Talk:Brother Jed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This article is related to WikiProject Columbia, an attempt to write quality articles about the Missouri city of Columbia and the surrounding Metropolitan Area. 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance within Columbia.

	This article about a noteworthy person affiliated with University of Missouri is within the scope of The Mizzou WikiProject. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the Mizzou WikiProject page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance within the Mizzou series.

Contents 1 Article and image cleanup 2 Controversy 3 Pelagianism 4 Talk show 5 Location of Ministry 6 Revision 7 Deletions instead of citation-tags 8 Questionable Claims and Fact Checking

[edit] Article and image cleanup

This articles layout has suddendly taken a turn for Livejournal. I've removed most of the inline pictures inserted by User:Jesse Morrell:

• bro_jed.jpg
• Here is a picture of one of his books: jedbook.jpg
• pointing.jpg
• police.jpg
• prank.jpg
• Here is a picture of speakers circle at Mizzou University: picjed.jpg

What's more, they are badly named. The only picture in the history of the Wikipedia called "police.jpg" is Brother Jed talking to a cop!? --Adamrush 16:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I'm shocked at the lack of any mention to any sort of controversy Brother Jed has caused in his preaching. No mention of his rather frequent racist or sexist remarks? I personally have seen him speak several times, and this article, at best, is incomplete, but frankly quite biased in ignoring the bigoted and inflamatory nature of Brother Jed's so called "confrontational" preaching. 24.161.183.72 20:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to contribute to the article. Be advised, however, even if mr Smock would tell you a bunch of stuff in person that would be "original research" and thus not acceptable by the WikiPedia policy. It's without a doubt, however, that mr Smock is firmly planted outside the fold of christianity. --128.214.133.2 09:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aw come on, original research? What about his classic explanation of sex using two electrical plugs (to demonstrate, naturally, how only the penis and vagina fit together, and that two penises don't. Although that's not how gay people have sex...). But seriously, what about catching him on camera? Is that original research?Rglong 04:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pelagianism

Has there ever been a published counterpoint to the report of Brother Ned teaching Pelagianism? This article seems to have little critical aspect.Brian0324 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk show

Brother Jed and Cindy were also on Sally. [1] Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location of Ministry

Brother Jed's offical website states that he is based in Columbia, Missouri. Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He's been at FSU for the past several years. I have pictures to prove it. I realize that's OR, but Jed apparently hasn't updated his site recently (perhaps because he's been preaching at FSU for so long)⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure hes been at FSU. He tours around the nation in the fall and winter and preaches at the University of Missouri in spring and summer. The website was last updated in 06. I'm afraid pictures won't be enough as hes been to campus' all over the U.S. Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I'm going to substantially edit this page, adding verifiable sources and removing biased point of view. I've created a page in my user space; feel free to contribute there. Also, leave any suggestions on my talk page. Thanks! JFlav 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions instead of citation-tags

A much better procedure is to identify those statements requiring citations. Material essential to understanding the subject has been deleted, much of it not requiring citation on a common sense view..."Brother Jed draws from many experiences in his early life while preaching" for example. Restored; please be specific about what you want cited. DavidOaks (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I did that. None were forthcoming, so I deleted the material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that citation-tagging is merely a courtesy, not a procedural necessity, so that even if I had failed to do this, you would have had no justification for restoring unsourced material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added citations, and Hrafn deleted them along with another wholesale edit. I'm going to try to recover at least some of that work...please examine the text before simply reverting, and insert the specific points at which you'd like citations. In fact, most of the material deleted was referenced to his autobiography. DavidOaks (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't delete any citations. Further I did not "simply revert" as my piecemeal deletion of that material should indicate. You are flagrantly and repeatedly violating WP:V. PLEASE DESIST! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Added cites. And I should correct -- your deletions simply created an edit conflict when I attempted to save the cites-added version, wasting a lot of work. However, I protest the claim of violation of policy -- please reflect on what it means when a book is mentioned adjacent to a fact -- it's generally thought of as a reference. Desist yourself. DavidOaks (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The fault is yours -- you restored the unsourced material without at the same time adding citations, in clear violation of WP:V. If legitimate re-removal of this material caused you an edit conflict, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. -- WP:V#Burden of evidence

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the legalism. And now for a word on behalf of common sense. For the benefit of those who would like to improve articles: it really helps to be as specific as possible regarding the fact that needs citing, rather than putting the tag on an entire paragraph. But sometimes paragraph level tags are appropriate. However, the use of paragraph-level tags should not, on a reasonable view, warrant deletion of paragraphs, but direct editors' attention to a general problem. On your logic, every article with a whole-article tag needs to be deleted after a week. Silly, huh? DavidOaks (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the baseless whining. When I found it, the article only had a single citation. In such a situation there is no point in being "as specific as possible" -- virtually the whole damn article needed citation! I templated & tagged and got ignored. Nobody wanted to "improve" the article by adding citations until I started deleting this unsourced material. You don't like it? Well tough! It's generally the only practical way to cut through the enormous swathes of unsourced pseudo-information that infest large areas of wikipedia. It is fully sanctioned by policy. So I have no qualms about doing it, particularly when the protesters generally don't get off their arses until faced with deletion of their precious sacred cows. Hrafn^[[User

^{talk:Hrafn|Talk]]}_Stalk 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, you are absolutely right, and I apologize for impatience. Your tagging got the appropriate results. All the same, I think the {{Fact}} tag is in most cases more useful than the section tag, for a more specific guide to the particular items in need of cites. DavidOaks (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Claims and Fact Checking

Brother Jed claims to hold several degrees (including a graduate degree) in his autobiography; has anyone bothered to fact check this?

Also, has anyone bothered to check with Delta Upsilon Fraternity to see if he was ever actually a member? Mrbusta (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)