User:Paulshanks/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Neighborhood (edited)

This section has been edited by PaulShanks talk to make it easier to understand for newcomers.

The Wiki guidelines don't prohibit giving the neighborhood of a person, but are specific to say that you should not give the ADDRESS of a person. Still, in an effort to be agreeable, I will leave out the name of the neighborhood and just note the type of neighborhood he lives in. doublet89

This is subjective and inappropriate for biography section User_talk:Dirkmavs
To remove any subjectivity, I removed the word "upscale" and included the appraised value of his home (public knowledge) and sourced it. I was content just calling it an upscale, gated community, but DirkMavs pushed the issue by removing it because it is subjective. Therefor I removed any subjectivity by stating the actual value of the home and, keeping in line with Wiki rules, sourced the information. doublet89

[edit] Home Value

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well-known_public_figures says, "Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Therefore, my take on the situation is that the link should not be added. Useight (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the Wiki rules are referring to the content of the pages, not the link to source it. I propose that we source the material, but do not provide the direct link to it. I.e., we'll link to http://www.collincad.org and then the reader would have to use the site to find the record of Dr. Graham's home. If someone really wants to find his address, it's available to the public on that site anyway, we're just not making Wiki an easy tool to look it up. The casual reader will not go to the effort, and the determined reader could find that information anyway. Doublet89
Refering to links with addresses: "links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted." However, the subject (Jack Graham) does not maintain this website. PaulShanks talk 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Relevance

Doublet89 mentioned that it was "relevent since he lives in an upscale, gated neighborhood as a pastor." I can understand not wanting a pastor to waste money that could be used for ministry. However, even average houses can be expensive in this area, and this doesn't take into consideration how much money is used for ministries. Also, many low cost apartments are gated (as is mine). Thoughts? PaulShanks talk 01:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally have a problem with Dr. Graham having a $800k home, but I know others do, and because he's a minister, this is relevant to who he is. The average home in Frisco is around $200k, so Jack's home is 4 times that, and I would guess, more than 4 times the average home of someone in his congregation. And yes, many low cost apartments are gated, but low cost home developments are not. There are only a few gated developments in all of Frisco because of the exhorbant cost and living in a neighborhood that's gated certainly is a status symbol. Doublet89

[edit] Calvinism

Some thoughts from Wikipedia: Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Paulshanks (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Calvinistic views are held by much more than a "tiny minority" in the SBC. About 1/2 of the staff at Prestonwood Baptist are Calvinist, and the president of the SBC's largest seminary, Al Mohler, is a devout Calvinist. Additionally, James P. Boyce, founding president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was Calvinist. And, The Baptist Standard (http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=7686) says that a study by the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board and LifeWay Christian Resources showed about 30 percent of recent Southern Baptist seminary graduates identify themselves as Calvinists. Calvinism has a long, long history in the Baptist tradition, and was the majority view until 100 years ago. doublet89 (talk)

Prestonwood is an SBC church, and it should not be considered controversial that Jack Graham's view fall in line with SBC. If SBC's stance on calvinism is controversial then it should not be on this page. Paulshanks (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC);

The SBC does not state a view on Calvinism or Arminianism, and neither view is expressed in the Baptist Faith and Message. doublet89 (talk)

I'm not sure Jack Graham falls under Arminianism. This page says "Salvation can be lost." However, I believe Prestonwood's stance is once saved always saved. Paulshanks (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is correct, Paul regarding your comment on Arminianisn. Prestonwood's website explains the beliefs of the church and Pastor Graham and among them is the belief that "once saved always saved" http://prestonwood.org/about/beliefs.php Dirkmavs (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)DirkMavs
One does not have to believe in all 5 tenants of Arminianism to be an Arminianist. Jack Graham's views are largely in line with those who would call themselves an Arminianist, and Jack rejects Calvinism.
I can agree with that statement. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a more accurate term. It seems there are a lot of categories. PaulShanks talk 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps to be more accurate, if we are able to put back in this section, we can state that Dr. Graham is a 4 point Arminianist, and differs with the 5th point of Arminianism that believes people can lose their salvation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublet89 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of speculation in this section. Maybe we can just replace it with a statement from Jack Graham or the PBC website that shows his/our position on Calvinism. Paulshanks (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: For the record, Paulshanks is a STAFF MEMBER at Prestonwood Baptist Church and works for Dr. Graham. His views should not be taken as unbiased and he has expressed a desire to remove any "negative" remarks from Dr. Grahams wiki page, whether true or not.
I guess I don't claim to be unbiased, but I'm not sure doublet89 or Dirkmavs is either. It is a colaboration. I am trying to work it out. My involvement on this page is voluntary. I was originally asked to make one edit, but I did make sure I agreed with making that edit before I did. After all my profile is always at stake. PaulShanks talk 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I did make this statement to Doublet89 "In the mean time, the section seemed to be a negative one, and one that was not well founded. If you believe that there are parts that should remain, let me know and maybe we can come to a neutral point of view." The point was to write it in such a way as to be a neutral point of view, and not sound like an attack. PaulShanks talk 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Father

Can anyone add verifiable information on the murder of Dr. Graham's father? doublet89 (talk)


[edit] History

Also, it would seem relevant to add more information about the church's situation at the time Dr. Graham took the helm - i.e. the infidelity of the former pastor. Or would this be better placed in the wiki on Prestonwood? User:doublet89

The church did not condone the actions of the former pastor, and therefore it is not a reflection on the church, nor on Jack Graham. Paulshanks (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not the church condoned the actions of the former pastor is irrelevant to this historical, shaping, and important fact to the church, and to some extent, Pastor Graham's success in overcoming and uplifting a church that had taken such a blow. However, the fact that the church did (not?) condone the actions is certainly a relevant part of the story. doublet89 (talk)
Good point. I believe you are correct in the above statements, and I believe that Jack may even write about the churches history some day. However, I believe he is waiting for the right time in order not to publicly embarrass the family of the former pastor. When the time comes, this may be an article of it's own that could be linked to from the Prestonwood history section. Paulshanks (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] TBN

Also, on the controversy section - can anyone add information on Jack's association with TBN - the Trinity Broadcasting Network? doublet89 (talk)

To my knowledge, TBN has no affiliation. They are a broadcast facility and we do air PowerPoint on Church Channel which may be part of TBN. However, this does not endorse other programming in Church Channel or TBN. Paulshanks (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)



/Archive 1