterosexual, period. I could not imagine being sexually excited by another man. However I know that many human beings are excited by both sexes, and some only by members of their own gender (hence the homo portion of homosexual) You could not possibly learn that, you could not possibly "un-learn" that either, because is not learned behavior. I will wait for Mr Voris to be "outed", sooner or later, by one of his homosexual partners. All his energy in fighting the "homosexual agenda" is just his desperate effort to suppress, compress, nullify, squash, his own extraordinary homosexual tendencies. My advice: just give in Michael, you will be much happier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.220.170.27 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

He's a successful polemicist so he's bound to be controversial, but the controversy section is rather unwieldy. I'm not really that experienced (at least recently) with controversy sections, so is there any best practice here?

JASpencer (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that for something to be declared to be a controversy on wikipedia that this has to involve notable figures. If I or some other wiki-editor find something controversial to our tastes this should not merit inclusion as we are not notable by Wikipedia standards. If a notable figure takes issue with a statement or behaviour of the focus of the wiki-article I would say that should be included. Mention by the article's focus, in this case Voris, would also be worthy of inclusion - i.e. if someone who was not generally known to us but known to the focus and the focus of the wiki-entry complains about this previously unknown person's reaction that could be included. Also I would hold that if a large group of people opposed the focus of the article, even if they didn't individually have notability they as a group could be mentioned - for example if the laity of a parish came out in opposition. Without notables being involved on both sides its hard for me to see how it raises to being worthy of being in a "controversy" segment. --Wowaconia (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Voris. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120323200339/http://www.realcatholictv.com:80/about/bio.php to http://www.realcatholictv.com/about/bio.php

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} 01:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP Flypaper

Due to the nature of Voris's work and his recent admissions about his past life this is proving to be flypaper for puerile humour. As Voris is a living person these are clearly going to e WP:BLP violations. Would semi-protection for a few months pay off here?

JASpencer (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that semi-protection would be helpful. --Wowaconia (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs a big overhaul

The article is loaded down with useless details, strange trivia and, especially, years of no-longer-newsworthy material that's never been trimmed. Severe editing required.

I commented out some material - please see and improve. Thank you! Fishlandia (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fishlandia: your revision looks good to me. I was impressed. And yes, you're quite right regarding your characterisation of some of the content. Though without knowing the specific material you're talking about, I can't say whether the age of the material is really relevant to its inclusion. Everything's subjective and open to discussion though, of course, so be bold. Anyway, well done. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! That was nice. Outdated material that can safely be cut way back - I was thinking of the global warming, world youth day and Scranton sections. The St Michael's Media section meanders along, not really going anywhere. "Name controversy" rambles on and in a way that comes across as gossipy. Just the business facts and really relevant quotes, if any, will make it an interesting section. The whole article just seems unfocused.

I thought when I come by again I'd look at the current references, start getting them up to speed, make sure they're formatted right and the links work, unless someone else would like to in the meantime. Fishlandia (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Recently, large sections of text have been added defending Voris and promoting his views. These sections show much bias, e.g. Voris' criticism of the recent Popes.2601:18E:8200:557:F87B:D565:4298:82F3 (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, more recently, large sections of text criticizing Voris or simply quoting him saying things that might be likely to draw criticism have been deleted wholesale. Why was this done? It seems this article is being watched and guarded by pro-Voris fans.PensiveHapax (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Marc Brammer personal details

Hi, Wowaconia. We did this same thing a year ago :)

Understandably, Wikipedia is pretty high-strung about its legal exposure and if you were to ask the powers that be, "True or false: 'Information found on public websites is not a violation of privacy'" I don't think they'd agree. If you want to ask them, then we'll know once and for all.

If you know of a policy that backs up your claim please post it. I didn't see anything in WP:BLP specifically addressing it but surely they've had to decide this issue.

1. I took out

"...which is owned by Marc Brammer (a business developer for Moody's) who lives in South Bend, Indiana and is a member of Opus Dei."

because

• The KISS principle. All that needs to be said in this section is "On September 1, 2008 he partnered with RealCatholicTV.com." Anything about MB himself only becomes important in "Name controversy".

• Moody's: Does he still work for Moody's, and so what if he does or did? Including this leads the reader to inferand is WP:UNDUE. No reason to include it (N.B. if any of this is to stay in you'll have to past-tense it all).

• Opus Dei: without an explanation for including it, such as Free Press's ("a somewhat controversial group known for its traditional views"), just throwing out there that he's a member leads the reader to wonder why this detail was included. Catholics might instantly know but not everyone would. The reader could infer that we're implying that something murky was going on. But if we included an explanation it would *still* imply, plus send the Brammer details as included in this section even further into WP:UNDUE territory. Plus, it's not for us to imply that Opus Dei membership makes Brammer conservative in his political views or business decisions. People who know RCTV and Voris already know their political slant; we don't want to appear to indicate that Opus Dei financially or otherwise influenced St. Michael's Media.

Also, see this, from 2014(!): "I suggest you or Mr Voris take care of the 'Wikipedia' entry concerning Michael Voris...."

After reading through the revision history I understand (didn't before) that the St. Michael's Media and Name controversy sections right now are patchworks needing focus. There's good information to remember from the olden days of 2012, for focusing purposes, in that blog post linked above regarding funding and denials of influence.

2. I (past-tensed and) changed the "South Bend" detail to

"Because Voris is the owner of St. Michael's Media, and had contracted with RealCatholicTV's owner Marc Brammer, whose business address was under the authority of...."

because it was RealCatholicTV's business location within its diocese, not Brammer's personal location, that was relevant to the ecclesiastical authority issue, even if they were the same address. My change is verifiable and not dox-ish.

These changes are reasonable to me. I'd like to hear your and others' opinions. Fishlandia (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The name of the town he lives in is public information taken from sources made public. It is only the name of a town not his street address - so your charge of doxxing seems extreme. It would be as odd as saying that mentioning that Donald Trump lives in New York is somehow doxxing and can't be mentioned in his wiki-article.

The amount of times the article mentions towns is not a violation of the wikipedia Undue weight standard. An example of undue weight would be if someone made nine paragraphs about the White House dog on a President's wiki-page.

Still, looking over your position, I do agree that it is unnecessary for there to be two mentions of Brammer's town, not because I feel its doxxing or a wiki-violation, but because its redundant - I agree therefore that the first mention is pointless and it only adds to the article at the point about the name controversy. As the point of naming the town is one of jurisdiction, and he and his company are located there, I do not think anything is lost by restructuring the sentence around this point.

• Details of both Voris and Brammer's professional backgrounds show that the group is a serious professional organization with serious professionals backing it with both their skill and reputations.

• Brammer is a publicly known member of Opus Dei. His membership shows he is dedicated to the Catholic Church, if people want more information about the organization they can follow the wiki-link. Some people hold that Opus Dei is too dedicated to Catholicism, that is a topic that can be looked at in depth on the wiki-page for the group.

• Looking over the blog link you provided the blog-author seems to worry about the appearance of funding. This article does not say that Brammer funds Voris' work rather it says Brammer has a company that Voris partnered with or contracted with. The article puts forward that they are partners not that Brammer is bankrolling the enterprise. The letter from the CMTV personal that the blogger is responding to says the same thing. So the author of the blog is mistaken and reading things into the article that simply aren't here.

--Wowaconia (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have made changes along the lines you laid out and added information to the article from the letter CMTV sent. --Wowaconia (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I just read this article and whew, it's too much. This section in particular has a ton of information that isn't relevant and the whole thing is too long. Will try to edit it by at least 1/3 when I have time. Which will probably be vandalized...but this is a provocative media religious personality. We need to find a much more balanced presentation with new citations. Lmlmss44 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Quotation marks

The Freepress original:

Many current church leaders are "namby-pamby," Voris said. "It's all about, 'Love your neighbor.'"

What's needed instead, he said, is a muscular Catholicism that isn't afraid to encourage battle and sacrifice.

• The FP didn't opine, "It's all about". Voris said that. The FP is quoting Voris (everything in double quotes), who explained his point of view with a quick paraphrase (in the single quotes).

• We shouldn't include the ellipse because as far as we can know from this article, Voris said nothing between "namby-pamby" and "It's". If we find the quote somewhere else, maybe we'll see that he said more, but it's not in this FP article.

• "He worries that" is less complicated than "The Detroit Free Press reported that Voris holds that".

• I agree that "among the American Roman Catholic clerical hierarchy" is more complicated than the FP's (not Voris's) choice of words "[m]any current church leaders", although we're running up a lot of quotes for three sentences. We could rephrase it, again.

• "in the spiritual sense" - necessary?

So, something like this?:

He holds that "many church leaders" are "namby-pamby. It's all about, 'Love your neighbor.'" Instead, "a muscular Catholicism that isn't afraid to encourage battle and sacrifice".[7]

Fishlandia (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

That seems fine. I was uncertain if edits were asking for a strict line between direct quote and paraphrasing. This does not appear to be the case. -Wowaconia (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLP concern—focus on controversy

Surely there's a way to restructure this in a way that doesn't focus so much on related controversies, isn't there? See WP:BLPSTYLE, § Balance. This seems like a page that would be better titled "Controversies involving Michael Voris" the way it's currently written. Any thoughts? juju (hajime! | waza) 06:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There must be best practice for dealing with controversy sections as this is a coatrack for the latest outrageous thing that x has said. JASpencer (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've carved the controversy section up. I've taken the name controversy to the Church millitant section, created a scientific controversies section for the principle and global warming), taken the Catholic monarchy remarks into their own section and changed the title for the rest of the controversies to relationship with the hierarchy. This will be an ongoing task as a man as pugnacious as Voris (possibly his greatest strength) will continue to attract controversy and will be disappointed when he doesn't. JASpencer (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michael Voris. 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/20120529061814/http://www.zenit.org/article-34824?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-34824?l=english
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414165610/http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/2011/04/07/statement-regarding-michael-voris/ to http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/2011/04/07/statement-regarding-michael-voris/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111215925/http://www.realcatholictv.com/response/ to http://www.realcatholictv.com/response/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206165324/http://proverbs-27-17.blogspot.com/2011/08/explanation.html to http://proverbs-27-17.blogspot.com/2011/08/explanation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Split

I've proposed a split, I really think that Church Militant is now notable in itself. There are multiple third party sources discussing it, including Daytona Daily News, NBC, Patheos, National Catholic Reporter and many more. The website has become extremely powerful in the Roman Catholic Church, and according to The Atlantic (documentary), there are over thirty-five employees of it. Articles and exposées produced by Church Militant of different members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy have real power to get people laicized, demoted, apologies issued, etc.; as there are so many dedicated traditional Catholics who watch the program, especially the "Vortex" segment, released for free. For all these reasons I propose a split. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure it is all that notable, why not create the article in draft space and put a link here so we can see how much material we can really write.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Done: Draft:Church Militant (website). What do you think? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of the sources seem a tad local, and its a bit stubby. But its a start.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: In that case I've WP:BOLDly moved the draft into article space…I'm thinking I should leave the split template because perhaps some content in this article should be moved? Or time to remove split template? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

As the conversation is still ongoing it should stay. The new article still needs work and it may help to attract viewers.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd support a split, per WP:SIZERULE. schetm (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Charge that he doesn't call John Paul II a saint is shown false in his videos

I removed a claim that said Voris refused to call Pope John Paul II a saint, as declared by the Catholic Church.

It can be easily proven that he does so, such as in this video link:

https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-blame-the-saint

==Wowaconia (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

largely unfocused

This is not a particularly good article, but there's nothing insurmountable about moving it that direction. Some main points:

The article title is Michael Voris, so biographical in nature. Therefore, in-depth discussion of the trials and tribulations of his business ventures (nonprofit or not) are at best secondary. Detailed commentary specific to CM can of course now be put in Church Militant (website).

As to St. Michael's Media, if it deserves to be explored in depth, then it really needs its own article. If for some reason it's too flimsy to make it that far, then it's much more sensible to place it in the CM article rather than buried in the founder's bio. In particular, almost all the Name controversy section should go.

Most of the Relationship with the Catholic hierarchy is soapboxing in various ways, not least being public relations (evinced by the heavy reliance on primary sources) and advocacy. At very least, extended quotations from Voris need to be succinctly summarized, else it's marketing, period. Anyone who wants detail is presumably skilled enough to click on over to the CM site.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Rest

can we rest this page back to before the mass removals and edit warring?Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

Per {{infobox person}}: nationality: "Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace." Since Voris was born in Texas, his nationality as "American" can be inferred. I made an edit (citing the pertinent guidance from {{infobox person}}) to remove the |nationality= parameter as its value was "American". If he has changed or changes his nationality to something other than just "American" then it would be appropriate to include that parameter, but there is nothing in the text to support that, nor did the value that was removed say anything other than "American". Note also that WP:INFOBOXNTLY says that nationality/citizenship "should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth." However, an editor reverted my edit. Per WP:BRD I'm here to participate in a discussion on the topic. I'm open to hearing any view as to why this guidance does not or should not apply to this article. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Having heard no further objections, I've updated the article to remove |nationality= from the infobox. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Defamatory remarks

A specific editor continues adding defamatory remarks after it being removed by multiple editors. I am concerned about bias in this article and ask more experienced editors to assist. Ysys9 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I was writing something about this on your user talk page but you blanked it. Wikipedia's policy is to write from a neutral point of view, which doesn't mean that we remove negative information, but that we balance all significant viewpoints based on reliable sources. Voris is a controversial figure and much criticism has been published about him and about his church. It goes against NPOV to omit it from our article.

Also, the Universal Code of Conduct concerns editor behaviour and interactions between editors. It offers no governance over article content. As for experience, I've been editing a little over 13 years, while the multiple other editors who have restored this information after your previous attempts to remove it have been here between 4 and 16 years, not that account age is considered a reliable indicator of competence nor policy knowledge here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Defermation is a crime, as such, it is not defamation unless a court has said so (and please see wp:nlt. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a fringe group that no longer has any moral authority. I deleted the section that said SPLC claims Voris' media as a hate group. Nobody cares what SPLC says anymore and Wikipedia needs to start removing all reference to SPLC. Nobody made the SPLC the moral authority on anything. History buffoon (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

As I recall it is an RS, and are recognised by other RS as authoritative. Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously you have a dog in this fight. I will delete it 1,000x if I have to. Times are chaning. the SPLC said Pepe the Frog is a hate group. Nobody accepts anything they say anymore except for people with an agenda. History buffoon (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Anti-Voris Activist

Some anti-Voris activist editor keeps adding anti-Voris nonsense. The editor uses hot button words like "right-wing Catholic" and says the SPLC considers Voris to be a member of a hate group etc and most of the nonsense he adds to this article is just propaganda. There needs to be some online watchdog to start watching these people and countering their propaganda. It seems like they get their jollies sitting on a computer all day and smearing people. Losers. History buffoon (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@History buffoon: That is what the wp:reliable sources (RS) state. Wikipedia reflects what the RS state. Adakiko (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I need you to delete the entire article. Most is hearsay and anecdotal. History buffoon (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@History buffoon: See other's discussions above. Adakiko (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I just added {{notability|Biographies|date=August 2023}}

to the page and my reasoning. Delete the article. History buffoon (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus as you can see from the Talk section hence delete the entire article. History buffoon (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop trying to have it your way because you do not approve of what an article says. Veverve (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Who was talking to you? Where did you come from? Are you being paid to edit Wikipedia articles? Go away please. History buffoon (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I declined the WP:G10 speedy deletion nomination, as this article is evidently not an attack page. There may be parts of the article that are WP:BLP violations. Any unblocked editor should remove such content if they find it. Anyone p-blocked from the article is welcome to bring up BLP violations here for review. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You're a joke. Seriously. How much do they pay you? History buffoon (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)