Talk:Ralph Ovadal

Mazo Beach
I have restored the Mazo Beach section on this page for the second time for the simple fact that it is the protest that Ovadal is most associated with.

The deletion of any information that could portray Ovadal negatively is also concerning.

On a related topic, can anyone confirm or deny any relation between Ralph Ovadal and Tim Ovadal who played football at the University of Wisconsin-Madison?

--

I notice it is user "WisconsiniteAmerican" who routinely removes any references to Ovadal's arrest record and convictions. Those items are adequately documented, so I wonder why this particular user wants that information suppressed. - Einamozam 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
Overall, this article seems to exist to promote a positive image of Ovadal, and anything negative is routinely removed (i.e. the Mazomanie Beach protests). Also, the text of the article suggests a highly favorable POV slant, such as: "'He is known for his impassioned and caring street corner preaching in the Milwaukee area. Pastor Ovadel is one who weeps for the lost souls of men, believing that while there is life there is hope for all men. No matter how awful the behavior of a man may appear, Ralph Ovadel knows, the spirit of God can come upon the worst of offenders and a persecuting Saul can become a blessedly saved Paul.'" -JakeApple 21:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to article has now been toned down in that it's more NPOV. I'm going to pull the neutrality dispute.
 * -JakeApple 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV? Baloney. Why the comparison to Fred Phelps? Why even mention Phelps in this wiki entry? Whoever put it in in hates Ovadal and it doesn't take a genius to come to that conclusion. 69.129.152.139 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Content removal
User:Americathebrave, please explain, based on WIkipedia's policies and guidelines, why you are removing sourced content as you did here and here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

fate of the beach
User:Americathebrave the fate of the beach is WP:OFFTOPIC. please read that. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not allowing factual, relevant contributions
User:Jytdog 1) The edit concerning number of arrests is using the most up-to-date source, yet you choose an older source. 2) You are not allowing factual information concerning Mazo Beach itself—that is, that it has been shut down by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. This is relevant to the story. Your version of the story presents Mazo Beach as currently open; this is a false presentation. 3) The facts on Mazo Beach which I sited are from archive pages on Wayback Machine from quite a number of years ago, and yet you disallow them, apparently thinking somehow the content has been changed when it cannot be. 4) The paragraph on Mazo Beach in your version says the word “screaming,” yet where is that found in your source? It’s not there. I am afraid you are not allowing factual, relevant contributions.
 * we need to get better refs for this article, so that the church can't keep trying to change the facts. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * on the jezebel thing, what verb would you prefer? Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog As I wrote before: The facts on Mazo Beach which I sited are from archive pages on Wayback Machine from quite a number of years ago, and yet you disallow them, apparently thinking somehow the content has been changed when it cannot be.

I am wondering why you undo any content which refers to Mazo Beach as a former beach.

I am wondering why you continue to delete content referring to the closure of Mazo Beach by the Department of Natural Resources, because of it being “an area of illegal behavior, such as drug use and public sexual activity. This illegal and illicit behavior that developed there over several decades. . .”. ? This is relevant information as it obviously was for such that the beach was protested. --Americathebrave (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog As you once again undid my contributions, you say they are not valid. In what way? You have not replied to all my questions above. Remember, you do not own this article. I hope you will respond to my questions. Thank you.--Americathebrave (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry will reply in a bit, am in the midst of complex edits on another article. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Why in the world do you want to add press releases )this and this) as sources? Press are releases are WP:SPS per the WP:RS guideline and we avoid them like the plague.
 * you again added the content about beach getting shut down, which as we discussed is WP:OFFTOPIC here. That is not about him.
 * but i see the point of your changes about "former". You also used the church website as a ref.  We can do that too, which means that we will no longer use it as an external link, per WP:ELNO.  I will institute those things. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog How come in undoing my contributions, you say that “none of that was in the source provided”? This is not true. The changes made in the paragraph on Mazo Beach were indeed in the source cited, which is the Wisconsin Gazette, a progressive newspaper.

Here are the lines from the article from which I extracted direct quotes as well as to which I made direct reference. Of course, you can go to the article and see the entire context for yourself.

''The group called for Erickson to repent, to which she responded with an expletive and threats to raise her top and bare her breasts. Cries of “harlot,” “whore” and “Jezebel” ensued for the six minutes it took Erickson to unload her car. A DNR warden who was present asked the religious group to stand back and allow Erickson to proceed but the naturist was angry enough to file a complaint against Ovadal. The pastor was later charged with disorderly conduct and required to pay a $1,000 fine.''.

Now here is the section of the paragraph which includes my most recent contributions but which you will not allow based on your reason that “none of that was in the source provided.” You will see the contributions to the article are indeed derived from the source cited above.

''. . . and on May 28, 2001, Ovadal led a group of protestors who called for a naturist "to repent." When she responded "with an expletive and threats to raise her top and bare her breasts, cries of 'harlot,' 'whore' and 'Jezebel' ensued." After the naturist filed a complaint, Ovadal was charged with disorderly conduct and subsequently convicted, a $1,000 fine being levied against him.''

When I repost my contributions, I will correct the punctuation.

The version you persist to maintain contains the word “screaming,” but the word “screaming” or any derivative thereof is non-existent in the source. I have attempted to correct that problem using the source.--

Americathebrave (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake, sorry. Why is the detail about her threatening to bare her breasts relevant to a biography of Ovdal?  Seem pretty WP:UNDUE.  We can always add more detail about the sentencing if you like, to provide more detail relevant Ovdal per se. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sourced, factual information
User32.218.45.74, I restored the previous contribution by another editor concerning Ralph Ovadal's church being an independent Reformed Baptist church. This is a plain fact as well as relevant, and it is sourced. Thank you. OregonTrail (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)OregonTrail
 * Will you please provide an independent, reliable source for that? Thx Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Further information restored.
User:32.218.45.74 I am going to restore this contribution by other editor as well as it is clearly a large part of who Ralph Ovadal is as a pastor, whether one appreciates the fact or not: "He is very active in evangelism at large public events." Thanks.OregonTrail (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)OregonTrail