Talk:LeRoy Bailey Jr.

Controversy on Criticism
Appears to lack of any of criticism and the style is akin to advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.187.119 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the majority of articles on Archbishops, patriarchs and the like lack crititism. There is such a thing as a good man.Dc 160 (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

LeRoy Bailey → LeRoy Bailey Jr. — Simply put His name is LeRoy Bailey Jr. not LeRoy Bailey Sr. there's a difference, two different people. Essentially, This issue is one that revolves around consistency between Wikipedia and Wikiquote. Which lists him as Archbishop LeRoy Bailey Jr. Additionally what needs to be taken into consideration is how the Archbishop identifies himself, which is by the name LeRoy Bailey Jr. not LeRoy Bailey. On this clip at about the 2 min mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8_gKFCryJc(UTC.—Dc 160 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Self Interest and Self Promotion.
This article typifies one of the problems which is bound to crop up in a project like Wikipedia. Just as advertisers are now opening pages on Facebook and Twitter the Reverand Bailey, or one of his supporters, has created this laudatory and excessive article with a view to improving or sustaining his status among his colleagues. Towit, we are informed in the article that Mr. Bailey appears on the evangelist 'circuit'; which begs the conclusion.

I hope that removing words like "tremendous" (three times) and the other changes I have made will re-instate the potential validity of including this article at all.

Of course there are good men. But surely a man who has ostensibly dedicated his life to the "Lord" would refuse to be praised so lavishly since the "Lord" is the more important individual in the duo and, ostensibly, the source of all things including the ability to preach and to promote money for new buildings. If, in fact, he is dedicated to living in the Christian spirit, and spreading the teachings that underlie that spirit, he must be aware of the Biblical warning that "They who shall put themselves first, they shall be last." Consequently, I am sure that a more moderate article can only be more pleasing to Mr. Bailey.

Andrew Thomas 2 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)