Talk:3ABN
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Television Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Television stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
3ABN is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. |
 |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit]
Created a hopefully less egregious paraphrase of this network history on the temp page. Best of luck. Skybunny 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blacksda.com forum link
The link is not suitable for the article because it does not satisfy the reliable sources guideline. Are any of its contributors notable? If so, they may have published their criticisms, which would in turn be reliable. Ansell 06:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with Ansell on this this point. A link to a forum is not a WP reliable source and it does not belong here. Skybunny 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is a wealth of news and information about 3ABN at that link. Thanks for your understanding. Sdalink 03:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sdalink, there seems to be a consensus by at least two authors that linking to this forum is of dubious value and not a reliable source, and I happen to agree. The history of your talk page shows sequential blanking of this point made there [1] and may be construed by some authors as a sign of bad faith. I would also like to point out the following policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If biographical material about a person is going to be included, it must adhere to the NPOV policy and well sourced. Poorly sourced negative material is to be immediately removed from articles. On consideration, I will be doing some of that in this article now. Skybunny 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed irrelevant info.
I removed the following:
His remarriage to Brandy Lynn Elswick, 33, on March 8, 2006, occurred on the set of 3ABN Presents in a non-broadcast ceremony.[1]
Because it holds no relevance to the network. This is more suited for the Danny Shelton artilce if it exists. --Maniwar (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To Do
I would like to see the infobox changed to one similar to SafeTV's box (will show up on left):
| KSBN-TV | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Springdale, Arkansas | |
| Branding | Safe TV Channel |
| Channels | Analog: 57 (UHF) |
| Affiliations | Worship/America One |
| Owner | Total Life Community Educational Foundation |
| Founded | August 8, 1993 |
| Former affiliations | PAX (until 2005) |
| Transmitter Power | 182 kW (analog) 386 kW (digital) |
| Website | www.safetv.org |
additionally, I would like to see:
- some of the controversy surrounding the divorce of Danny and Linda and the impact
- more info on the beginnings involving both Danny, Linda, and others (John Lomacang, Melodee Shelton)
- Affiliate stations (downlinks), both TV and Radio (Russia, Cayman Islands, Philippines, ?, etc.)
- Listing of stations domestically
- expand controversy of being removed from Sky Angel and Petition to be added to Dish Network
and any other pertinent information to improve this article. I have neither the time nor knowledge to add it. --Maniwar (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Maniwar, Have you seen http://www.atoday.com/email/2007/02/12/? It covers the Tommy Shelton allegations rather thoroughly, and given the fact that it is a journalistic source, it should be considered credible. 204.73.193.175 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed criticism section about Danny Shelton
I removed in full the criticism section which while tangentially involving 3ABN because Danny Shelton founded it, is primarly discussing this individual and claims and allegations around him. Danny Shelton is a living person. The Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons WP:LIVING says the following: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. When I arrived at this page, even the heading of the section itself stated poor sourcing. If it makes it easier to reach consensus, I might suggest stating Danny Shelton as the founder of this network, and leaving it at that.
Websites with a self stated agenda like save3abn.com, or a forum post to an open access forum are poor sources and should not be used as per Wikipedia. Please see WP:SOURCE#Sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Skybunny 23:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Someone restored the information without discussion, let alone a consensus to reinsert. I've removed it again. Please provide reliable sources (see WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS) and obtain a consensus to include the disputed material before reinserting. Thanks. Avb 12:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Avb, I am reinserting, and per my insertion, (see here [2]) it is within the scope of wikipedia. I also stated, that before deleting, discuss at this talk page, which you did not. It is fact that there is controversy, and it is fact that there was a controversial divorce, it is fact that there are allegations at a website, and it is fact that Linda Shelton is saying that she was falsely accused. The tone is neutral and simply factful without any malice or assumptions. Discuss here before deleting! Like many of the other articles, Ellen White, Seventh-day Adventist, it is perfectly fine to point out controversies. The information was not restored, but carefully written. Work on the Responses to criticism section rather than just deleting what you don't like. --Maniwar (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I am more concerned with following WP:BLP than following what you stated. Do you have a consensus to insert? I see you have added a reference for one of the assertions. Do you have sources for the rest of the disputed BLP content? Do you think Save3ABN dot org is a reliable source per WP:V/WP:RS?Avb 21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- PS Please retract "deleting what you don't like". I came here in response to this report on WP:BLPN and couldn't care less about what other people may or may not want to swipe under the carpet here. This is a clear case of unsourced/poorly sourced contentious BLP content. Avb 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverted again. However, please feel free to add some content that you can source to http://www.atoday.com/email/2007/02/12 Avb 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)I've posted a temporary rewrite (pieced together from direct quotes) that is supported by the new source provided by Maniwar on this talk page. Feel free to improve. Avb 22:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)- Avb, you again intentionally or by accident miss where I said Please discuss on this talk page before deleting or reverting. Several editors have inserted accusations, and in keeping with wikipedia (see comment also here [3]) it is perfectly fine to insert controversies. No call was made for consensus, thus consensus is not needed where there was no apparent issue. To avoid possible BLP, I wrote the new section rather than restoring it, since so many editors wanted it in there. You need to show how the article is a violation of BLP. The rewrite you did was opinionated, and POV, however this is not. There is no charge in the article, but there is mention that controversies have arisen. Save3ABN dot org is not being used as a source to support some charge, it is instead being used to say that the website exists and makes allegations, which again, is within keeping of the wikipedia community. See Cindy Sheehan or Neal Boortz or Rush Limbaugh, just to name a few, and you will see how controversies are handled over there. Clearly all of them, according to you, is in violation of BLP. Let's discuss how you feel it's in violation of BLP, and work from there. Your edit was by far move POV and loaded than the neutral tone I undertake. Lets discuss here before going to edit warring. --Maniwar (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Avb, you again intentionally or by accident miss where I said Please discuss on this talk page before deleting or reverting" --> You seem to have missed the entire line of argument brought here by Skybunny and me, and seem to thinki that you alone can determine consensus as well as reinstate unsourced material disputed per WP:BLP. That is not the case. "No call was made for consensus" --> no, although you, as the person who has (re)inserted the material, must obtain a consensus before reinserting. "You need to show how the article is a violation of BLP." --> No, you need to show it is not a violation of WP:BLP. "The rewrite you did was opinionated, and POV" --> I said "improve at will". What is now in the article is not supported by the sources. Apart from WP:BLP it also violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. Edit warring? You still seem to think I am interested in Seventh Day adventists and USA radio stations. I couldn't care less. I came here due to a BLPN report. Once again, I see no consensus to insert what you wrote. I don't see a consensus for what I wrote either, but I thought you might like it. Goodbye. Avb 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'll take this point by point and no attacks or accusations. 1) I addressed the issue brought up by skybunny by rewriting the whole thing to introduce that there is controversy without the POV. Personally, I would not like to see it in there, however, I've been on the other end a few times of people wanting to add controversial sections. And after losing everyone of them, I finally came to see that there is value in allowing the controversial sections. I rewrote the entire thing making it NPOV, because the editors who continue to insert it, will continue to do so and do so with a biased angle. I wish you would take the time to read that it really is NPOV and is not attacking. By the way, it is not a biography of Danny Shelton, it is though article of the entity (no offense meant in that comment). 2) I am not trying to determine consensus, however, it's funny that I'm being accused of exactly what you all are violating. I pointed out that I first called for discussion before the new entry was reverted or deleted. Then when you (or whoever it was) reverted me then called for consensus, I interpret that you all are saying I'm the one unwilling to discuss, when that is really not an accurate picture. Again, I asked for a discussion. If the entry can be improved, I'm opened to it, but I honestly felt how you worded it made it seem a bit more in violation of BLP and POV. This is not an attack, but an interpretation and opinion. OK, I now realize you are not like some who seem to not want the mention in at all and I stand corrected and retract those statements. I do welcome your input, but again, how is it in violation of BLP? I must be missing something. 3) I fail to see how this is in violation of SYN. I have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with save3abn dot org, I've never posted, I do not know anyone of the people on there, and I've only gone on there to research for this article. To point out that there is a controversy, which by the way is large enough to cause the President and Chairman of the Board of 3ABN to address, with the website is not in violation of WP:SYN. I am not using it as a source to support charges, please read again to see how it is referenced. And I feel this is in keeping with the wikipedia community. When something large enough, within a community (in this instance the Seventh-day Adventist community) is large enough to gain international attention, the attention of the President of the Organization, the Board members in such that the chairman of the board has to address it, it is worthy of mentioning the entity/website. And Save3ABN dot org has done just that. No I am not subscribing to the charges, I'm simply rewriting what numerous editors have already inserted in a NPOV way. This issue is a large one within the community, and just because some don't want mention of it, does not mean it can be tossed out. Again, I am not trying to attack you, but I'm trying to figure out how this in violation of BLP and SYN. It makes me wonder, if you've (an interpretation, not an attack) read it. Just wondering. --Maniwar (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I was in the middle of editing and I think someone edited before me. I was not trying to revert, I was simply editing and had to save it twice. Sorry! --Maniwar (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just a short note, in a hurry. I appreciate the improved atmosphere. Will review your edit re Skybunny's complaint. I posted some observations at WP:BLPN before reading the above response; I may have to adapt. Yes, I have read all the atoday sources in full and skimmed the various websites. Although WP:SYN sounds sinful ;-) it actually refers to combining the divorce and the GC actions/words into cause and effect without a source having done so first. (I reread the sources but could not find this there). As to reverting, WP:BLP is quite clear that we should remove first, talk later when in doubt. Avb 10:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you would be kind and state that at WLP I would appreciate it. Since it is a church issue, it will not be seen in the media because of difference of opperations. However, I've stuck to the main issues; 1) the divorce within the community was/is controversial and gained international attention 2) The website Save3ABN dot org has taken it to the next level and the attention of church leadership is aware that the site is causing ripples and thestation, the President, and Chairman of the Board has had to address it. 3) Because of the attention Save3ABN has gained, the world church leadership suspended the "Supportive Ministry status", though they don't do so admitting there is guilt, only that it needs to be cautiously investigated. Sometimes within a community, things are done so discretely, as this one is being done. None the less, it doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. I will go with what the community decides at this point. Thanks for reading and understanding. --Maniwar (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- One last point,the other party involved in the supposed affair with Linda Shelton posted his reply to the allegation on Save3ABN dot org, thus making it somewhat valid. However, I intentionally left it out, but if it adds value, it can be added. Just a thought. --Maniwar (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just a short note, in a hurry. I appreciate the improved atmosphere. Will review your edit re Skybunny's complaint. I posted some observations at WP:BLPN before reading the above response; I may have to adapt. Yes, I have read all the atoday sources in full and skimmed the various websites. Although WP:SYN sounds sinful ;-) it actually refers to combining the divorce and the GC actions/words into cause and effect without a source having done so first. (I reread the sources but could not find this there). As to reverting, WP:BLP is quite clear that we should remove first, talk later when in doubt. Avb 10:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I was in the middle of editing and I think someone edited before me. I was not trying to revert, I was simply editing and had to save it twice. Sorry! --Maniwar (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'll take this point by point and no attacks or accusations. 1) I addressed the issue brought up by skybunny by rewriting the whole thing to introduce that there is controversy without the POV. Personally, I would not like to see it in there, however, I've been on the other end a few times of people wanting to add controversial sections. And after losing everyone of them, I finally came to see that there is value in allowing the controversial sections. I rewrote the entire thing making it NPOV, because the editors who continue to insert it, will continue to do so and do so with a biased angle. I wish you would take the time to read that it really is NPOV and is not attacking. By the way, it is not a biography of Danny Shelton, it is though article of the entity (no offense meant in that comment). 2) I am not trying to determine consensus, however, it's funny that I'm being accused of exactly what you all are violating. I pointed out that I first called for discussion before the new entry was reverted or deleted. Then when you (or whoever it was) reverted me then called for consensus, I interpret that you all are saying I'm the one unwilling to discuss, when that is really not an accurate picture. Again, I asked for a discussion. If the entry can be improved, I'm opened to it, but I honestly felt how you worded it made it seem a bit more in violation of BLP and POV. This is not an attack, but an interpretation and opinion. OK, I now realize you are not like some who seem to not want the mention in at all and I stand corrected and retract those statements. I do welcome your input, but again, how is it in violation of BLP? I must be missing something. 3) I fail to see how this is in violation of SYN. I have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with save3abn dot org, I've never posted, I do not know anyone of the people on there, and I've only gone on there to research for this article. To point out that there is a controversy, which by the way is large enough to cause the President and Chairman of the Board of 3ABN to address, with the website is not in violation of WP:SYN. I am not using it as a source to support charges, please read again to see how it is referenced. And I feel this is in keeping with the wikipedia community. When something large enough, within a community (in this instance the Seventh-day Adventist community) is large enough to gain international attention, the attention of the President of the Organization, the Board members in such that the chairman of the board has to address it, it is worthy of mentioning the entity/website. And Save3ABN dot org has done just that. No I am not subscribing to the charges, I'm simply rewriting what numerous editors have already inserted in a NPOV way. This issue is a large one within the community, and just because some don't want mention of it, does not mean it can be tossed out. Again, I am not trying to attack you, but I'm trying to figure out how this in violation of BLP and SYN. It makes me wonder, if you've (an interpretation, not an attack) read it. Just wondering. --Maniwar (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Avb, you again intentionally or by accident miss where I said Please discuss on this talk page before deleting or reverting" --> You seem to have missed the entire line of argument brought here by Skybunny and me, and seem to thinki that you alone can determine consensus as well as reinstate unsourced material disputed per WP:BLP. That is not the case. "No call was made for consensus" --> no, although you, as the person who has (re)inserted the material, must obtain a consensus before reinserting. "You need to show how the article is a violation of BLP." --> No, you need to show it is not a violation of WP:BLP. "The rewrite you did was opinionated, and POV" --> I said "improve at will". What is now in the article is not supported by the sources. Apart from WP:BLP it also violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. Edit warring? You still seem to think I am interested in Seventh Day adventists and USA radio stations. I couldn't care less. I came here due to a BLPN report. Once again, I see no consensus to insert what you wrote. I don't see a consensus for what I wrote either, but I thought you might like it. Goodbye. Avb 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Avb, you again intentionally or by accident miss where I said Please discuss on this talk page before deleting or reverting. Several editors have inserted accusations, and in keeping with wikipedia (see comment also here [3]) it is perfectly fine to insert controversies. No call was made for consensus, thus consensus is not needed where there was no apparent issue. To avoid possible BLP, I wrote the new section rather than restoring it, since so many editors wanted it in there. You need to show how the article is a violation of BLP. The rewrite you did was opinionated, and POV, however this is not. There is no charge in the article, but there is mention that controversies have arisen. Save3ABN dot org is not being used as a source to support some charge, it is instead being used to say that the website exists and makes allegations, which again, is within keeping of the wikipedia community. See Cindy Sheehan or Neal Boortz or Rush Limbaugh, just to name a few, and you will see how controversies are handled over there. Clearly all of them, according to you, is in violation of BLP. Let's discuss how you feel it's in violation of BLP, and work from there. Your edit was by far move POV and loaded than the neutral tone I undertake. Lets discuss here before going to edit warring. --Maniwar (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
I've been away for a few weeks. That said, I just wanted to make a reply here on a couple things...
- What I posted to WP:BLP was not so much a 'complaint', implying malice, as a request for additional points of view, because I wanted to avoid a one on one fight over a policy. I had removed the content once and posted to the talk page; when it was added again without comment here, I went a different route to avoid an edit war. Because I was quoting a policy for my justification, I wanted anyone experienced in the policy to be able to provide input. As another person reading it thought the unreferenced material might be suspect, I believe it was reasonable to solicit input.
- I removed the content because if the content about a living person is poorly/not referenced, the operating procedure is supposed to be deleting the content until it is appropriately referenced or accepted - not the other way around. The burden of proof lies on an editor who adds content to prove that it may be there.
- I still think that 'save3abn.com/org' is an inherently biased website, and if any reference is going to be made to it on this page, its mission statement should be clearly identified, bearing in mind what the website says: It is hoped that this website will accomplish the following objectives: Demonstrate that Seventh-day Adventists as a whole do not tolerate the types of things 3ABN's officers and directors are accused of doing; Call upon the officers and directors of 3ABN to place the ones accused on administrative leave until such a time as an investigation has been completed; Provide a place where Seventh-day Adventists and others can voice their concerns and call for spiritual revival and reformation at 3ABN. The stated objection of the site is to incite action on the part of others. In my opinion, facts reported on a website like this are unlikely to be truly objective, and the mission statement itself implies that it is directed against people that the website authors do not care for. All I can say is that skepticism might be a good idea.
- To put this another way, unless Danny Shelton's life has a serious impact on the network's programming or functions in a provable way, I don't think this really belongs in this page, but I'm content to let it go if it's referenced with appropriate secondary sources (as I said, I'm not sure save3abn.com is one of them. If the only discussion of these issues appears at that website, perhaps notability comes into play - e.g. how important IS this if the only source talking about it is one critical of this person?) It might belong on a page about Danny Shelton, but that would make the points about 'being careful about what you say about a person' equally relevant there.
I don't really have much more to add about the details of this controversy, honestly. It just didn't seem like by the living persons policy, it was appropriate. Apologies if this has caused waves. Skybunny 16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hey guys :) I am just wondering why this weird dubious citation is there in the wiki article. And even more weird that it is there when OFFICIAL sources deny that claims. I speak of this passage:
“The General Conference has suspended 3ABN’s [Three Angels Broadcasting Network] Supportive Ministry status until some well-known issues in more than one area are sorted out. Basically, a lot of smoke doesn’t necessarily presume a fire, but it definitely needs investigation and caution.”
The official source:
“There has been no change or review of the status of 3ABN as a supporting ministry by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.”[2]
[Genscher] 23:43, 03 August 2007 (CET+1)
