Talk:Rhema Media

Disruptive edits
Some recent edits have had to be reverted, including:
 * The deletion of large amounts of content, referenced with third party sources, without explanation.
 * The addition of unreferenced content, including unreferenced claims presented as facts.
 * The addition of section titles that violate MOS:HEAD and WP:POVNAMING.
 * The addition of subjectively descriptive content that violates WP:NPOV, WP:ADMASK and WP:WORDS.
 * The addition of content from websites and annual reports that violates WP:NPOV and WP:CV.

If you are one of the users making these edits could you:
 * Please avoid biased descriptions and unverified claims.
 * Please do not delete referenced content without giving a good reason.
 * Please follow the core content policies of Wikipedia.
 * Please do not treat the article as an "official website" of Rhema Media.
 * Please do not copy and paste material from websites and annual reports.

Thanks. Paewiki (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have posted the following at ANI--

Disruptive edits are being made to Rhema Media. Thanks.Paewiki (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourced content is being repeatedly removed without explanation.
 * Third-party sources are being deleted, and even basic bot fixes are being reverted.
 * Content is being added that is copyright, unsourced, non-NPOV, advertorial and highly subjective - most copied from here or here.
 * User:Leenz999 has done this here and here. They have made similar edits here, here and here.
 * User:MikeMediaNZ has done this here. They have been invited to talk but haven't engaged.
 * User:RM1251 has done this here. They have been invited to talk but haven't engaged. They continue to make disruptive edits.

Deletion?
In response to 's ANI thread about the disruptive copyvio/coi/promotional editing on this article, I started taking a look at the article and its history. As of right now, the article has almost no reliable sources. So many of them are primary (not just to the Rhema websites, but written by people involved like Dan Wooding) or very low quality, and the rest appear to be quite local. My inclination was to nominate it for deletion, but in an effort to avoid what may be too hasty a reaction, I want to ask: Paewiki, how confident are you that sufficient sources exist to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added third-party and unreliable source tags. If this comes up for deletion, I vote keep and clean up. The topic is covered in NZ Herald, Stuff, Te Ara and National Library, Google Scholar, etc. There are also print sources available at public libraries. There is also a lot of third-party sources covering Rhema Media assets, particularly the Rhema network.Paewiki (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

RM1251 (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking for sources, I'm not finding much. There's some government stuff related to their problems in obtaining a license, but it's mostly bare mentions.  There's a news story about replacing an antenna tower.. There's some stuff about their getting into Internet streaming but that's more about the streaming service. There's are design articles about their logo and business card design..  They had a team in a bicycling fund raiser for charity and raised $861.. Other than that, it's all self-promotion. For a broadcaster, this operation has very low visibility.  Stub the article?   John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Rhema Media
Moved from User talk:Paewiki by Paewiki: To Paewiki

I have been updating our Wikipedia page - to reorder the text and to update the sources as many of the sources are out of date and/or highly subjective.

For example: Under Services - '''"The network targets families, with a strong focus on relationships, marriage and parenting, with a doctrine of special salvation for believers and eternal damnation for sinners.[24] [24 Hoar, Peter. "Jesus’ Blood Never Failed Me Yet". The joy or radio. Peter Hoar. Retrieved 8 July 2015]" - this source does not correctly reflect what we are about and, I believe, is highly subjective viewpoint from an external source. We consider this not neutral.

AND "Star is a contemporary Christian music network playing gospel music, hymns and classic Christian contemporary tracks, alongside Biblical teachings. It was set up through a lease on spare programming time when Radio New Zealand's AM Network is not broadcasting sittings of the New Zealand Parliament, and also broadcasts on FM frequencies in smaller centres. Rhema Media described the playlist as "a smooth and easy blend of music from people you know and trust".[26][ 26 ^ "Southern Star". sstar.co.nz. Rhema Broadcasting Group. Archived from the original on 16 February 2008. Retrieved 8 July 2015]" - this also is an old source.

These are two examples of information we would not want on our page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.11.42 (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:NeilN --Neil N  talk to me 18:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am moving this comment to Talk:Rhema Media so others can be part of this discussion.Paewiki (talk)
 * Thanks 101.98.11.42. Please remember this is NOT anyone's Wikipedia page and should NOT be an "official description". Many of your edits promote a point of view, violate Rhema Media's copryight, and don't follow Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia uses a range of third-party and primary sources, new and old, which express a range of opinions. Reliable external sources should actually be the main sources of an article. That said, the Hoar source may not satisfy the criteria for a reliable source. The article has been page protected by admins - if you have any concerns please raise it with them.Paewiki (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Paewiki. Understand now what the criteria are for editing this page. Thanks Talk:Rhema Media

Rhema Media
Moved from User talk:Paewiki by Paewiki: Hi Paewiki, thanks for your messages. Appreciate the contact. I'm not the CEO of Rhema Media as assumed in the incident dicussion. I would like the Rhema Media page to better reflect their current brands and position. Am keen to get better at editing wiki pages. Thanks for the suggestions for the syntax errors i've made. Would appreciate the page being unblocked.

thank you MikeMediaNZ (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am moving this comment to Talk:Rhema Media.Paewiki (talk)
 * Thanks MediaMikeNZ. Please remember this article is NOT supposed to "reflect their current brands and position", and many of your edits promote a point of view, violate Rhema Media's copryight, and don't follow Wikipedia guidelines. The article has been page protected by admins - if you have any concerns please raise it with them.Paewiki (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Station facts
OK, they're a radio and TV network. Where are their stations? We need call signs, frequency, power, and transmitter locations. John Nagle (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Rhema Media. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiorhema.co.nz
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lifefm.co.nz

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverting disruptive edits
There have been multiple attempts to record these reverted updates although they are not supported by the broadcaster's websites' listings and/or by licences in the RSM database.

I believe that the same editor is making, what appear to be, random updates under various IP addresses and never cites his/her source. I have added remarks to the editors' talk pages previously and thought it might be better to record remarks directly against this article's Talk page.

Here is a summary of the disputed edits and rationale:

101.100.130.65 (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)