Talk:First Baptist Church of Hammond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. The expectation is that Vivaldi, Arbustoo, and other editors of these articles will in the course of editing remove poorly sourced controversial material.

Please use this area for discussions concerning this Wikipedia entry on First Baptist Church of Hammond.

Contents

[edit] History

a section about its history should be added. I may add one. Others should contribute.

[edit] Ministries

A section listing ministries and a brief description of each should be added. I may add one. Others should contribute

I contributed to the Ministries and Outreach section. It also needs expansion and linkages, since I know this is not the full extent of the ministries of this church.


[edit] Controversies

I have added the "totallydisputed" tag to this wiki. If the anti-Hyles people edit all these Hyles-related entries so much so that 75 percent of the information presented is concerning their anti-Hyles "controvery information", something is wrong and additional sections need to be added to balance out this kind of one-sidedness. --68.73.80.116 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Improve it then. Arbustoo 01:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note on sources

A editor just added a totally disputed tag to the page. For interested parties on the sources visit www.Chicagotribune.com search archives for Jack Hyles and you will find the sources in the article. To read the articles you must register.Arbusto 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC) The search that comes up is:

  1. BY: Capsules were compiled by Nathan Baird, Henry Del Valle,Chicago Tribune; Nov 18, 2002; 14;
  2. REV. JACK HYLES LED BUS MINISTRY James Janega, Tribune Staff Writer; Chicago Tribune; Feb 9, 2001; 11;
  3. No investigation of church in abuse cases, police say Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 24, 1993; 3;
  4. Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case Chicago Tribune wires.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Oct 16, 1991; 3;
  5. Newspaper feud adds fuel to preacher's fire Eric Zorn.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Jun 30, 1989; 1;
  6. Charges all lies, Hammond pastor says Michael Hirsley, Religion writer.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 28, 1989; 3;
  7. Charges All Lies, Hammond Pastor Says Hisley, Michael; Chicago Tribune; May 28, 1989; 2C3;
  8. Pastor denies adultery, 2 other charges Michael Hirsley, Religion writer.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 25, 1989; 1;
  9. Pastor Denies Adultery, 2 Other Charges Hirsley, Michael; Chicago Tribune; May 25, 1989; 11;

[edit] Disputed tag

Since there is no evidence on this talk page of what facts are supposedly in dispute, and since verifiable citations have been provided for them, I suggest the tag is removed. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Disputed" tag should remain because Arbustoo has added an enourmous amount of negative data to this wiki, and other wikis relating to Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College and First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana and other editors are disputing it, including me. The explaination for adding the "Disputed" tag is in the discussion area of the Jack Hyles Wiki, which I list here:
As a reply / response to your questioning of this tag, please note that the "manner of presentation" of the controvery is an issue and is not written in a NPV, also, the sheer quantity of "controvery" data as presented in relation to other Hyles information on this wiki gives readers a distict feeling that the page has been hijacked by those with a grudge against this man. Also, you are in effect trying to get readers to come to a conclusion that Hyles is guilty of all these charges, simply because someone accused him and those accusations were published in the press. Yes, I'd say a lot of people who supported Jack Hyles have a problem with your efforts to discredit him and his ministry and a lot of people dispute the facts as you present them here, hence, the disputed tag. Try writing your controvery sections in a NPV, adjust the sheer amount of data downward to reflect a more reasoned presentation when compared to the other data here (or increase the other data here to compensate for the large amount of controvery data, and don't try to lead readers into false conclusions based upon such juvanile reasoning as "the press quoted the accusations, therefore it must be true". --Teeja 01:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't say he's guilty or the color purple. It offers facts that Jack was accused of this, Ballenger connected to Jack raped a 7 year old, and Jack was sued for various things. Whether he's innocent or not, it comes from a credible source and will be included. Also don't edit/add to my posts or titles. Arbustoo 02:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course you didn't say he's guilty, but that is obviously what you are trying to get readers to believe, and you are having an aweful struggle to write anywhere near a NPV style here. Your edits have proven that you indeed want readers to draw this faulty conclusion, but your conclusion is not a valid nor logical fact. Guilt by accusation is not the way things work in the United States and many civilized countries. The whole point is that all these things are in dispute, not the existance of the press reports you cited. --Teeja 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, the tag should not be removed, and doing so would constitute vandalism. --Teeja 18:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The tag you add claims "factual accuracy of this article are disputed." How is the accuracy disputed? You are claiming the "amount" of criticism is POV. That is not factual dispution. The tag will be removed if you cannot prove that the Chicago Tribune is a disputed source. Arbusto 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Much of the information you have currently in the controversy section is not from a reliable or neutral source and is therefore not a valid factual source for a Wikipedia entry. As examples, the paragraph concerning Bob Ross and the associated backup documentation is not from a reliable news source, rather, it's from a completely biased and dubious web site (www.kjvonly.org); also, the quotes supported by The Biblical Evangelist are not a reliable source, since it was this paper's editor (Robert Sumner) who first launched the public attack upon Jack Hyles in 1989 - hardly an unbiased and pristine source - Mr. Sumner has a deep personal axe to grind here; also, all the information supported by the Way of Life Ministries footnotes are unreliable and highly opinionated, but yet you have it listed here like it's a legitimate news source; also, the section on Joe Combs should not even be here, this is like suggesting that because Joe Combs used to be member of First Baptist Church many years ago, the church is now somehow responsible for Mr. Combs' actions. That's very poor logic and does nothing but try to lead readers into a false conclusion. All these things together add up to a GREAT dispute of the facts as you have presented them here. The "Dispute" tag will remain; this is a dispute of the facts, not just a NPV concern. --Teeja 20:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You are too busy removing stuff and not reading it. For example, you are claiming the Combs piece has not business in the article. If you take the time to read it, the connection is: one babysitter testified "that they suspected Esther was mistreated but didn't want to contradict Combs, who had been their Bible professor at Hyles Anderson College." Furthermore, the other babysitter testified she "reported her suspicions to the college president, but apparently nothing was done, she said." Considering Hammond Baptist controls the school and this was reported in a court of law, it is very relevant to the article. Arbusto 08:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, please don't ask me to "prove that these things didn't happen". You are the one using this Wiki entry as a list of grievances - the burden of proving these wild accusations using valid sources is upon you. --Teeja 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Teeja, the article on Adolf Hitler also contains mainly critical data. OK, this church is not the Nazi party, but the data is verifiable and appears to be stated in neutral terms. Which data do you think should be excluded as trivial, or alternatively what additional data do you think should be included? And what grievance does Arbustoo have here? Other than a general tendency to look for (and find) data to balance hagiographic articles I don't see he has any particular agenda here. Just zis Guy you know? 21:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, you guys win. Congratulations, Arbustoo, your steadfast efforts have paid off for you. This is a big waste of time and effort. Arbustoo has too many editor friends and admins who are willing to defend his warped view of what constitutes "facts" and valid sources. He also has so much time on his hands that nothing can be done to stop him from using the Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church and Hyles-Anderson College and related wikis as a forum for his grievances. I'm done editing this wiki. It's all yours. In the long run, reasonable readers will see right through this kind of one-sided article, anyway. Nice try at keeping the "community spirit" and "cooperative efforts" of Wikipedia. That's nothing but a joke, it seems, at least on these entries. Good luck and happy editing. --Teeja 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a competition. This not about being "anti-Jack Hyles." This is about sources. If you want to add a tag that questions the sources, you must give a reason. You were given the chance, you did not. You were asked to give an example, you did not. You were given a chance to remove the tags yourself, you did not. Your bias is very clear. You are personally involved with this church and another editor as you admitted on your talk page. Arbusto 02:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks to me like he did give a reason for questioning your sources, with examples (try reading the above paragraphs). --68.78.120.207 13:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Where? I asked Teeja to specify which facts should be omitted, which are provably false, which are missing. No answer, just a lot of arm-waving. I'm serious about wanting this article to be neutral, right now it looks as if FBC is a business run for the benefit of high-rolling pastors, if that's not the case then we need real verifiable facts to balance it out. It's not going to be fixed if those who support the place are just going to shout abuse from the sidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You guys are not all interested in verifiable anything. We have corrected Arbustoo's junk with a more balanced view, only to have his junk reinstated again and again, supported by his admin friends, who state that we are "valdalizing" the wiki. This seems to be nothing more than a hatchet job against this church and it's ministries, simply because it's fundamentalist Christian beliefs don't fit into your world view. All anyone needs to do is check out Arbustoo's editing history to confirm that. Of course, he'll reply with a lot of arm waving himself, I'm sure. Arbustoo posts a bunch of unverified, unsourced, or poorly-sourced data against the church and college and gets a few of his editor and admin buddies to back him up, who now say that it's somehow the church supporters who must constantly be on guard against his 24/7 misinformation spree and if they don't spend hours and hours and hours correcting Arbustoo's junk, (which only gets reinstated anyway), they deserve what they get. That sir, is not fair. --68.21.178.199 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you start with something specific? Speaking in broad general terms will get this discussion nowhere. Pick a single point - just one, and dispute it. Argue against the source, it's factuality; provide a counter-source, whatever. Maybe you don't have "hours and hours", but with a little effort over time you can improve the quality of the article. --Awcga 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I really enjoy the personal attacks. First this anon. editor claims there is a conspiracy behind "unsource" attacks, then I source the article and provide independent sources and I become part of the conspiracy. Anon. IP, attacking me does nothing for your case. This is about facts. If you can't dispute them you don't have a case.
User:68.21.178.199, how have you "corrected Arbusto's junk with a more balanced view"? Please support assertion with a citation. The only thing you have done is removed cited information from newspapers. You have not "corrected" anything.
For those interested, I finally listened to the "preying from the pulpit." There are some very disgusting quotes by Hyles and his son-in-law who is defending the convicted child molester (AV Ballenger). Arbusto 01:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again: what, specifically, is the issue? I've seen a whitewash, and that was clearly unacceptable, but I haven't seen any credible refutation of the content Arbustoo has added. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Consideing the amount of cited documentation for the "disputed" sections, I'm removing the disputed tag. If citations are available that amplify or conflict with the information already provided, those citations should be added to the "Controversy and criticism" section. Justin Eiler 05:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete Article

I attended First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, as a young sailor during the Fall of 1984. For years, I had heard of Jack Hyles (I remember my pastor giving high school graduates from his school a copy of Hyles' "Blue Denim and Lace."). I was quite willing to make the 100-mile bus ride from Great Lakes, Illinois to First Baptist Church every Saturday so that I could attend church services there on Sunday.

There are many things about First Baptist Church of Hammond that have not been mentioned in this article, but the article is lop-sided with controversial negative statements regarding the church--criticism identical to that found on the page regarding Jack Hyles. Considering the all these controversies regard the career of Jack Hyles, it is odd that little else is said about a church that is more than 100 years old. It is all the more odd, considering that I never heard of any of these allegations until 1988. All those years that I heard of Jack Hyles, and heard his detractors, but no one brought these kind of charges into the public until then. They sound so out of character for him.

The statements made by the news media would have more weight with me if I had not witnessed their attacks on Jack Hyles for several years prior to these allegations. They always were looking for something to bring him down. Remember the time that FBCH gave out chicks (that is, baby chickens) to the Sunday School students? A newspaper editor called Hyles directly and accused him of cruelty to animals. Pastor Hyles replied that he had done even worse. The editor asked what he had done. Hyles replied, "I ate their mother!" Something similar happened when the Sunday School gave away guppies (small fish) to the Sunday School students. The newspaper was up in arms about the little fishes flopping around in the dwindling puddles in the parking lot.

When my sister was an aide to Pastor Hyles, about the same time that these allegations began to surface, I asked her about the allegations of sexual misconduct. She said they were untrue. She still attends FBCH, along with her husband (who she met at Hyles-Anderson Christian College) and her 4 children. Her two oldest children are now students in the day school run by FBCH.

I think that it is appropriate to be highly skeptical of such scandalous accusations against someone of Jack Hyles' stature. For the reason I mentioned, newspaper reports aren't very useful. Hyles attracted a lot of enemies, so it is natural there would be people who would try to destroy his reputation. Of more weight is the word of Robert Sumner, a man with whom I have had direct, though brief, communication. I have never attended Pastor Sumner's church, or sat under his preaching, but I have corresponded with him via mail and a Web forum. From what I know of him, he is an honest man, but I simply don't know either him or Hyles well enough to decide who is more reputable. The article mentions court cases brought against Hyles, but it does not state the deposition of those cases. As far as I know, no one was able to convince a jury that Jack Hyles was responsible for all these things of which he is accused.

This issue is highly controversial, even within Christian fundamentalism. I know of several leaders within fundamentalism who never spared Jack Hyles from criticism. Several of his fellow preachers around the world simply did not like him, and easily accepted these reports when they came out. But, there are many other people who are fiercely defensive of Jack Hyles. It is not easy to tell who is fighting for the truth.

Yes, there is a lot of controversy surrounding Jack Hyles, but all this encyclopedic article has done is repeat a lot of rumors and reports; there is very little fact-finding. For example, I am told that the controversy over the seeing-eye dog was instigated by the dog relieving himself in the church aisle. And, in a group with 20,000 people, there probably are going to be a few bad apples, so naming some doesn't mean much.

There should be some mention in the article of the number of buildings and ministries operated by the church, and of the range the bus routes cover. It would be nice to add some history, such as the fact that the neighborhood surrounding FBCH used to be a red-light district, which the church under Jack Hyles bought and converted to church buildings. Indeed, the Sailor Ministry building, which I have visited, used to have such a sordid history.

It would also be good to mention that if the Spanish Ministry at First Baptist Church of Hammond were to form their own church, it would be one of the largest congregations in the nation.

Pooua 07:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add positive information. Just make sure they are sourced. Arbusto 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW: The whole thing about "the seeing-eye dog was instigated by the dog relieving himself in the church aisle" I don't buy. Even if it did happen why ban a person from church because of the dog's mistake- a dog he needs. Then why not even take the time to explain your position with something other than a "no comment." If you have a uncitation it should be included, but without a concrete source to back it up from a paper it seems like something told to justify it after the act. Arbusto 19:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buglary Story

Yes, that story is true, but this isn't even the Hyles-Anderson Wiki, and they were former students (according to the text). This is only remotely related to the church. Are you going to include every story about a person associated with FBC Hammond? I doubt it. It would make this Wiki extremely large and off topic. You seem to be trying to post anything negative that you can find - however remotely related.] Stay on topic.

You seem to be trying to post anything negative that you can find - however remotely related. Stay on topic.

Wiki users can go here to see how you obsess over these FBC related topics.

Kalmia 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do stay on topic. The article states "former students" and it deals with the church, its leaders, and its attorney.[1] It stays. I'd add positive news articles, but haven't found any. If you do please add them. Stop removing cited sources. Arbusto 02:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • First off, DON'T EDIT MY COMMENTS ON THE TALK PAGE. If you want to respond, do so. But your editing of my comments shows that you are trying to hide your real motives.
  • Secondly, you reverted the section I had on ministries. It shows that you are bent on making this nothing but an attack page. Your large sections obout people with weak allegations have stayed but that isn't enough for you. If you you won't let others add non-negative information, then there is no reason to let your phony scandle section stay.
  • I'll start adding some info about remotely related events. See how full of clutter this becomes. Why don't you just state your true motivations. You say you can't find other stories? I assume you are unable to use the search engines.
  • It isn't about positive or negative. It's about relevancy. But according to you, anything negative is relative. Kalmia 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Kalmia, anyone who wants to see Arbusto's edit history can see it trivially easy without using Interiot's tool, just click "user contributions" (or type Special:Contributions/Arbustoo). I would suggest that Arbusto's edits display a good grip of policy, and who cares if he has decided to fight whitewashing of Southern Fundamentalist articles? Is that beter or worse than Talk edits saying that Dick Mountjoy has a funny name? You will find that several admins are watching these articles fairly closely. Just zis Guy you know? 10:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to whitewash anything. Maybe some others here have, but not me. Arbustoo deletes almost anything that isn't scandal related. I post relevant information about FBC and he deletes it.
Should every college/university student that commits a crime have his story posted to his schools Wikipedia article? It would make every article cluttered and useless. And this Wiki isn't even for the school.
BTW, Lake County, Indiana isn't in the South. Kalmia 11:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Individually? No. A "crime spree" by a group all of whom are alumni? Of an institution which prides itself on inculcating a strong moral code? Absolutely. Just zis Guy you know? 13:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. It is not notable when 2 out of 100,000 members of a church have committed burglarly. I believe every college would say they try instill a strong moral code in their students. I know lots of public and private universities that are not bible colleges that state just as much in their course catalogs and on their web pages. Vivaldi (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links and Related issues

Please explain why we need links to every single one of their little ministry pieces and why we need things like who the 5th grade principal is? JoshuaZ 03:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It's info related to the church. It's more relevant than some of the other things that Arbustoo insists on including. I deleted his scandal section because he keeps deleting my edits. Go ahead and leave the scandal section, but quit removing my edits.
I agree that the ministries section needs to be cleaned up, but quit removing it.
The Links at the bottom are relevant. Some of you insist on making this Wiki nothing but a scandal page.
Kalmia 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Add substance then. Adding a list of links is what WP:ISNOT. Arbusto 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • An "External Links" section at the bottom of a page is in keeping with the format of most Wiki pages. Kalmia 09:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As long as it contains a few links to relevant sites. But when they are all links to the organisation's own programs and are available from the official website, it's unnecessary. Just zis Guy you know? 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Explain to me why linking to First Baptist Church OFFICIAL ministry web sites, on the First Baptist Church Wiki is not appropriate? Any reasonable person can see that if I'm writing an article about an organization, a link to that organization's OFFICIAL web site(s) should be included in the article, especially if you MENTION the individual ministries on the wiki. How can you not see that? The fact is that it's a link to an OFFICIAL church web site, which is not only allowable on Wikipedia, it should be almost standard that if you're going to mention a church ministry on a wiki, and that ministry has an OFFICIAL web site, you should include a link to that OFFICIAL web site in the interest of providing information to the readers. It adds no more text - just a link to those who want to check out the OFFICIAL web site. --68.78.123.184 13:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Because the OFFICIAL title of this article is OFFICIALLY First Baptist Church of Hammond, not ministries of FBC, and OFFICIALLY per WP:EL we include links as sources and a link to the OFFICIAL website of the subject if it has one - which it does, and we link it, both as the OFFICIAL website and as a source. The ministries are linked from the OFFICIAL website and that's fine. We do not need multiple links to the OFFICIAL websites of every OFFICIAL sub-ministry of the OFFICIAL subject. WP:NOT a link farm: OFFICIAL. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • JzG, your anti-Hyles bias is obvious here. As evidence, you edited out what you called the "hyles fansite" link (edited on 13:37, 22 July 2006 by JzG) with your edit summary of "Hyles fansite can go on the Hyles article"... and you DID NOT edit out the 2 anti-Jack Hyles links under the "Criticism" section? Seems to me that you're more than willing to edit pro-Hyles links OUT of the article, while maintaining all the anti-Hyles links.--68.73.92.247 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see. Links that present Jack Hyles in a positive light are spam; links that bash Jack Hyles are "well-documented sources". Ok. Got it. At least I know what your definition of "spam" is now. Also, I see you deleted the entire FBC editing discussion on your talk page, JzG, so no one would be able to see that I clearly documented your bias against Jack Hyles. It's there for anyone who wants to check it out. I encourage readers to go to your talk page and see your wholesale deletions that were made by you (16:45, 22 July 2006). (More proof that you're abusing your Admin authority to bury the truth). Yeah, you sure are unbiased, there, buddy.--68.73.92.247 18:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeing eye dog

If you are going to add "details" please cite them[2]. Your edit contains claims that are not in the article you listed as a reference. Also I was not aware that the Disablities Act allows people with disablities (including their assistance animals) access to everywhere able-bodied people can go with the exception of the Hammond church. A reference on such a claim is needed. Arbusto 08:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • There you go again with your statist POV, defending unconstitutional laws like the Americans_with_Disabilities_Act. And if you say that it is constitutional, you obviously haven't read the Constitution or have no ability to understand it (like most American idiots).
First of all, NO, They are allowed to exclude dogs. Those buildings were built well before the Americans_with_Disabilities_Act and they are church buildings. Secondly, you show your stupidity when you cite the "Disablities Act" to claim that FBC should have been forced to allow dogs into their buildings in 1984. Kalmia 09:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I was wrong on the ADA date. Care to reference a 1984 or pre-1984 citation for the claim you added? Arbusto 09:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Dogs are banned from most public buildings and almost all establishments selling food in the UK. Except for guide dogs, which are (in as far as I can tell) always excepted from any no dogs rule. Do you not think that standing on the letter of the law in order to exclude guide dogs reflects poorly on a church? A church banning guide dogs? I have never come across that from the humblest chapel to the great Cathedrals of England. Do you think St Peter has a "no dogs" sign at the pearly gates? I'm guessing not. Just zis Guy you know? 09:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know, and I don't really care. It is their property to use or misuse how they want. Is this still a rule at FBC? I don't know. I personaly don't want strange dogs around me. If I were there, it would probably have bothered me.
This was obviously an overblown story.Kalmia 09:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
So you say, but I find it significant. I can't think of any comparable example of a church essentially barring a disabled person in this way. Since it is sourced and several editors think it is pertinent, it has a place in the article. Just zis Guy you know? 10:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So leave the section, but my edit to it should stay too. I guess what you and Arbustoo find relevant stays, but what I find relevant gets reverted. Kalmia 11:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that there is a policy against dogs is implied, though. Why else make a fuss? Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that there is a policy against dogs is implied, though. Why else make a fuss? Because that is what sells newspapers! Perhaps the guy had a history of all sorts of bad behaviour in the Church. There is nothing that was said by anyone at FCH that indicates that seeing eye dogs are in general banned from the church. Vivaldi (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"Perhaps" is your uncited personal conspiracy theory. A church banning a blind man is notable enough for a article Arbusto 00:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The fact that there is a policy against dogs is implied, though. Why else make a fuss? -- And anything that is implied or insinuated should automatically be inserted into an encyclopedia article? Encyclopedias don't operate on innuendo. The church has a specific mission dedicated to serving the needs of blind people. This is ridiculous to include this sort of unfounded claim in an article about the church. Vivaldi (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I just came back to this page after a few month's absence, and glanced again at the Seeing Eye Dog story. Do you know how stupid that paragraph looks? Twenty-two years ago, a blind man got upset that the church would not let him have his dog in the church with him. Would any airline allow a guide dog free reign if it caused problems? More than that, would someone still harp on a single incident involving a single man 22 years later? It's things like that paragraph that keep Wikipedia from being taken seriously. Pooua 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preying from the Pulpit on AFD

Since it's mentioned in this article, some may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preying from the Pulpit. --Rob 08:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with Preying from the Pulpit

  • Merge I suggest that we merge the content of Preying_from_the_Pulpit to this article. In the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preying_from_the_Pulpit eight out of ten editors that commented on the article suggested that it be merged with this articule or deleted outright. Preying from the Pulpit is not notable enough to warrant its own article. The person who created the article cannot even tell us what channel, date, or time this show appeared on the air. Vivaldi (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You originally sought to delete the article, but now that is it still around you want it to disappear by merging it. User:Vivaldi's edits are strictly POV. For example, Vivaldi wrote at the Preying from the Pulpit AfD nomination: "It was a nightly news series from an unknown station, on an unknown date, at an unknown time."[3] However, when the station name and other changes were added to tighten up the Hyles article, Vivaldi reverted these additions[4] and again[5]. Clearly, this user either didn't really believe not having the station's name was important or has failed to pay attention to what is being added. If its the former, this action demonstrates a user trying to white wash DOCUMENTED criticism or if it's the latter it demonstrates a user with a strong POV who cares little for the quality content. Vivaldi's merge vote is in bad faith either way. Arbusto 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You were advised to assume good faith by another admin. Please do so. 8 out 10 people said that we should get rid of this article. That seems like a clear consensus to me, but I am willing to let all the interested parties discuss the issue here. Perhaps you think that you and one other guy makes a consensus Arbustoo, but I'm not sure too many others feel the same way. Vivaldi (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I added references from four cities around the United States showing it mentioned outside of the Detroit broadcast and the Hammond community. Researchers outside of the Hammond church might find the article of use. Arbusto 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Eight out of ten editors have voted that we either merge the article or delete it outright. Two out of ten thought we should keep it. Clearly the consensus of editors is against keeping it as-is. A single nightly news broadcast is not a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Vivaldi (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
More bad faith by Vivaldi. This user is contacting users who voted delete[6][7]. Note Vivaldi's comments are "you suggested that we delete the article ... can you please comment on the proposed merger of the article at..." Arbusto 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I am one of those contacted by Vivaldi. Please, Arbustoo, remember to always assume good faith. Seeing Vivaldi's previous contributions, I don't think he is acting with bad faith. He is just checking if the article should be merged here by discussing in the talk page. He is bringing the different options that have appeared in the AFD under others' considerations.
My opinion is that, if the article was not deleted, it should stay and be cleaned up. Thus, I don't support Vivaldi in merging that article here, not because he is working behind the curtains, but because I don't really think it should be merged here. However, I repeat: assume good faith! -- ReyBrujo 02:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a little hard to assume faith when this user has constantly deleted my changes without giving reasons and has made personal attacks to me. Arbusto 02:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have written hours and hours of reasons explaining to you on talk pages why your deliberate efforts to use biased language in an article about Jack Hyles is innappropriate. I have removed numerous edits where you even mischaracterized the words of the sources cited so that the claims against Hyles seemed even worse than they were. Not a single reputable or reliable and verifiable source has accused Jack Hyles of any crimes EVER, but you have tried to make his article 90% about unproven allegations of a couple of malcontents, one of whom was fired by Hyles. Your edits show a clear bias and I'm confident than anyone who takes a gander at your edits will come to the same conclusion. Vivaldi (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That's your personal bias on who is "reputable" and what you mean by "source." 1) Voyle Glover an attorney who worked for a prosecutors office was quoted by newsappears and appeared on TV interviews with his allegations. 2) Victor Nischik who worked for Hyles as an accountant claimed Hyles had a long time affair with Nischik's wife and Hyles' was doing financial misdeeds, as reported in newspapers and several years later Nischik's book. 3) Robert Sumner a former Hyles follower made allegetions published in newspapers. If you choose to believe or not believe these people I DON'T CARE. They are documented are part of the Hyles history and go in the article. Arbusto 03:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL. No newspaper has ever accused Hyles of any misdeeds. Glover has never been published by anyone but himself! Nischik has never been published by anyone but himself. They are not professional researchers and they are not professional journalists. Not one single reputable or reliable source has ever accused Hyles of any misdeeds. Just because the paper documented that a unproven allegation was made, doesn't mean that it should appear in an encyclopedia article. And I DON'T CARE what you think about it either. All I care about is that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are followed and that the articles are consistently made better through the application of guidelines and policies. You have demonstrated that when left to yourself, you would have the Hyles article be 80% criticism of Hyles or more based on the comments of a couple of malcontents, when the man ran a 50 year ministry and he was loved by tens of thousands of followers. I am willing to leave in edits describing the "controversy" around Hyles, but they must be in proportion to the amount of credibility that they deserve. Since not a single professional researcher or journalist has ever accused Hyles of any misdeeds, let alone any crimes, it is inappropriate for an article about Hyles to be entirely consumed with these tabloid claims. Vivaldi (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
These claims are cited in reliable newspapers. Such as you attacking Glover, "The pamphlet, "Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case," written by Glover, delves into Texas-based evangelist Robert Sumner's allegations of moral laxity, doctrinal heresy and financial impropriety by Hyles.[8]) Again in 1991 Glover's Fundamental Seduction is mentioned in the Times: "Glover wrote the book Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case, which was critical of Hyles' financial dealings with church funds"[9]. Cited criticism is included. Arbusto 03:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Note my comments were made at 02:33 and Vivaldi's edits to recruit the delete votes was made at 02:22, 7 May 2006. Since my comments of 02:33 Vivaldi began contacting the rest of the voters at 02:37, 7 May 2006. Arbusto 02:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Likewise I corrected your statements as well when you claimed "people" hadn't attended the college, when really it was Hyles' BELIEF that one "person" hadn't. Later on there was a police investigation. You misatttibuted the quotes of the obituary making it seem like they cam from separate sources instead of the one, and among many other examples you removed the mention that a BLIND MAN WAS BANNED FROM THE CHURCH in this article. Arbusto
The police say otherwise. The Chicago Tribune writes "NO INVESTIGATION OF CHURCH IN ABUSE CASES, POLICE SAY" May 24, 1993. Even though Jack Hyles said he welcomed such an investigation, the police chief Capt. Bill Conner confirmed "There is no investigation of the First Baptist Church of Hammond or Jack Hyles". Vivaldi (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
However, while the FBI concluded "there is insufficient evidence to probe allegations," Sgt. Charles Hedinger, a Hammond police detective, described the investigation as "open-ended."[10] Arbusto 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
But Sgt. Hedinger was corrected by his boss a few days later, when Capt. Bill Conner, chief of detectives, said "There is no investigation of the First Baptist Church of Hammond or Jack Hyles". Vivaldi (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The quotes came from seperate individuals. Vivaldi (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, but you got them from one source and should be presented that way. Arbusto 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
They all had the same source listed. Vivaldi (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Articles from different cities on the Preying article:
    • "Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union San Diego, Calif.: May 17, 1993. p. A.7
    • "Springs drive-by baptisms immersed in controversy." Bruce Finley, Denver Post Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Aug 22, 1993. pg. 7.C
    • "7 accused of abuse linked to preacher." The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Mich.: May 17, 1993. pg. B.2
    • "Hyles rally takes aim at accusers." Northwest Indiana Times. June 2, 1993 12:00 AM CDT
    • "Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," 'Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5" Arbusto 02:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Who cares? Hyles was never charged with a crime. The police said that neither he or his church were under investigation. And now you want to put it in an encyclopedia as fact. Your bias is showing through clearly Arbustoo.Vivaldi (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The sources show that this grabbed the attention outside the Hammond community, and also don't break apart my sentences and paragraphs. Arbusto 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK!!! Alright, looks like things are going a little back-and-forth up there. Anyway, after looking at the Preying from the Pulpit article, it seems to me that pretty much all the content from that article could easily be merged into the controversies section in this article. Is there any reason why we shouldn't do this? --Deville (Talk) 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The actual program refers to seven different churches around the country. While this particular church is mentioned as the common thread, as shown with various articles, it has significance outside this one church and individual. Some researchers might be interested in the program for those particular churches, such as the San Diego one, which is outside the scope of this article. And perhaps letting the article exist it will lead to others expanding it. It can always be merged down the road. Arbusto 08:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It can always be gotten rid of immediately as well. 8 out of 10 editors voted to get rid of the Preying from the Pulpit article. Vivaldi (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You just want to get rid of this article so bad. Arbusto 03:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I want to get rid of any article that doesn't rightly belong in an encyclopedia. This article does not belong here. Only one other person on Wikipedia agreed with you that this article should stay here. It is patently ridiculous to include such nonsense in an encyclopedia. Are we going to start making articles for every expose that appears on Extra! and 60 Minutes? It is just plain dumb. This article is dumb. This is no reason it should exist in an encyclodia. Vivaldi (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two other girls allegedly molested at First Baptist Church of Hammond

The following was summarized and added to the article:

"Another state witness was a former security officer at the church, who testified he saw Ballenger fondle a young girl in 1978 or 1979 in a Sunday school room after being called to the room by a female teacher. He said he confronted Ballenger, who was in a "trancelike state" with his hand under the girl's dress."[11]
"Three women said Thursday they were fondled by a Hammond church deacon who was convicted in March of molesting a 7-year-old girl in 1991 in a Sunday school class."[12]
"The third victim, a 20-year-old woman from the Columbia Center public housing project in Hammond, told how she would ride a bus Sunday mornings to the First Baptist Sunday school, and that A.V. Ballenger was her driver. She described the church as "a good church" she enjoyed attending, and said she liked Ballenger. But she said there were several times when both were on the bus alone that he would run his hand inside her dress and fondle her private areas."[13]

The testimony from two girls relating to Hammond is a part of the past. Arbusto 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Ballenger ever charged with molesting the "two other girls"? How can you say the other two "were molested". Did you witness it happening yourself? Vivaldi (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If you read the source you would know that four girls (including the 7 year old), a church worker, and a former security guard testified at the trial. Arbusto 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't you answer the question? Was Ballenger ever charged with molesting the "two other girls"? You are also now stating an outright lie. The other 3 girls did not testify at Ballenger's trial. Not only that but the word "trial" didn't even appear at all in the source you gave. Do you know why Ballenger was not ever charged with molesting the other girls? Vivaldi (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
1) No one said he was charged, but three girls including his niece testified they were molested by him (plus the church worker and security guard). 2) The words "testimony," "testified," "court," "hearing," "prosecution," "prosecutors," "witnesses," etc. all give the impression it has to do with a trial. 3) Do you know why the girls who testified were never charged with perjury? Arbusto 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
1) Why wasn't Ballenger charged with molesting the 3 other girls? 2) A hearing is different from a trial. There is no jury to weigh the evidence and make a conclusion at a hearing. 3) Do you know why the girls who testified were never charged with perjury? Primarily because the prosecutation believed them. A perjury charge would require that the prosecution show that the events that were described did not take place and that the girls willingly lied about that fact. Proving that something did not happen in the distant past is almost an impossiblility. Vivaldi (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi, the citation provided by Arbustoo is from a reliable source. You'll need a really good reason not to include that stuff. Just zis Guy you know? 08:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
JzG- I want to include the information about Ballenger trial, but it must be done properly. Ballenger was convicted of molesting 1 girl, not 3 or 4. The other girls that testified that they were molested did so during a hearing and not a trial as Arbustoo wrote. Also, it is important to note Hyles opinion of the case against Ballenger -- mainly that he always believed he was wrongly convicted. Arbustoo's original edits here made it look like Hyles not only knew that Ballenger was molesting children, but that he supported the molestations as a matter of doctrine. We must surely include the information about the Ballenger trial, but you cannot distort the truth by making it seem worse than it really is. Ballenger was convicted of molesting 1 girl, not 4. The other girls that testified did so during a sentencing hearing, not at a trial before Ballenger's peers. And Hyles' viewpoint about the case is highly relevant and should be included, since the entire point of Arbustoo's edits is to make it seem like Hyles spoke indifferently about molestation, when nothing is further from the truth. Arbustoo is sacrificing the truth in his nearly single-handed mission to defame Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Just my 2č ... I agree with JzG and Arbusto here. The article that Arbusto quotes is without question the description of a trial. It mentions witnesses, testimony, prosecutors, etc. Moreover, the content of these witnesses testimony is pretty much consistent with Arbusto's claims.--Deville (Talk) 17:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The article that Arbusto quotes is without question the description of a trial. You are 100% completely wrong. It wasn't a trial. It was a sentencing hearing. That is completely different from a trial. The same standards of evidence do not apply to a sentencing hearing as a trial, and there is no jury to evaluate the truthfulness of the claims the witnesses make during a hearing. The girls claims were only used by the judge to decide on the sentence that Ballenger should get. He did not rule on the truthfullness of the girl's statements. And indeed, if the judge truly believed that Ballenger was a serial molester that had molested 4 or more girls, it seems unconscionable that he would have sentenced Ballenger to only 4 years, don't you think? Also, if the other 3 girls molestation claims had merit, why wasn't Ballenger charged with molestating them? Wouldn't an additional 3 convictions put him away for even longer? Vivaldi (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to remove the fact that Ballenger was a convicted pedophile. That information properly belongs in this article. In all likelihood Ballenger probably did molest those girls, but my feelings (and Arbustoo's feelings) do not belong in an encyclopedia article. And no matter what, untruths that are not verifiable do not belong in the article. The 3 girls absolutely 100% for certain did not testify during a trial as Arbustoo claimed. They testified during a hearing, which is "without question" not a trial. Vivaldi (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected, two editors blocked

This is not good, guys. I have had to block two editors for violating WP:3RR. The way to resolve content disputes is not through edit war. Please go to WP:DR and come to some sort of understanding. Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to remove massive amounts of criticism in the press especially an article about police "worrying" over a convicted child molestor passing candy to kids at Hammond. Nor is there any explanation left for its removal. Arbusto 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi. Arbusto 02:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Arbustoo is not longer editing Wikipedia actively and the RfC on Vivaldi is still awaiting 2 people that can certify that they have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Vivaldi (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a comment

I'm a disinterested 3rd party. I don't live near any of the churches involved. The article states the weekly attendence is about 20,000. About 1/2 the article states some facts about the Church. About 1/2 the article then is newspaper clippings which talk about a very small handful of (about 4) individuals. A large church in any community will spawn, perhaps 10 newspaper clippings a week, maybe more. "Youth group meets Wed. at 4 PM" and "The Babtist Church is holding a bake sale Sunday at the Safeway" and many more details of people's lives. A large church has an effect into the community. The problem with this article is, only a tiny percentage of that effect into the community is included. And all of that effect is nefarious. Lately the discussion page has wrapped itself in an expose' kind of article inclusion, rather that create an article about the church, about its effects in the community, about how people use the church as a place of fellowship, to improve their lives, to have some fun, etc. A large church necessarily is supported by a lot of people. The main effect of a large church with a lot of people should a major part of the article, instead of the effects of 2 or 3 people. Terryeo 00:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo- I appreciate your comments. I am impressed that you, a person that has had numerous disagreements with me over the last several months, have come here to this article and made your viewpoints known, despite knowing that you are supporting my viewpoint. You are more honorable than I have imagined. As soon as I saw your signature here, I figured that you had followed me here to disagree with me on all my articles just to spite me. How refreshing to see that you are willing to sacrifice whatever personal distaste you have for me and to stand up for writing a good encyclopedia. Vivaldi (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree the history and article should be expanded, but whether the church is 500,000,000 every Sunday or 3,000 (the Hammond page claims its 3,000 every Sunday including busing in the surrounding areas) the criticism belongs there. There are different controveries, which should be included: 1) 1989 allegetions 2) the 1993 molestation at the church 3) the 1993 news report linking the North Sharon molestation to Hyles and FBCH 4) the 1997 rape lawsuit 5) the 2000 Comb's conviction 6) the blind man being banned. Those are all different cases documented in the press, which deserve a place in the article. Arbusto 03:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be necessary too, to specify what action the individual was charged with. "molestation" is a different kettle of fish than "abuse", which might, conceiveably involve physical abuse such as beatings or bruisings or even (god forbid) broken bones or something. While "molestation" might be something like .. well, I don't know but less lasting, wouldn't you think? Perhaps the newspaper or the court proceedings are specific. Terryeo 07:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What are you referring to? The article clearly states "In 1993 a First Baptist deacon was found guilty of molesting a seven year old during a Sunday school class." Arbusto 22:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the molestation convictions should be mentioned in this article. There is substantial independent evidence that shows that Ballenger molested at least one female and possibly 3 or more. In all the cases it is important that you present the information truthfully and in a neutral tone. You can't say "Ballenger molested 4 girls", but you can say, "Ballenger was convicted of molesting 1 girl and later, 3 other girls testified during his sentencing hearing that they were also abused by him in the past." And in each of the cases you mention you must also present the full story including Hyles' opinion of the matter. It is highly relevant to this story that Hyles believed that Ballenger was innocent of the crimes and that he was wrongly convicted. That information must be in the article too. Otherwise you are mistakenly leaving the impression that Hyles knew that Ballenger was molesting children and let him continue doing so because he approved of such behaviour. This is clearly a false impression, but it is the exact impression that Arbustoo leaves when he discusses the issue. Vivaldi (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So did you change your mind on including it? Because you have removed this material, without comment, several times.[14] Arbusto 22:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
No I did not. Arbustoo has repeatedly mistated the facts regarding my edits here and in other places. The diff you provided clearly shows that my version includes the molestation charge: "There is one documented instance where a member of First Baptist was found guilty of a crime of abuse. Daniel Lehmann of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "In March, 1993, a deacon at First Baptist, A.V. Ballenger, was found guilty of one count of child molestation dating from 1991."
6) the blind man being banned. As for the blind man being banned from the church -- I don't believe that is appropriate for an encyclopedia article about FBCH. We only have one person's statement about the matter and no other verifiable sources to back up his claim. There is no indication from the Church that indicates that blind people in general are not welcome at FBCH, nor is it clear why the church banned him. There are dozens of good reasons why a blind man (or a one-legged deaf-mute or whatever else) might appropriately be banned from church. This particular claim does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article unless further verification or explanation is provided. Vivaldi (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again you state your opinion on this, but I disagree. A blind man getting banned from the church cited in the media is worthy of mention. I've never known of any church to ever do such a thing. Arbusto 22:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again you state your opinion on this, but I disagree. Would you prefer if I stated someone elses opinion on the talk page? What is your point? A blind man getting banned from the church cited in the media is worthy of mention. First of all, what was cited was that a blind man alleged that he was banned from the church -- there is no evidence that he was actually banned -- nor is there any indication about why he was banned. First Baptist Church of Hammond has a special mission devoted to helping and caring for the blind, deaf, and handicapped. It is absurd to suggest that they have a policy to ban blind people when there is only one person that has ever made that claim (over 20 years ago). The claim was not ever verified by any other sources and it wasn't repeated by any other sources. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article about FBCH to include every last mention of the church that has ever appeared in any newspaper article. This is not what encyclopedias do. Newspapers and encyclopedias have different standards for inclusion. A newspaper may report all sorts of sensational claims, even anonymous claims, and claims made by people walking down the street. Just because a newspaper reports that "Joe Blow walking down the street says that he believes the FCBH is a bad church", doesn't mean that it is appropriate to repeat that claim in an encyclopedia article about the church. This blind guy is not a notable person. His unproven claim was not repeated by any other person. No other source has ever mentioned in the last 50 years that FCBH has a practice of discrimination against the blind. This tiny blurb in a newspaper 20 years ago is not worthy to be included in an encyclopedia article. Vivaldi (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I've never known of any church to ever do such a thing -- FYI, even though it is irrelevant whether Arbustoo has heard of such a thing or not. There exists a history of many thousands of years of churches banning disabled people, because the bible specifically says in Leviticus 21:17-23: "Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries." Now I believe that most Christian churches teach that the book of Leviticus no longer needs to be followed word-for-word. However, suffice it to say that some people still think that Leviticus matters. Vivaldi (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance and NPOV

Any really large, successful group will, over a period of time (this is my opinion), have a few distateful actions associated with it. Perhaps Angels never, but for us humans, well, here and there, if you look hard enough, you are going to find some distateful thing. How does an editor evaluate such distateful events, how does an editor compare the whole of the thing to the distateful action and write an article about the whole darned thing? In this article we have (about) 10 people who have engaged in or had forced on them or were associated in some manner with distateful actions, actions somehow associated with the First Babtist Church. Ok, (about) 10 people. But even it is (about) 100 people, I would say, compare that quantity of persons with the quantity of persons who are enjoying and actively engaged in, successfully enganged in the group's activities. What is that, maybe 10,000? Then look at this ratio, 10/10,000 (or whatever ratio works out to be). And let the article reflect that ratio, you know? 10,000 lines about what the church generally does and 10 lines about the distasteful actions associated with the church. The ratio, not the absolute numbers, you see? Terryeo 15:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the number of lines of criticism should be based on supporters. Also it is rather strange that Vivaldi removed all mention of a deacon convicted of molesting a child during a Sunday school class at the church [15]. Clearly those changes show a deliberate attempt to make the criticism seem like it comes from a select few while removing court cases and other controveries the church was involved with.
You are really missing the point. Articles must include documented criticism leaving such information out because you and Vivaldi consider it a small minority (when you can search the internet and find all kinds of sorid details on Hyles from past supporters) is insane. If you want to write an article that excludes criticism do it on your own webpage. Until then articles with public access will allow criticism, which include information on convicted child molestors, tv news, newspapers, books, and a blind man getting banned from the church.

In response to Terryeo above, I think that the important item to bring this article into a neutral point of view would be to, as the guidelines state, not argue the points of the debate and the controversial actions, but to frame the debate from an outside point of view. The principle of proportional representation in this article would be not so much to give 10,000 lines of glowing praise and 10 lines of condemnation, but to give an appropriately representative section of explanation or the church's ideas, and a similarly-representative section of criticism, with regards to the critics and advocates, as opposed to the members and criticized members. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple links

An anonymous editor seems ot think we should link to every single one of the church's ministries' websites. We already cleaned that lot out months back. We already link to the church website, that's a reliable source for the article, the other links are not sources for the article and are linked from the church's website, therefore per WP:EL we do not want them. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt anything if organised properly. The ministry section has been chopped down to a single paragraph too. Maybe the other external links should be listed at the end and indented with a :*. --Kalmia 20:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Baptist Church of Hammond has been named one of the 50 most influential churches in America

First Baptist Church of Hammond has been named one of the 50 most influential churches in America, according to The Church Report magazine.

A survey was sent to more than 2,000 of the largest non-Catholic congregations in the nation by Church Growth Today. A small selected group of smaller churches was invited to recommend churches. Participants were asked to recommend up to 10 churches they considered to be among the nation's most influential. A total of 83 churches were recommended.

First Baptist was ranked 24 among the other churches on the list. The churches were recommended by other church leaders. Jack Schaap is the pastor at First Baptist Church, 473 Sibley St.


Somebody can add this. Maybe I will. This was in todays paper. [16]

--Kalmia 20:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/r/Talk%7EFirst_Baptist_Church_of_Hammond_dbfc.html"