Talk:Family Radio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] Rebuttle
The plain fact of the matter is this the Bible is the Bible is the Bible. Mr. Camping states in almost all of his programs to read the Bible and see for yourself if what you are hearing is true or not. The bible is God's Word period, it is only our misinterpration of scripture that gets us into trouble. If you disagree, find in the bible your evidence, no one is perfect and we do make mistakes. Peace. Gr8faith 19:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Radio station rumors
Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which should rely on sourced information, uncited rumors about radio stations leaving family radio is most likely Original research. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Family Radio was founded by Richard Palmquist and several investors in 1958. Bill Mansdoerfer was the first station manager. Harold Camping came on the scene, I believe, in 1959 as a member of the board of directors. He took control of the station (KEAR-FM in San Francisco) and the fledgling network shortly thereafter. Gpettingell 00:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] OK so you don't like him or what he's got to say.....but he's right.
It's unfortunate that the above statements and others throughout this page are inaccurate and biased against Harold Camping and they don't have much of a Christian tone seeing that all wisdom comes from GOD alone. That's important because many false Christ's a prophets will arise and many who sincerely believe they are following Jesus will be surprised to find out from Him "I never knew you". Family Radio teaches consistently to not take anyone's word for anything but to read from the Bible comparing scripture with scripture prayerfully and God might open one's eyes to truths. Mr. Camping teaches what he and others close to him are able to reveal studying the Bible diligently for several years. Many of his teachings are not liked and angrily attacked however he is sincere and most agree his fundamentals are sound. The thing that fascinates me about Family Radio is they offer many Christian materials and even Bibles to people all over the world free of charge and they are a faithful ministry. They also teach that salvation must come from God alone and that mankind is morally corrupt and if left on his own would never seek after God (Romans 3:10-18) That said, there are other inaccuracies in the main page(considered a tyrant...rudely fired employees) that are just untrue, unfounded and an attack on his person. As for the book 1994 many Christians who believe some, part or sometimes not much at all of Camping's teachings do agree the years 1988 and 1994 appear to have considerable importance. I would strongly encourgage anyone seeking information about the End of the Church Age, Family Radio or Harold Camping to visit thier website and either view or request free of charge the materials for themselves. It's been a tremendous blessing to me and my family and I pray to you too.Kugaf 23:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)David
[edit] This Page Needs Serious Work
Of all the pages I have seen on wikipedia this is by far one of the worst. I appreciate that Family Radio has controversy surrounding and that it may be impossible to create an unbiased page regarding it, but this is ridiculous. The narrative of the article switches back and forth between first and third person; and then the author will debate doctrine and point out how certain biblical scripture opposes Harold Camping's on-air statements. This sort of thing should not be included in the article. The article should simply provide what Family Radio is and what they do and say. It is important to include a "controversy" section of the article. It is in this section that controversial topics should be addressed and the opinions of Family Radio's critics should either be mentioned or at least linked to. I will begin to clean up this article to make it more unbiased.
sabbetius 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Justin Sabbetius
I think it would improve the balance if the section "Beliefs of Family Radio" included a comment to see the controversy section on the "Harold Camping" page. I realize that the page is already referenced under "See Also", but there is currently no direct mention of controversy on the Family Radio page. XKNATSA (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] merge proposal
It has been proposed that all station specific articles for Family Radio stations be merged into Family Radio. Stations which provide no local programming or other content and carry nothing but network provided programming lack sufficient notability to warrant an article. However, any station that does provide sufficient local programming or has a history (such as ownership changes) which warrants coverage, should not be merged. See WP:WPRS for more information. Any opinions, additional information on these stations or suggestions would be appreciated.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, but I also suggest this proposal for other network controlled stations such as the Movin' brand as well as Radio Disney, for the same reasons provided. But if we were to do that, we will then need a list of stations which simulcast Family Radio programming. --wL<speak·check> 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest not to merge stations which have a unique history unrelated to their status as a network outlet, or have a history unique to their location. For example, KEAR San Francisco has a very unique history in San Francisco, having moved around the FM dial for a while and now broadcasting on the frequency of legendary AM station KFRC. Or KFRN Los Angeles, which has the unique status of being, as KFOX, the first country music station in the Los Angeles area. And nearly all of the "Movin'" and Radio Disney outlets have significant and substantial histories before they acquired their current formats and network affiliations. Also, "Movin'" is a brand, not a network—the stations are all programmed locally, have their own local DJ's, etc. DHowell (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History
History section removed: contained mostly unsubstantiated information and personal biographical information not relevant to Family Radio as an organization. Lacking unbiased, factual/encyclopedic Family Radio historical information, this section should not be included.
[edit] History
History section removed: contained mostly unsubstantiated information and personal biographical information not relevant to Family Radio as an organization. Lacking unbiased, factual/encyclopedic Family Radio historical information, this section should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.98.17 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History
Deleted again for the same reasons stated previously. Personal biographical information is not encyclodedic and unsubstantiated; more akin to editorial.. Other information is unsubstantiated, without reference, and not supported by evidence of third party, neutral sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.216.163 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History
Deleted again in accordance with Wiki defintion of verifiability:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.216.163 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] history
According to Wiki: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism."
As by defintion above, removal of the history section of this site does not qualify as "vandalism." The contents of this section could very well be fictional in the absence of references substantiating the claims. As a fact, information (easily gathered regarding Harold Camping personal biographical history), conflicts with the claim he is a proponent of the Modern ("New")version of the King James Bible. Evidence gathered from Family Radio ( a proof link removed by others) contradicts the claim presented in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.216.163 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History
Thank you for the information regarding the signature. I had not noticed the alert. Interesting, the time/dates stamps appeared without the "76.193.216.163 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)". Regardless, the reasons for the removal of the the history section were explained clearly and concisely. The History section content is suspect and questionable without support reference and the inclusion of false data. 76.193.216.163 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Registered users
Please check the recent edits made by the 76.xxx.xxx.xxx users (I believe they are the same person being given a different IP address each session). Mainly to check the neutrality of the article isn't being compromised by someone close to the station. Rapido (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality (as Wiki defines)is the objective, therefore antagonist and opinion edit contributions should also be checked carefully as well. I am "one" of the editors of the History section and likely different IPs have been assigned for each edit session. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- If other Wikipedians can check all the numerous edits for the unregistered user 76.xxx.xxx.xxx "with a fine toothcomb", it would be most appreciated. Rapido (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
