Talk:Prestonwood Baptist Church

Current events that are not historically significant

An very-high-ranking employee of this church is in the news after being arrested. Other than this person's termination, it is unlikely to have any long-lasting effects on this church or its ministries. Therefore, it is un-encyclopedic. I've removed the edit. If it hadn't been in the news I would have requested the edit be hidden from view to protect the person's privacy. If it turns out this incident does have a major impact on this church, the the information should be restored. Until then, it should stay out of this article. The individual in question does not have his own Wikipedia article and would likely fail WP:Notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed similar text again a few minutes ago. This time it was without a citation and therefore fell under the mandatory-removal policy of unverified information about living persons. See WP:BLP. If it's restored by a non-anonymous editor with a citation I will leave it up long enough to have a discussion. I'll also leave it up if an anonymous editor discusses it here before adding it or at least before I see it. I'll also give consideration if that IP address has other recent edits. Otherwise I'll assume it's a drive-by editor who doesn't know about or doesn't care about discussing controversial edits, and remove it. In any case, if it's restored without citation, I'll remove it per WP:BLP. There is a citation available in the first edit, if the consensus is that this information belongs in this article, it would make a good cite. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been posted a third time by an anonymous address. I'll leave it up for a bit to see if the anonymous editor can present reasons to keep it. Otherwise, it goes as unencyclopedic. I'll stop deleting it when someone gives a good reason to keep it in this article besides it being in this weekend's newspapers and there not being an article for this non- or marginally-notable individual. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm that third anonymous poster, and am having difficulty understanding what the problem is here. The article is about Prestonwood Baptist Church, and a member of its leadership - not a church secretary or something - is in the national papers (USA Today, for one). The fact that he is not the "head" of the 26,000-member congregation is irrelevant. I'm quite sure that if a member of the College of Cardinals was arrested, you wouldn't consider it insignificant because it wasn't the pope. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe you are a member of this church, and just don't want news to get out...209.183.51.46 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. This article is about Prestonwood, not about the individual in question. He's the equivalent of a non- or barely-notable college dean at a university or an assistant or associate minister at any other similarly-sized church. The impact his arrest has on the church is encyclopedic, but the arrest is not any more encyclopedic than if he suddenly resigned for other sinful reasons that went against church teachings, such as adultery or homosexuality. If the church takes some action, other than the obvious actions of firing the guy, hiring a replacement, or making the obligatory public statement distancing themselves from his behavior and calling for prayers for him and any victims he might have had, that might be encyclopedic. For example, if as a result of this incident, the church held a public forum on how even ministers are vulnerable to sin and how the church and members should deal with it, that might be encyclopedic. If you haven't read WP:NOT, WP:BLP, and WP:COATRACK, please read them. Although WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK don't apply in the strict sense, their spirit applies to this section. Here's a good rule of thumb: Will the information be encyclopedic 5, 10, or 20 years from now?

Having said all of that, if this person were notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then news such as this would be encyclopedic in that article. See Hans Reiser, who was recently convicted of killing his wife and whose article predates her disappearance by several years. If this had happened to Rev. Graham we wouldn't be having this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, this may be relevant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So let me make sure I'm getting this... Assuming that Wikipedia had existed for the past twenty years, O.J. Simpson's arrest for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman would be considered "encyclopedic" because there would have - undoubtedly - been an article about him already in existence (presumably, detailing his football, broadcasting, and acting careers). On the other hand...Jeffrey Dahmer's arrest for the murder of 17 individuals would not be "encyclopedic" since he was a "nobody" before the gruesome discoveries, and would certainly not have had an article about him on Wikipedia. Am I understanding this correctly?209.183.51.46 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Most murderers nevermind most people involved in the types of crime he's allegedly involved do not meet the notability criteria for their own articles. Jeffrey Dahmer gets an article for 2 reasons: 1) not only is he clearly notable, but he's downright famous, or rather, infamous, and as such not having an article about him would be a glaring omission, and 2) his murders caused numerous changes beyond the deaths of the individuals. Serial killing is so rare, so newsworthy, and so infamous that it doesn't even compare to soliciting a minor on the non-notable/notable/fame scale. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Section trimmed

I trimmed the section down to eliminate details that will have zero impact on the church itself. I still think the entire section should go but the low-level details detract from the article as a whole so much they must go. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you only "trimmed" details that I added. I fail to see why his particular assignment within the church matters...if you were reporting on a McDonald's worker soliciting minors in his spare time, you probably wouldn't mention that the suspect primarily manned the fry machine while on duty. Similarly, the man's date of hire has little to do with anything...I doubt that anyone would care whether the McDonald's fry guy was hired in April of 2007 or June of 2006. On the other hand...the fact that Mr. Barron is being investigated for possible involvement with over a dozen other girls suggests that we may be dealing with a "serial" pedophile (which - I would think - would have a pretty serious "impact on the church itself"), rather than some poor guy that a made a "sinful" mistake like having an affair. "Being investigated for similar crimes" could mean one or two others over a period of twenty years...quite a different scenario than the Dallas Morning News article seems to suggest. I really do have to ask...what is your bent on this? Are you a member of this church?209.183.51.46 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If he were a McDonald's worker other than a clown-mascot or children's-party-planner this would be immediately removed from McDonald's as totally irrelevant - I'd be willing to risk a WP:3RR block for the good of the article. Likewise, if this were a layperson whose job did not relate to children I'd have yanked it and risked a block. The only 2 reasons I haven't yanked it already are 1) you are the 3rd person to add it, so I'm giving some time for other editors to chime in and, coincidently, avoid 3RR sanction, and 2) he is a minister, and the allegations of moral turpitude have at least a slight relevant to his office. It's not relevant enough to keep in this article but combined with 2 previous attempts to put up the material it is relevant enough to arrest my delete-on-sight/WP:NOT/WP:BLP attitude for this kind of material where it's not obviously relevant. You do make some good comments with respect to what I left in. If you were charged with the task writing no more than a paragraph about this incident that reflected the impact this is having on the church, without adding extraneous details, what would you write? Forget I said "if," because as an editor, that is what both of us are charged with doing. My preference would of course be "nothing, unless there was an obvious major impact beyond the loss of a staff member" but I'm asking what you would write. By the way, if I were a member of the church, I would have a conflict of interest and would have to be much more careful editing the article, no matter what my understanding of WP:Notability, WP:Encyclopedic, and other WP:* criteria are with respect to this section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting into a question of values here...I personally believe that "allegations of moral turpitude" have more than just a "slight" relevance to a minister's office. Personal values have little place in an encyclopedia, though, which is why I respect your right to express a belief in the relative insignificance of this man's actions...but I'm not trying to censor you. I would think that - at least, for the time being - the appropriate thing to do would be to err on the side of free-speech and free-press rights. If - six months down the road - this story turns out be a completely insignificant blip on the radar, then...fine, take it down. In the meantime, why not let the story develop a little more before rendering a verdict of "insignificant"? As to what I would write...I think the answer to that can pretty much be found in what I already wrote. I might not have added the details about his particular job assignment or his date of hire, but I also don't think that they create any major problem. I don't know if you added those details, but...if not, then somebody else apparently found them relevant. Since they are factual and don't create any major problem, then why not leave them in? More information is not necessarily a bad thing.209.183.51.46 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good discussion - thanks for keeping it civil. I am a member of Prestonwood, and my first reaction to seeing this on Prestonwood's page is to puke - it just makes me sick. I don't want to see it or hear about it. Yet, I'm not sure it shouldn't be here. Here are my thoughts:

1.) Encyclopedias include current events that they may not include in 20 years. Encyclopedias include current and historically relevant information on a person or thing. They are a compendium of relevant information. Do a look up on the definition of Encyclopedia and see for yourself. 2.) Joe's grievous act is substantial for several reasons: a.) Prestonwood's history includes the founding minister resigning for a sexually deviant act, adultery b.) This act of sexual perversion, which is already recognized as heinous by even the most hardened criminals, is even more significant when perpetrated by a minister of the church. c.) This act is even more significant from a newsworthy point of view, because of the still rather recent series of child molestation by priest of the Catholic church. 3.) From a Christian perspective, my heart grieves for the Barron family, and even for Joe. But I also think that burying this kind of information is the work of the Enemy (if you're not a Christian feel free to tune out). It's easy to forget that ministers are sinful men too, and that perhaps more than lay people, they face temptation, and are often without accountability. It's important that we're reminded of the past so that we can have a better future.

So, my vote is, reluctantly, yes, lets keep the information there. It's factual, relevant, sourced, and yes, because of former sexual misbehavior in this church, historical.Doublet89 (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Postscript, Had not the previous misbehaviour of the church founder been preserved, this discussion would have been made more difficultly. As was the case with the church founder, the resignation of this noted offender does not exhonerate the organization as a whole. So, had this been the first instance in this church's history, where it occurred among its ministerial leadership - it should have been posted and considered historical. Stealtharachnid (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

comparing a minister at a 20,000 plus member church to a employee of a companee of 500,000, it would be more similar for an upper member of managment in the company and yes i would find that relevant. the church is the bigger than many cities in the country making it such a public presence that it would be irresponsible to discuss it. not that i would say that we should make the article in such a way that would be detrementle to the church i personally have been there and have philisophical differences with certain things located in the church but the message was nice i enjoyed the service. But just because the article is small it doesnt mean that there is a reason to remove the article. besides how many unfamous people have things listed on wikipedia and even there own pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.219.163 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Unfamous people with their own articles: If they are not WP:Notable, that's what WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:AfD are for. Note that notability is a much lower threshold than fame. In this case, we aren't talking about having his own article. Given recent press statements by the church, I'm admitting I was wrong that he doesn't belong in this article at all. However, the gory details that were in an edit yesterday have no place here unless those details have some particular long-term bearing on the church and that bearing is both encyclopedic and verifiable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Previously existing article

• Comment If one looks, it seems that attempts were made to create an article on Joe Barron a year ago (I found this while I was about to make a redirect). Could it be that he was seeking publicity? Let's do him the honor. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one Joe Barron out there who may want a Wikipedia page with his name on it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As an admin, I can view the deleted Joe Barron article, and it did not appear to be about this person.Edison (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unencyclopedic tag

I disagree, but I'll leave that off for a few days in case events change and it does become encyclopedic for this article. Other than the expected public statement from the church, and of course the loss of one of their ministry team, I haven't seen how this event impacts this church. To put it another way: Assuming this guy resigns quietly and the impact on the ministry is no more than if he resigned suddenly for any other reason, then either he should go or we should add the resignations for each and every other ordained minister formerly on the staff, because they would be equally relevant to this article. Of course, we shouldn't do the latter, as it's not encyclopedic.

Here's how I see this playing out: Within a month or two, probably sooner, we'll know what impact this will have on the church. It will probably be nothing more than having to do some hand-wringing and hire a replacement. We will also have some idea if this person's trial turns into a media circus sufficient to cause him to meet WP:Notability in his own right. Based on this, the content will either go here, if it impacted the church, go in an article about this person, if he meets the notability criteria, or disappear from Wikipedia. I'm expecting the latter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

dvaidwr, you obviously haven't been unfortunate enough to be in a church where this happens. It always, significantly effects the church. I've already heard the comment "this just makes me not want to trust any ministers." It has a huge, significant impact in a church; people will leave; trust will wean; and good things will happen as well. But my no means is it an insignificant occurance in the ministry or history of the church. Doublet89 (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Section removed twice in last two days

An anonymous user removed the section yesterday and a registered user removed it today. It's hard to know if this is one or two people, but in any case, it's clearly not unanimous that the text should be kept. With that in mind, I think this should be re-visited in about a month, with heavy weight given to the verifiable, encyclopedic impact on the church. If the church continues on "without missing a beat" then it's probably not encyclopedic. If there is a visible impact on the church's mission, or if they make additional public statements, then keep it. Another option is to go to WP:RFC and ask others to help decide if this content belongs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with revisiting after the impact is known- That being said the minister involved was one of the lowest on the totem pole and most members of the church probably couldn't have even identified him as a minister (pre-arrest), this is hardly encyclopedic. Are we going to start chronicling all actions of Prestonwood's hundreds of employees? --Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cupcake and others that this is Unencyclopedic and not worth mentioning on this page. I have been a member of this church for 5 years and couldn't have even picked this minister out of a lineup as he was extremely low on the totem pole and would be the equivalent of a lower-level manager at any company. The impact of this incident while surely a bump in the road will be minimal to this strong congregation and will surely be unencyclopedic within a matter of a couple of weeks for those that do not think it is already. If i'm overruled on this i'm not going to fight it but I find this a non-story at this point.Johnb316 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, now there is a roughly evenly divided opinion, so I'll leave it off. If there is no discussion in the coming days I think that will be the very definition of consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One two three four I detect an edit war. Not good. Seriously, can we freeze it for a day or two and discuss it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a roughly divided opinion...go back and count the comments on each side. I also don't think that a member of the church in question is exactly an unbiased observer. I just don't understand what the rush is to sweep this incident under the proverbial rug. Give it time, see where it goes...but in the meantime, leave it alone. I think that locking the page would be appropriate at this point. I know there's probably about as much chance of that happening as there is for pigs to fly...209.183.51.42 (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I too find this unencyclopedic and would tend to have the opinion that if there is so much disagreement over a section that you err on the side of caution and leave the material out until proven to be encyclopedic. Don't see how you cannot agree with that without having an agenda or being a Christian hater that enjoys these types of unfortunate incidents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.62.217.93 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, especially not a supermarket tabloid newspaper, so the coverage of the arrest of one pastor in a multi-pastor megachurch should not get undue coverage in the article. But it has gotten nationwide news coverage,as shown by a Google News search [3] more than other recent things concerning the church, as seen at [4] and there should be no censorship or spin control to block any mention of the events in the article, even if it causes heartburn for members or friends of the church. WP:BLP principles should be strictly applied, in that only well referenced facts should be allowed into the article. The talk page should be used to create a draft section which is consistent with BLP and each faction can address concerns here. Editors must comply with the WP:3RR rule. The average reader would expect to see coverage of this subject in an article about the church in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

After researching this and looking at other wikki pages, I believe this section has no place permanently on this. The average reader would NOT expect to see this listed as no other significant events positive or negative are listed in this manner. Placing this section would be inconsistent. --Cupcakefriend (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a major news story, about a major church, in a controversial denominational sect (Southern Baptist Convention) involving a crime that society sees as being one of the worst, that has happened at the heals of one of the biggest news stories of the decade - Catholic priest trying to cover up sexual abuse against children. And now it appears that some of my protestant friends are trying to cover this up as well. I just can't comprehend how anyone can say this is "unencyclopedic" and find it highly offensive that people who call themselves Christians would want toFloridapeaches (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New try at scandal

I've been disappointed at the "gossipy" nature of the text surrounding the scandal. Over the weekend the Dallas Morning News did an online editorial praising the church for its swift and open response to the crisis. That reaction, rather than the arrest itself, is germane to this article. I've rewritten the text accordingly. I also put it at the bottom of the timeline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought David's rewrite was good, and made two minor changes to clarify the act and Mr. Barron's position.Floridapeaches (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

this is a better wording and not as gossipy and I think we can agree--Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey we need a picture!!!

Has it struck anyone else that the page of Prestonwood Baptist, one of the largest churches in the world, and one of the most visually stunning, has NO picture?!!! Does anyone have a good picture of Prestonwood (or can one of you Prestonwood staff members that deletes everything negative on this page) that they can contribute?Doublet89 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. With the obvious members of this church being so busy at removing edits, you'd think one of them might have enough time to take a digital picture of the church and upload it to the page. It would be encylopedic to have a picture. 67.141.93.199 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also a picture of Dr. Jack Graham on this page and his page would be nice. Could someone who is a member of this church take a digital picture of your church and your pastor and upload them to wikipedia? Pictures would make your article look nicer. Or are you too busy deleting references to Joe Barron? 67.141.93.199 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Despite incoming redirects, this is not about him, it's about the church. A single picture of the building OR of the church logo is sufficient. The latter can be done under fair-use, the former should be done only with a free license. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I said Jack Graham (the pastor of the church). I wouldn't suggest that you put a picture of Barron on the page. A single picture of the church would be great. If anyone who actually attends services there could snap a picture then that could be uploaded as public domain. No fair use needed. Or I could find a picture online then do a pencil sketch of it, scan it and upload that under public domain. (I'm not too bad at it.) However, wouldn't it be better to have a photo? Of course.

Davidwr, If you are commenting about my other post, please reply to it under that post. This section is about pictures, not Barron. 75.88.55.169 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrest details removed

The details of the arrest are not encyclopedic to this article. It would have made no difference if he didn't have condoms, or if he had a love letter or porn or something else titillating instead. It makes no difference if he drive 300 miles or 30 or 3000. The key facts are: An ordained minister on staff committed a sexual sin which was also a felony and which indicated a mindset capable of committing offenses against children, that he resigned, and that the church didn't try to hide it. Save the details for WikiNews. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, arrest details are important. It lends credability to the claim. The package of condoms are evidence of Barrons intentions. The quote from a newpaper editorial, IMO, is unencyclopedic because it is the writer opinion not fact. However, I'll stop inserting the details. I wasn't wanting to start an edit war. To be honest, I thought it was a little funny to link a church (that is probably for abstainence only education) with the article on condoms (which has realistic illustrations on how to put one on). I apollogize. Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. 67.141.90.157 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) '

I agree with 67.141.90.157. While I am a Christian and do no want to see all this extra information about condoms I do think that an encyclopedia is collection of knowledge on subjects. And, I don't think trying to hide things makes us look very good to those who aren't Christians.

In the same way that we ask if a subject or person is noteworthy in order to have a wiki page, we must ask if the detailed information is noteworthy, and as anonymous wrote, factual in nature. The fact that the condoms were extra large would not be noteworthy, but the miles driven, the condoms, and the camera all go to the case against Barron and are material, noteworthy, factual, and (can be) sourced. The newspapers opinion is an opinion, not fact. In fact, it is an opinion of what they THINK people at Prestonwood might be thinking. It might be noteworthy, but it is not a fact, or anything known, so it can not be sourced. We can only source the the thought that it might be fact. I'm going to remove the opinion part, and may post the other facts as well, unless there is a good consensus about the opinion being good wiki, and the details being bad wiki, so to speak. So speak up, or forever hold your piece!Romans9:11 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a solution. Why can't one of the Prestonwood members write an article on Barron. They know about him and the details of his life. The arrest details can go there. The churches article will only need to link to Barrons article. This scandal has possibly made Barron notable enough to warrant his own article. BTW, If you search for Joe Barron it is redirected to this article. You should fix that, because it makes this article about Joe Barron too. Besides Barron is no longer faculty at this church. 67.141.93.199 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am speaking up about both your suggestions and could not disagree more with your comments and will reverse them every time. There have been numerous discussions already about this topic and I believe consensus has already been made to leave the article as currently written without the gory details. Wiki is not for reporting news or giving detailed stories...if someone wants to read the article for the details then it is right there to do so. As far as the "opinion" page goes this is not what the sourced link in question is...it is in fact an "editorial" column which to me carries much more wait and is def encyclopedic as it shows how the general public (or at least it's representation from the editorial page at largest newspaper) feels about how the situation was handled. I also would like to disagree with your thinking that everything on Wiki should be "fact"...the key word is "verifiability" not "fact" and in this case it is perfectly acceptable to show the opinion of the most respected local editorial board and the article does not try to make this seem like any thing other than that. Take a look at the wiki guidelines if you'd like but this source is perfectly acceptable as long as it is stated who made the statement and it is from a credible 3rd party.Dirkmavs (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Still this article is about Joe Barron. If you type Joe Barron into the search box and click on Go, you will be directed to this article. That IMO needs to be fixed. Give him his own page with all the "gory" details in it. Just link to it. Like I said, this scandal probably has made him notable enough for his own article. The reason I first came to this article, was to find out more about Barron. When I first read this article, there was nothing about Barron, because it was being deleted over and over again. It's starting to look like you guys are wanting to hide the facts because it is embarrassing to your church. Information is the key here. Black collar crimes deserve to be handled factually. I believe that reporting such crimes factually will be a deterrant to it happening again. Sweeping it under the rug, does not help anyone. It most certaintly won't help any future victims. (It could have just as easily been a real girl in your church who was solicited instead of a cop 200 miles away. You guys got lucky.) I promise not to edit the article but I will comment on it here. 67.141.93.199 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about Joe Barron. The redirect which causes "Joe Barron" to redirect here is because people looking for Joe Barron will find a little information about him here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Then fix the redirect. I'm not going to do anything to this page. But, as long as the redirect is there, you are going to get vandalism. If that redirect was not there, you wouldn't even be dealing with me. That is probably the cause of so much woe. The editorial comment is not inforamtive and it's speculative. I'd just take it out entirely and mention that Barron was arrested. If Barron had a page of his own then you could just link to it. Someone had to put the redirect in there. It just doesn't happen because this page mentions Barron. It probably was redirected when Barron was in good standing at Prestonworld. 162.40.172.235 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It was redirected on May 19, 2008. It's not unusual for names in the news to get articles or redirects at the time of the news. In this case the person would have clearly failed AfD, so the person who created the redirect wisely chose not to go that route, and created a redirect instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

More history on the article: An article by the same name was speedy-deleted twice before for lack of notability. Here are the traffic statistics for the redirect for May and June. Stats from January and February show zero, which can't be right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The stats have to be zero for a time when my redirect didn't exist. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

They stats should be non-zero during the short time in late January and early February that short-lived articles existed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What if they were speedied in a few minutes? Or perhaps the pageview tool drops articles that have been deleted from its database? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are logical explanations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the DMN Editorial reference and quote

The purpose of the quote was to show the impact of this incident on the church's perception in the larger community. The church got out ahead of the incident, was open about it, and as a result, gained respect from at least one member of the press. If there is a way of saying this without citing that particular article, then feel free to replace the text with something else that gets the point across. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record my opinion is that you worded this very appropriately David. I actually still do not believe the entire story is encyclopedic and time will prove that, but I have agreed to leave for now based on the consensus of other editors and will revisit this later.Johnb316 (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please leave invisible WP:BLP warning

I re-added the invisible WP:BLP warning so new editors won't go off and add stuff about Rev. Joe without putting in a good citation. It happened once, it can happen again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight for arrest - maybe not now but in a few months

Right now we devote several lines to the recent arrest. It's too early to tell, but in a few months we should know if that is too much space. I'm going to tag it with an {{update after}} tag so the article will be looked at again before Labor Day. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I may have inadvertantly contributed to the WP:UNDUE issues in cleaning up what was there, so if somebody wants to trim that section down preemptively, that is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure the tone was encyclopedic and the sentences parseable (the "minister to married adults" in particular confused the hell out of me), and now that's done, feel free to choppy-choppy. -Jaysweet (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I still believe that this section of the article needs significant trimming. How is it that this one story takes up probably 40% of this page. If this is such a big deal to some editors then why not just start his own page and let it try to stand the test of time as encyclopedic. I personally continue to believe (as do other editors apparently) that in short time any mention of this incident on the Prestonwood page will not be encyclopedic and we will revisit that later I assume but for now what is wrong with a sourced, brief statement including Pastor Graham's reaction. I'm fine with or without the DMN editorial source although it does add something to the article in my opinion. The reader opinion however does not belong regardless of their opinion and if this is a sticking point then just delete all mention of DMN editorial.Johnb316 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnb, I think what you have now is very good. It states the controversy succinctly and neutrally. As davidwr mentions, if this ends up being an enduring story, we can update the article to include more coverage (or, as you mention, even create a separate page). But since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we shouldn't do that prematurely. I like this version for now. Good show! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization,addition of headline and subheadlines, and added content for balance for Joe Barron scandal

I've added a headline and subheadlines for the Joe Barron section. The section lacked balance on the communities reaction and it appeared to be a compilation of statements that didn't read like an encyclopedia. All of the content, at this point, is sourced and balanced. If you desire to add or delete anything from this section, please consider the notability/relevance and whether your addition or subtraction will make the section unbalanced. In the future, if this section's notability and relevance to the churches history should subside, we can remove the sections and include a sentence or two, as the Bill Webber incident is. But for now, this is still a current event, is still in progress, and the number of revisions, discussions, and edit warring that has happened suggest that this additional information to make the section balanced is needed.Romans9:11 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you beat me to the deletion, John. This version gives WAY to much space to this section. If you want to start separate page for Mr. Barron fine but this article is about Prestonwood Baptist Church.Dirkmavs (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a PR page for Prestonwood Baptist Church. Google it. Look how substantial this story is, and try to argue that the arrest of Minister Joe Barron isn't now a major part of the identity of this church. We are all sorry for those of you embarrassed by these events, but wikipedia is for information, not advertisement. (6/9/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.199.51 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Intent to ask for PP if edit wars resume

If edit wars resume, I intend to ask for PP for 3 days, followed by a few weeks of semi-protection. I strongly encourage all anonymous editors to register now so they will be able to edit the article when it is semi-protected. The 3 days will be long enough for new accounts to edit the article on the same terms as established editors, subject to 3RR sanctions and the like if they become necessary.

I sincerely hope the edit wars do not continue.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page without you asking. Toddst1 (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit war, and it's mostly being led by davidwr. It's sad to see a church abuse the rules of wikipedia to try to do damage control on their image. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for Prestonwood. - Jesse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.199.51 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Jesse. 209.183.51.45 (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

John Barron's title

I have been asked why I removed John Barron's title, "minister to married adults." The reason I did is because it was confusing to me. Not being someone who frequents megachurches, I had no idea that was a job title. I am not sure it is relevant anyway (seems like an unnecessary detail), but I am bringing it up here in case anyone else feels it should be included. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The only reason it was relevant is that it clearly indicated his job was not to minister to children or to the general church population: He had a specific job to do, and that job did not involve direct ministry to children. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See, that's another part of why I originally removed it, is I thought there was sort of a hidden apologist implication, and I thought it was a bit insidiously pov. But I dunno, I don't feel that strongly about it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that it would be worth noting that he was one of the married adult ministers just to avoid any confusion that he was the senior pastor...i'll let you decide David as i'm ok either way.Johnb316 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

copy editing questions (Wiki markup)

I have a question about copy editing on Prestonwood. In the first section (I think), the acreage and square miles, I wanted to add "&nbsp" to prevent a bad line break, but it came up as a Template and showed up wrong in Preview. I'm not sure how to fix that. Also, some citations I couldn't research because my computer crashes on some websites and I didn't want to lose my changes, so I requested Citation instead of inserting the reference myself (sorry). (I am hoping to convert to a different computer soon.) Thank you :) Dkon 12:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikonped (talk • contribs)

Sorry, thank you for fixing my oversight. I forgot to add my signature yesterday and was also distracted at the time (was interrupted).

Dikonped (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrongdoing section

Why is "A similar incident" addition in there - did I miss something? It seems to have nothing to do with Prestonwood story and has no citations. It also needs copy editing, but I didn't work on it because it appears unrelated to the specific Prestonwood topic and has no citations. Dikonped (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because it has nothing to do with Prestonwood, and is therefore completely tangential to the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Langworthy / Tynes scandal.

This section has twice been removed with no comment, though it seems both well-cited and relevant to the article's subject to me:

In June 1989, a youth music minister at Prestonwood Baptist Church, John Langworthy, admitted to church officials that he had molested at least one student in the late 1980s; he was quietly fired, but as Church Officials failed to report it to the authorities (as was required under the State Family Code), he was able to go on to become a youth music minister at Morrison Heights Baptist Church in Clinton, Mississippi. In March 2013, a decade-long church member, Chris Tynes, was ordered off church premises and reported to the police as a 'suspicious person' after asking about the Langworthy incident.

...would someone else weigh in on what they think? Would one of the people who's removing it explain why they feel it should be removed? --Aquillion (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not one of the removers, but I think it's probably because it's not really relevant, or places undue weight on the particular incident. While the wfaa and clarionleger sites may be reliable sources, but I don't think apbnews would be considered as one. There also seems to be an element of inference going on with the addition, which might be considered Original Research.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly as relevant as Joe Barron; a scandal that's covered in multiple major news outlets definitely qualifies. I can see what you mean about possibly waiting on the Tynes scandal to see if it's picked up in any other places, but I don't see any inferences from including Langworthy alone, and it's clearly newsworthy. (There is perhaps the conclusion that Langworthy was able to get another job working with children because Prestonwood failed to report him to authorities, but that's a conclusion drawn in both of the cited sources, so it's not original research.) Why do you think apbnews isn't a reliable source, though? --Aquillion (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and not relevant at all. If this was an encyclopedia on your bookshelf do you think for a second either one of these events or "scandals" as you call them would be listed...of course not. They are in no way representative of this church and are simply being added by those wishing to make this church look bad 216.62.217.90 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, apbnews looks like a number of religious "news" sites that is self-published w/o a professional editorial board or some sort of ombudsman function. As for relevance, the anon user has a point, though with clear POV bias. This really doesn't seem to be encyclopedic, and it probably runs into issues with undue weight. If it were an article about Langworthy, it would probably be relevant, but it's an article about a huge church that Langworthy worked at 24 years ago.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This section was once again added back and I have removed due to the above conversation. I'm sure it will be added yet again soon as this page is under a coordinated attack. I'm sure the next course of action is to try and ban this IP address even though nothing wrong has occurred and protocol of bringing it to the talk page has been followed 216.62.217.90 (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Langworthy scandal is relevant to the church because the church failed to fulfill their mandatory reporting requirements. Had they contacted authorities as required by law, this may have been long forgotten and there could possibly have been fewer downstream victims of Langworthy. This is why it's relevant to church history. --173.71.54.62 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Carter (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As Lyonscc stated, if this was a Wiki page for Langworthy it would probably be relevant but it's not 216.62.217.90 (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Langworthy's actions at the church, his removal, and the church's handling of them at the time (as revealed later) seem as relevant as the Joe Barron incident. Both involved persons in a position of power at the church. The Tynes incident, at this point, seems less worthy of inclusion. Carter (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you search the above user's IP 216.62.217.90 it is registered to the "church" so there's no neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.203.209 (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

if the church as an organisation were not directly involved in these events, then I believe it should not be on this Wikipedia page. As mentioned before in there was a page for longworthy it would belong on there. If this was a more individual issue, it shouldn't be on this page. Yes and the ip I have been reverting is from the church. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 21:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that key to the allegation is the question of how the church handled the initial Langworthy incident. The WFAA report notes that the church fired Langworthy, but did not report him to the police. They also allegedly worked to discourage victims from going to the police. (http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/Disturbing-revelations-about-former-Prestonwood-minister-127284918.html) 21:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [edited to add signature Carter (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)]

This clearly is an issue of conflicting views. I think it is best to get someone higher up involved. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 21:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This issue is a conflict of interest for IP address 216.62.217.90. The controversy does currently involve the church directly, as the church has still not given an answer as to why they did not report sexual abuse to the police authorities as required by Texas State law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.38.53 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Was alerted to this revert war and wanted to note that this is the only official Wikipedia user account of the church. The IP address that is posting does belong to the church and is from inside our building but we have hundreds of people at any given time in our Commons area connected to our free Wifi so comments from this IP address do not represent the church. Our account obviously agrees with the Prestonwood IP address in this particular argument of this not being relevant for inclusion on this page but we'll let others talk thru this Prestonwood (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned several times now, if this were a page for Langworthy this might make sense although it would still be alleged as he was only convicted for incidents in Mississippi. On this church page though it gives undue weight, contains all kinds of Original Research and is not neutral. There also seem to be some signs of tag teaming going on here which is worth watching. Dirkmavs (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

an incident has occurred within the church involving some type of sexual scandal. There is a discussion between the churches ip and members of Wikipedia if this : Between 1984 and 1989 John Langworthy was a youth minister at Prestonwood Baptist Church. On January 22nd, 2013, Langworthy pled guilty to five of eight felony counts of gratification of lust against young boys, receiving a suspended sentence of 50 years. He was also required to register as a sex offender. The offences occurred at Morrison Heights Baptist Church in Clinton, MS.[11] It was reported that Langworthy also admitted, in a pulpit confession, to prior sex offenses at Prestonwood Baptist Church. Some of the alleged victims made complaints to Prestonwood Church at the time, which were dealt with internally by church officials.[12] There are now allegations that Prestonwood Baptist Church covered up Langworthy's offenses by failing to report them to the proper authorities. [11] Should be in the article or not. Please refer to the discussion above.

Thanks for asking for help on this issue. For the record there is a lot of Original Research in this summary above not the least of these is that these are all "allegations" as it pertains to Prestonwood. Also, Mr. Langworthy pled guilty to charges from his time prior to coming to Prestonwood between 1980-1984 not after at Morrison Heights as is stated above 216.62.217.90 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The graf above needs some work, but according to the statement from Jack Graham, as reported by WFAA -- http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/Disturbing-revelations-about-former-Prestonwood-minister-127284918.html --, Langworthy did appear to have molested at least one teenager at Prestonwood. His confession from the pulpit mentioned children in Texas and Mississippi, and stated that he left Texas because of "indiscretions" at Prestonwood -- http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/11/27/former-prestonwood-ministers-attorney-wants-sex-abuse-case-dropped/. The guilty pleading mentioned above is connected to six men in Mississippi, prior to his arrival in Texas, but it was handled through the Mississippi court system. Crimes in Texas would not have standing. The WFAA report states that two Prestonwood teens had come forward. Langworthy was fired by the church, and the church did not report him to police as required, again according to the WFAA press report. All this seems to parallel in terms of relevance with the existing Joe Barton information that has remained on the page and is not in question here: A staff member is connected to contact or attempted sexual contact with a minor and then is fired, all of which is in the public record and acknowledged by the church. The additional issue with Langworthy is that the church was required to report him to the police and, according to press reports, did not. There is no original research in this; undue weight may be in play, but I'd say there's hardly been enough discussion here to warrant that finding. Carter (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It is very sad when this sort of thing happens and it hurts people connected with the church or organization involved but any article on Wikipedia has to be as complete as possible provided it is balanced. Furthermore, my thanks to the people who asked for the RfC. I want to make two points and follow them up with a suggestion:

1. Anyone connected with the Church (and this includes all users of the IP since they are on the premises and have some sort of contact with it) should declare the fact so that any potential conflict of interest is clear.
2. The recently eliminated section "Child Sex Abuse Controversy - John Langworthy" seems to me to be a little unbalanced. This article is not about him but the church.

I therefore suggest that the necessary additional information be added at the end of the section now entitled "Wrongdoing" as a separate paragraph which might run as follows: "In 2013 allegations were made that, in 1989, the church had failed to comply with the law by not reporting an alleged incident of abuse by the then music minister, John Langworthy, but simply dismissed him. In 2011, Langworthy admitted publicly that he had abused one of his young students in Plano during the late 1980's in a pulpit confession to the church. in Mississipi where he was then working and was later convicted of offences against teenagers in that state dating from the early 1980's.

Let me preface by saying that any abuse by a child is a horrible, horrible thing and i'm glad Mr. Langworthy is paying for his actions in Mississippi from the early 1980's. However, I still do not see how any of these allegations as they relate to Prestonwood are relevant and encyclopedic. These allegations are from 24 years ago and the church has been adamant that they handled it in their own words "forthrightly" and in no way tried to cover this up. Also the main WFAA story that keeps getting referenced is from August of 2011 so if it has not been relative for the past 20 months then why is it all of a sudden relative??? Dirkmavs (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

They're relevant and encyclopedic because the incidents and how the church handled them are part of the history of the church, same as the Joe Barton incident. As to why its become relevant now, someone recently noticed that it was missing, added it, an edit war started, and an RfD was made. Just because something's been missing from a Wikipedia article for a period of time doesn't mean it wasn't encyclopedic, just that no one had acted to include it. Carter (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with Carter's comments. While the church is satisfied that it dealt with the situation "forthrightly", this forthrightness did not apparently comply with the requirements of the legislation in force at that time. I would further point out that the story seems to be snowballing with the "Chris Tynes Saga". I proposed a brief statement of the facts earlier: Can you honestly maintain and demonstrate that anything in it is untrue? If they are true, then they are encyclopaedic in the sense that if there is an article on the Church, this is part of its history and should be included. Jpacobb (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

While I don't have a dog in this fight, I think this probably touches on undue weight territory, if not notability, in some regards, as well. Also, the length of time (24 years), along with the fact that the church did deal with the issue publicly (even if charges weren't properly filed with the police) makes it even less notable. Just because something is factual doesn't make it encyclopedic. If Wikipedia listed every sexual offense in a school, church or other public institution, their servers would collapse. In this particular case, I don't see that this is really all that notable in an encyclopedic sense, and the primary source that seems to be driving the story (abpnews) isn't a reliable source.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: "Notability" is not relevant here, it is a criterion for deciding whether or not there should be an article on any given subject. Once the article is created, material which does not meet WP:Verifiability excludes itself but the range of reliable sources widens.Jpacobb (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with Lyonscc. We're talking about nearly a quarter century timeframe here and the church has commented on their openness at the time of the firing of Mr. Langworthy. You can choose to not like their answer if you like, but the truth is the church said they responded "firmly", "forthrightly" and with no secrecy or coverup. There have been no legal issues with this case as it relates to Prestonwood nor will there be any impacting Prestonwood based on the WFAA investigate article previously mentioned due to the of statue of limitations being long gone. Also any attempts to tie this in with the Joe Barron section already on the wiki page are not good comparisons because 1. In this very talk page there is an old discussion about revisiting this issue down the road once we better know the impact for good or bad of Mr. Barron on the church (which i will soon initiate and will ask for input) but more importantly 2. Mr. Barron was charged with this crimes while an employee at Prestonwood whereas in the case of Langworthy all his charges are from Mississippi before he came to Texas. Dirkmavs (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Passage of time is irrelevant. Just because it's in the past doesn't mean it's not part of history. The Barron incident and Langworthy are notable in that they involvement church leaders. I'm a little concerned that the "impact for good or bad ... on the church" is being considered a standard for inclusion. That would seem to be veering pretty heavily into NPOV territory. As for the issue of Mississippi charges vs. a lack of Texas charges, Prestonwood acknowledged at least one incident connected to the church and dismissed him over it. That's a pretty straightforward connection. Carter (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If it is part of the church's history, and there is WP:RS coverage, then it should be included in the Article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have included a paragraph on the lines suggested above. I note that almost all Dirkmavs' edits are on this article page or that of the church's pastor Jack Graham (pastor) and sense there is a Conflict of Interest here.Jpacobb (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jpacobb. I'd suggest a slightly different text to make clear where the allegations came from:

In August 2011, John Langworthy confessed to sexual abuse of teenage boys in Mississippi and Texas over a period of 22 years, which encompassed his time as music minister at Prestonwood in the late 1980s. Following Langworthy's confession, questions were raised by SNAP as to the number of victims at Prestonwood, how the church reacted, and whether or not police were informed. According to a church statement, Prestonwood fired Langworthy in summer 1989 after after allegations that he "had acted inappropriately with a teenage student." Carter (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I put the events in that particular order because, so far as this article is concerned, the major issue is not Langworthy's actions in general, but the church's handling of what happened in Prestonwood. So I put it first, as the "lead" and to keep the balance so far as the subject of this article is concerned. If you can add extra RS material (which I think you can) or improve the presentation of the references, I'd appreciate it very much but I think my order is the more appropriate one in this context. Jpacobb (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'd say this really does fit into WP:UNDUE territory. Typically, pages about existing organizations (like churches, schools, etc.) have been treated in Wikipedia similar to Biographies of Living Persons, in terms of threshhold for including/excluding information. I only referenced WP:NOTABLE, because that also tends to be referenced at times for BLP inclusive items. ReformedArsenal wrote, "If it is part of the church's history, and there is WP:RS coverage, then it should be included in the Article." - this is not a standard for any item in Wikipedia - just because something is true and has WP:RS coverage doesn't make it automatically relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia. If this was the case, then churches could list every clothing drive, homeless mission, etc. that gets reported in a local paper/news station, etc. in Wikipedia. In the same way that WP discourages self-promotion in biography and organization pages, it also discourages the opposite, particularly in tangential matters.

In this case, we are talking about an event 24 years ago in which this organization released a staff member for wrongdoing (which isn't really notable, by itself, absent a larger pattern), and erred in not reporting him to the authorities (which, if you look back to 1989, was not the public awareness issue that it is now). Most certainly, this was very damaging to the victim, but even so, it is not really encyclopedic for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also - (as mentioned above) - ABP News isn't a WP:RS.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's clear there's disagreement as to the encyclopedic value. A list of every clothing drive and date wouldn't be encyclopedic, but if ministering and serving homeless persons is part of the church's ministry, including that would be worthy. Can you articulate why you think ABP News isn't a WP:RS? They look to have a strong organizational structure, an independent board of directors, staff includes professional journalists, and a 23-year history. They're a specialty press, but I don't see anything that doesn't make them a WP:RS News Organization http://www.abpnews.com/about Carter (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In the past, I've tried a few times to use them in a WP:BLP (I think Rick Warren's was one of them), and it was shown that a number of their 'news' articles are published without editorial review, and that a number of their hard news articles were actually opinion pieces. As such, they were nixed, so I've never used them since. As for inclusions of homeless ministries, women's shelters, etc., they've been deemed in the past as self-promotion (when specifically listed out, beyond passing mention). In reality, what is missing with the Langworthy incident is a pattern of wrongdoing on the part of Prestonwood. For an egregious example - the Catholic church Priest/sex-abuse scandals were significantly notable because there was a discernible, long-term pattern of tolerating sexual abuse (on the part of the Church hierarchy) and not firing employees guilty of wrongdoing. It was the pattern and the systemic neglect that made the abuse notable. In the case of Langworthy, Prestonwood's involvement was neither negligent (they immediately released Langworthy when the allegations came to light) nor was it systemic. Show me any organization - regardless of vocation, secular or sacred - with 50 employees and 25 years of operation, and I'll guarantee you that someone has been fired/removed from them for criminal reasons. That's not news or encyclopedic. If the fired individual has a Wikipedia page, it is likely to be perfect for inclusion on that page. Without a larger pattern of abuse/neglect, though, the parent organization isn't really responsible, nor is the event really notable enough for inclusion in its Wiki article.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Scanning several recent articles on ABPnews, there seems a clear delineation between news pieces and opinion pieces (although that doesn't mean people haven't tried to use opinion pieces inappropriately as WP:RS). Can you point to specific articles that demonstrate the bias you're attributing to them? Carter (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The ABP"news" is nothing more than a blog with the sole purpose of writing anti-Southern Baptist, anti-conservative Baptist, anti-Mega church, etc, etc, etc opinion pieces. It's hard to understand i realize if you don't understand Baptist politics 216.62.217.90 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit that I don't understand/follow Baptist politics, but ABPnews is clearly more than a blog. To be clear, there is an ABPnews Blog (http://www.abpnews.com/blog/) and there are opinion pieces on the site to (just like most newspapers have an op-ed page, but there's also straightforward news reporting on the site, and that's what was being used as a WP:RS in this article. Carter (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

While I don't know that I can comment on their particular "slant", every appearance of the site is that it is self-published and is privately maintained. It is clearly being run on a Wordpress self-publishing site, and is not a professional news organization, which means that it is not a Reliable Source--Lyonscc (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

They're not using Wordpress. View source on their page and you can see they're using Joomla as their CMS, which is pretty widely used by a wide range of associations and groups. At the risk of being rude, I'm not convinced by your assessment of them as not WP:RS. Carter (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

When I dig into a number of ABP's pages (or open subsections in full-screen), I get a "powered by Wordpress" notice at the bottom. Additionally, they have no physical publications, advertisers, an ombudsman or other items you would expect from an actual news site, nor does their content seem to go through any sort of editorial peer review. I continued to dig into their archives last night, and they're little more than a well-dressed 'discernmentalist' site with some of their content written more neutrally, so as to appear to be fact-based. Even so, there is nothing on the site that identifies policies/processes/information that would lead one to conclude that this is a legitimate WP:RS. Instead, it would be most accurately categorized as WP:SPS.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting quite far afield considering that there are WFAA and KTVT sources that are not in dispute as to reliability, and that Prestonwood does not dispute the fact that Langworthy was dismissed from the church following allegations of inappropriate contact with a teenaged church member. That said, please provide a link for the sort of page you're referring to; I see no mentions of WordPress on the news sections of the site. As to your other statements: They do accept advertising and have at least one banner ad running across the top of site pages (Journey to the Cross); it does have print reach through partnerships with regional publications, including Word & Way; they run corrections; they have a strong institutional structure; there is a clear labeling of opinion vs. news material; etc. Trying to dismiss them as WP:SPS and calling them "just a blog" is disingenuous. Carter (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that use of abpnews is a tangential issue. I did miss the (single) advert, so you're correct on that, though they also clearly state that it is entirely volunteer-staffed (supporting my contention that it is not a professional publication). As for examples, if you look at a number of the current "top stories" - like the one about Bobby Jindal and the Louisiana tax changes, the article is primarily an opinion piece couched as hard news. In no way does this look like a hard news site that could be used as a primary or secondary source. At best, they reference mostly secondary sources and repackage them for their audience. And yes, they are a WP:SPS, which is not a knock on them, just a statement of fact. If this is a hill you really want to die on, we can go through the WP arbitration processes, starting with getting a third opinion.

Going back to the subject of Prestonwood, which would make the abpnews item moot, you've not demonstrated that it is encyclopedic. Just because something is factual doesn't make it encyclopedic. In the case of Prestonwood and Langworthy, the story is about Langworthy, not Prestonwood. If there was a case of coverup and retaining a known felon, or a systematic pattern of abuse, this would be about Prestonwood. As it is, though, it is not. Even the Barron bit is more a case of recentism, where Prestonwood was completely in the right in the actions it took, and probably shouldn't be included, either.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look a little more carefully at APBnews. On http://www.abpnews.com/about it clearly states "The work of ABPnews is performed by four full-time staff members, plus a development associate who serves in a shared position with the Baptist Standard newspaper. Another member of the team provides social media expertise on a contract basis." That's a paid professional staff of six. It is the board of directors are volunteers, which is common for nonprofit boards of directors. If this is the Jindal article you're referring to, http://www.abpnews.com/culture/politics/item/8306-la-faith-leaders-oppose-tax-plan#.UUwt6hfvuSp , then it's a report on church leaders' letter opposing Jindal's budget; that's not an opinion piece its reporting on a response of interest to APBnews readers to the budget. The reporter isn't taking a stance; he's reporting on a stance that people in a position to speak for their congregations are taking. Compare to this article from The Advocate (the main newspaper in Baton Rouge) -- http://theadvocate.com/home/5467931-125/clergy-deliver-concerns-about-tax . If you want to request a WP:3O, I'm fine with that. You may have run into a problem with it as a source in the past, reporters do get things wrong sometimes, but it's pretty clear that APBnews is meets the WP:RS standard.

As to the new claim of Recentism, maybe that's valid, maybe it's not. That's a hard one to argue for/against since there's a lot of subjectivity. As I said, I'd think both Langworthy and Barron, given their positions within church leadership, are notable and how they were dealt with are relevant to the history of the church. Again, if you want to invoke WP:3O fine, but we should probably hash out text first. One thing that does strike me is that the "Wrongdoing" section head is imprecise, implying wrongdoing by Presonwood. Perhaps it should be "Staff Wrongdoing" or "Scandals Involving Prestonwood Staff". Carter (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct - I misread the paragraph regarding unpaid staff. That makes it a slightly better source, though it still appears to be fairly unaccountable when compared to WP-accepted reliable sources, and it does still have a number of features of self-published sources. If it were critical to include something from the source, I'd want it to go through arbitration, just so that we have it well-documented the next time someone wants to use abpnews we know whether to accept or reject it as an RS.

And yes, WP:RECENT has a degree of subjectivity, and one of the tests I've seen admins use is to say "in 50 years, will this still matter enough for inclusion"? Will it accurately reflect the story of the article's subject?" In this particular case, absent a larger story (coverup, systematic abuse, etc.), I think it's pretty clear that it's a no on inclusion of this type of information, be it Prestonwood Baptist Church or Podunk City High School.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing WP:SPS, maybe WP:NEWSBLOG for some parts of ABPnews, but the bulk of it falls clearly as WP:RS. It's clear you don't like the source, but you keep moving the goalposts. As for WP:RECENT the standard is 10 years, not 50. How about as a compromise include Langworthy (text still to be TBD) and add a {{Recentism}} tag for the entire Wrongdoing section? Carter (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

How about as a compromise, we leave Langworthy out until a pattern is established or a coverup is proven?--Lyonscc (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me. It will clear up most of the controversy, because it will be more notable, have better sources available, and won't be accused of recentism. If this explodes into a major scandal in the mainstream media, it will also be clear of undue weight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'll defer to waiting/watching. Carter (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Abuse by a communicant member of a church is not the church itself. The section on Langworthy may be linked to on a generic abuse page for that particular church in that particular region of the USA. Australia (yesterday) just commenced a national inquiry into this matter, and I suspect the same principle applies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Institutional_Responses_to_Child_Sexual_Abuse refers. Whiteguru (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue with Langworthy is that he was part of the church leadership not just a communicant member of the church. To me, wrongdoing by a church leader and how the church handles it seems relevant to the church's page. Carter (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I just want to make it clear that I am John Carter, not the "Carter" listed above. I really think that it probably would have been, and might be still, a good idea to list this RfC in the Economy, trade, and companies section as well, because I think that whatever standards apply to other businesses who have had what are, effectively, their corporate officers convicted of crimes relating in some way to their activities with the firm would probably be relevant here as well. Having said that, I do think that the inclusion of at least some material relating to this topic should be included in the article, although, honestly, I am less sure how much material that should be. That would honestly depend on having a better idea of the total range of non-local reliably sourced material there is on this subject, and I'm not sure we have that yet. I definitely think "Wrongdoing" is the wrong title for the section, though, because, given the scope of the article, it seems to implying "wrongdoing" by the church itself, which is not the case here. "Legal issues of staff" or something similar, maybe using some sort of stronger word than "issues," considering that there is a conviction here, would probably be more informative and less likely to be misleading. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Political advocacy section

The political advocacy section has been twice deleted by people who don't feel it's particularly relevant to the Church; one comment was that "Hundreds if not thousands of churches are involved in political advocacy." While this is true, we cover it in their articles, when it becomes noteworthy enough to attract coverage from reliable sources; since it has here, I can't particularly see any good reason to exclude it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted again with the argument that "other churches don't have political advocacy sections." This is not always true, of course; they have advocacy sections when their politics has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Remember, whether or not other stuff exists is not itself always a useful argument, because different topics have different contexts -- you have to be willing to argue that the coverage here is not unusual (and therefore doesn't make this aspect noteworthy. I don't feel that that's the case here; the coverage, in this case, is sufficient to justify a section devoted to it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There are so many problems with this recent addition to the page. It's not relevant, it places undue weight, and maybe most importantly it’s a classic case of recentism. Also, two of the references used are pages that no longer exist. Dirkmavs (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Alleged cover-up of sexual misconduct

I propose adding information related to Graham's alleged cover-up of sexual assault at Prestonwood Baptist in 1989. The following paragraph was previously removed with no explanation. I have since added more documentation and pasted it below.

In May 2022, Guidepost Solutions released an independent report alleging that Dr. Graham "allowed an accused abuser of young boys to be dismissed quietly in 1989 without reporting the abuse to police. The accused abuser, John Langworthy, later was charged with abusing young boys in Mississippi in 2011."

Yayfrogs (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems pretty well-sourced; I can't see any reason to omit it from the article. I'd also suggest reviewing some of the discussions above (especially seeing if we can find additional sources for stuff that was previously removed) - right now the article omits almost all coverage of the church. I'm especially concerned, in retrospect, that it seems like large amounts of material have been removed from this page by someone whose username suggests they have a WP:COI - if there's no objection I think I'm going to go back and restore the things they removed themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Lots of updates on this page of late. I don't currently have time to sift through them all, but it appears at a glance that there's been an effort to downplay the sexual assault stuff. Could you take a peek and provide your opinion? Yayfrogs (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. I noticed similar behavior at Jack Graham’s bio page. A similar block of text was removed there, too, but entirely without explanation. (Also in the Talk section.) A quick skim suggests conflict of interest there, too. Yayfrogs (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

References