Talk:Prestonwood Baptist Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Current events that are not historically significant

An very-high-ranking employee of this church is in the news after being arrested. Other than this person's termination, it is unlikely to have any long-lasting effects on this church or its ministries. Therefore, it is un-encyclopedic. I've removed the edit. If it hadn't been in the news I would have requested the edit be hidden from view to protect the person's privacy. If it turns out this incident does have a major impact on this church, the the information should be restored. Until then, it should stay out of this article. The individual in question does not have his own Wikipedia article and would likely fail WP:Notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed similar text again a few minutes ago. This time it was without a citation and therefore fell under the mandatory-removal policy of unverified information about living persons. See WP:BLP. If it's restored by a non-anonymous editor with a citation I will leave it up long enough to have a discussion. I'll also leave it up if an anonymous editor discusses it here before adding it or at least before I see it. I'll also give consideration if that IP address has other recent edits. Otherwise I'll assume it's a drive-by editor who doesn't know about or doesn't care about discussing controversial edits, and remove it. In any case, if it's restored without citation, I'll remove it per WP:BLP. There is a citation available in the first edit, if the consensus is that this information belongs in this article, it would make a good cite. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been posted a third time by an anonymous address. I'll leave it up for a bit to see if the anonymous editor can present reasons to keep it. Otherwise, it goes as unencyclopedic. I'll stop deleting it when someone gives a good reason to keep it in this article besides it being in this weekend's newspapers and there not being an article for this non- or marginally-notable individual. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm that third anonymous poster, and am having difficulty understanding what the problem is here. The article is about Prestonwood Baptist Church, and a member of its leadership - not a church secretary or something - is in the national papers (USA Today, for one). The fact that he is not the "head" of the 26,000-member congregation is irrelevant. I'm quite sure that if a member of the College of Cardinals was arrested, you wouldn't consider it insignificant because it wasn't the pope. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe you are a member of this church, and just don't want news to get out...209.183.51.46 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. This article is about Prestonwood, not about the individual in question. He's the equivalent of a non- or barely-notable college dean at a university or an assistant or associate minister at any other similarly-sized church. The impact his arrest has on the church is encyclopedic, but the arrest is not any more encyclopedic than if he suddenly resigned for other sinful reasons that went against church teachings, such as adultery or homosexuality. If the church takes some action, other than the obvious actions of firing the guy, hiring a replacement, or making the obligatory public statement distancing themselves from his behavior and calling for prayers for him and any victims he might have had, that might be encyclopedic. For example, if as a result of this incident, the church held a public forum on how even ministers are vulnerable to sin and how the church and members should deal with it, that might be encyclopedic. If you haven't read WP:NOT, WP:BLP, and WP:COATRACK, please read them. Although WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK don't apply in the strict sense, their spirit applies to this section. Here's a good rule of thumb: Will the information be encyclopedic 5, 10, or 20 years from now?
Having said all of that, if this person were notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then news such as this would be encyclopedic in that article. See Hans Reiser, who was recently convicted of killing his wife and whose article predates her disappearance by several years. If this had happened to Rev. Graham we wouldn't be having this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, this may be relevant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So let me make sure I'm getting this... Assuming that Wikipedia had existed for the past twenty years, O.J. Simpson's arrest for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman would be considered "encyclopedic" because there would have - undoubtedly - been an article about him already in existence (presumably, detailing his football, broadcasting, and acting careers). On the other hand...Jeffrey Dahmer's arrest for the murder of 17 individuals would not be "encyclopedic" since he was a "nobody" before the gruesome discoveries, and would certainly not have had an article about him on Wikipedia. Am I understanding this correctly?209.183.51.46 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Most murderers nevermind most people involved in the types of crime he's allegedly involved do not meet the notability criteria for their own articles. Jeffrey Dahmer gets an article for 2 reasons: 1) not only is he clearly notable, but he's downright famous, or rather, infamous, and as such not having an article about him would be a glaring omission, and 2) his murders caused numerous changes beyond the deaths of the individuals. Serial killing is so rare, so newsworthy, and so infamous that it doesn't even compare to soliciting a minor on the non-notable/notable/fame scale. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section trimmed

I trimmed the section down to eliminate details that will have zero impact on the church itself. I still think the entire section should go but the low-level details detract from the article as a whole so much they must go. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you only "trimmed" details that I added. I fail to see why his particular assignment within the church matters...if you were reporting on a McDonald's worker soliciting minors in his spare time, you probably wouldn't mention that the suspect primarily manned the fry machine while on duty. Similarly, the man's date of hire has little to do with anything...I doubt that anyone would care whether the McDonald's fry guy was hired in April of 2007 or June of 2006. On the other hand...the fact that Mr. Barron is being investigated for possible involvement with over a dozen other girls suggests that we may be dealing with a "serial" pedophile (which - I would think - would have a pretty serious "impact on the church itself"), rather than some poor guy that a made a "sinful" mistake like having an affair. "Being investigated for similar crimes" could mean one or two others over a period of twenty years...quite a different scenario than the Dallas Morning News article seems to suggest. I really do have to ask...what is your bent on this? Are you a member of this church?209.183.51.46 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If he were a McDonald's worker other than a clown-mascot or children's-party-planner this would be immediately removed from McDonald's as totally irrelevant - I'd be willing to risk a WP:3RR block for the good of the article. Likewise, if this were a layperson whose job did not relate to children I'd have yanked it and risked a block. The only 2 reasons I haven't yanked it already are 1) you are the 3rd person to add it, so I'm giving some time for other editors to chime in and, coincidently, avoid 3RR sanction, and 2) he is a minister, and the allegations of moral turpitude have at least a slight relevant to his office. It's not relevant enough to keep in this article but combined with 2 previous attempts to put up the material it is relevant enough to arrest my delete-on-sight/WP:NOT/WP:BLP attitude for this kind of material where it's not obviously relevant. You do make some good comments with respect to what I left in. If you were charged with the task writing no more than a paragraph about this incident that reflected the impact this is having on the church, without adding extraneous details, what would you write? Forget I said "if," because as an editor, that is what both of us are charged with doing. My preference would of course be "nothing, unless there was an obvious major impact beyond the loss of a staff member" but I'm asking what you would write. By the way, if I were a member of the church, I would have a conflict of interest and would have to be much more careful editing the article, no matter what my understanding of WP:Notability, WP:Encyclopedic, and other WP:* criteria are with respect to this section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we're getting into a question of values here...I personally believe that "allegations of moral turpitude" have more than just a "slight" relevance to a minister's office. Personal values have little place in an encyclopedia, though, which is why I respect your right to express a belief in the relative insignificance of this man's actions...but I'm not trying to censor you. I would think that - at least, for the time being - the appropriate thing to do would be to err on the side of free-speech and free-press rights. If - six months down the road - this story turns out be a completely insignificant blip on the radar, then...fine, take it down. In the meantime, why not let the story develop a little more before rendering a verdict of "insignificant"? As to what I would write...I think the answer to that can pretty much be found in what I already wrote. I might not have added the details about his particular job assignment or his date of hire, but I also don't think that they create any major problem. I don't know if you added those details, but...if not, then somebody else apparently found them relevant. Since they are factual and don't create any major problem, then why not leave them in? More information is not necessarily a bad thing.209.183.51.46 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good discussion - thanks for keeping it civil. I am a member of Prestonwood, and my first reaction to seeing this on Prestonwood's page is to puke - it just makes me sick. I don't want to see it or hear about it. Yet, I'm not sure it shouldn't be here. Here are my thoughts:

1.) Encyclopedias include current events that they may not include in 20 years. Encyclopedias include current and historically relevant information on a person or thing. They are a compendium of relevant information. Do a look up on the definition of Encyclopedia and see for yourself. 2.) Joe's grievous act is substantial for several reasons: a.) Prestonwood's history includes the founding minister resigning for a sexually deviant act, adultery b.) This act of sexual perversion, which is already recognized as heinous by even the most hardened criminals, is even more significant when perpetrated by a minister of the church. c.) This act is even more significant from a newsworthy point of view, because of the still rather recent series of child molestation by priest of the Catholic church. 3.) From a Christian perspective, my heart grieves for the Barron family, and even for Joe. But I also think that burying this kind of information is the work of the Enemy (if you're not a Christian feel free to tune out). It's easy to forget that ministers are sinful men too, and that perhaps more than lay people, they face temptation, and are often without accountability. It's important that we're reminded of the past so that we can have a better future.

So, my vote is, reluctantly, yes, lets keep the information there. It's factual, relevant, sourced, and yes, because of former sexual misbehavior in this church, historical.Doublet89 (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Postscript, Had not the previous misbehaviour of the church founder been preserved, this discussion would have been made more difficultly. As was the case with the church founder, the resignation of this noted offender does not exhonerate the organization as a whole. So, had this been the first instance in this church's history, where it occurred among its ministerial leadership - it should have been posted and considered historical. Stealtharachnid (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


comparing a minister at a 20,000 plus member church to a employee of a companee of 500,000, it would be more similar for an upper member of managment in the company and yes i would find that relevant. the church is the bigger than many cities in the country making it such a public presence that it would be irresponsible to discuss it. not that i would say that we should make the article in such a way that would be detrementle to the church i personally have been there and have philisophical differences with certain things located in the church but the message was nice i enjoyed the service. But just because the article is small it doesnt mean that there is a reason to remove the article. besides how many unfamous people have things listed on wikipedia and even there own pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.219.163 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Unfamous people with their own articles: If they are not WP:Notable, that's what WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:AfD are for. Note that notability is a much lower threshold than fame. In this case, we aren't talking about having his own article. Given recent press statements by the church, I'm admitting I was wrong that he doesn't belong in this article at all. However, the gory details that were in an edit yesterday have no place here unless those details have some particular long-term bearing on the church and that bearing is both encyclopedic and verifiable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Previously existing article

  • Comment If one looks, it seems that attempts were made to create an article on Joe Barron a year ago (I found this while I was about to make a redirect). Could it be that he was seeking publicity? Let's do him the honor. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There is more than one Joe Barron out there who may want a Wikipedia page with his name on it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As an admin, I can view the deleted Joe Barron article, and it did not appear to be about this person.Edison (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unencyclopedic tag

I disagree, but I'll leave that off for a few days in case events change and it does become encyclopedic for this article. Other than the expected public statement from the church, and of course the loss of one of their ministry team, I haven't seen how this event impacts this church. To put it another way: Assuming this guy resigns quietly and the impact on the ministry is no more than if he resigned suddenly for any other reason, then either he should go or we should add the resignations for each and every other ordained minister formerly on the staff, because they would be equally relevant to this article. Of course, we shouldn't do the latter, as it's not encyclopedic.

Here's how I see this playing out: Within a month or two, probably sooner, we'll know what impact this will have on the church. It will probably be nothing more than having to do some hand-wringing and hire a replacement. We will also have some idea if this person's trial turns into a media circus sufficient to cause him to meet WP:Notability in his own right. Based on this, the content will either go here, if it impacted the church, go in an article about this person, if he meets the notability criteria, or disappear from Wikipedia. I'm expecting the latter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

dvaidwr, you obviously haven't been unfortunate enough to be in a church where this happens. It always, significantly effects the church. I've already heard the comment "this just makes me not want to trust any ministers." It has a huge, significant impact in a church; people will leave; trust will wean; and good things will happen as well. But my no means is it an insignificant occurance in the ministry or history of the church. Doublet89 (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed twice in last two days

An anonymous user removed the section yesterday and a registered user removed it today. It's hard to know if this is one or two people, but in any case, it's clearly not unanimous that the text should be kept. With that in mind, I think this should be re-visited in about a month, with heavy weight given to the verifiable, encyclopedic impact on the church. If the church continues on "without missing a beat" then it's probably not encyclopedic. If there is a visible impact on the church's mission, or if they make additional public statements, then keep it. Another option is to go to WP:RFC and ask others to help decide if this content belongs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with revisiting after the impact is known- That being said the minister involved was one of the lowest on the totem pole and most members of the church probably couldn't have even identified him as a minister (pre-arrest), this is hardly encyclopedic. Are we going to start chronicling all actions of Prestonwood's hundreds of employees? --Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cupcake and others that this is Unencyclopedic and not worth mentioning on this page. I have been a member of this church for 5 years and couldn't have even picked this minister out of a lineup as he was extremely low on the totem pole and would be the equivalent of a lower-level manager at any company. The impact of this incident while surely a bump in the road will be minimal to this strong congregation and will surely be unencyclopedic within a matter of a couple of weeks for those that do not think it is already. If i'm overruled on this i'm not going to fight it but I find this a non-story at this point.Johnb316 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, now there is a roughly evenly divided opinion, so I'll leave it off. If there is no discussion in the coming days I think that will be the very definition of consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
One two three four I detect an edit war. Not good. Seriously, can we freeze it for a day or two and discuss it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is a roughly divided opinion...go back and count the comments on each side. I also don't think that a member of the church in question is exactly an unbiased observer. I just don't understand what the rush is to sweep this incident under the proverbial rug. Give it time, see where it goes...but in the meantime, leave it alone. I think that locking the page would be appropriate at this point. I know there's probably about as much chance of that happening as there is for pigs to fly...209.183.51.42 (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I too find this unencyclopedic and would tend to have the opinion that if there is so much disagreement over a section that you err on the side of caution and leave the material out until proven to be encyclopedic. Don't see how you cannot agree with that without having an agenda or being a Christian hater that enjoys these types of unfortunate incidents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.62.217.93 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, especially not a supermarket tabloid newspaper, so the coverage of the arrest of one pastor in a multi-pastor megachurch should not get undue coverage in the article. But it has gotten nationwide news coverage,as shown by a Google News search [1] more than other recent things concerning the church, as seen at [2] and there should be no censorship or spin control to block any mention of the events in the article, even if it causes heartburn for members or friends of the church. WP:BLP principles should be strictly applied, in that only well referenced facts should be allowed into the article. The talk page should be used to create a draft section which is consistent with BLP and each faction can address concerns here. Editors must comply with the WP:3RR rule. The average reader would expect to see coverage of this subject in an article about the church in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

After researching this and looking at other wikki pages, I believe this section has no place permanently on this. The average reader would NOT expect to see this listed as no other significant events positive or negative are listed in this manner. Placing this section would be inconsistent. --Cupcakefriend (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a major news story, about a major church, in a controversial denominational sect (Southern Baptist Convention) involving a crime that society sees as being one of the worst, that has happened at the heals of one of the biggest news stories of the decade - Catholic priest trying to cover up sexual abuse against children. And now it appears that some of my protestant friends are trying to cover this up as well. I just can't comprehend how anyone can say this is "unencyclopedic" and find it highly offensive that people who call themselves Christians would want toFloridapeaches (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New try at scandal

I've been disappointed at the "gossipy" nature of the text surrounding the scandal. Over the weekend the Dallas Morning News did an online editorial praising the church for its swift and open response to the crisis. That reaction, rather than the arrest itself, is germane to this article. I've rewritten the text accordingly. I also put it at the bottom of the timeline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought David's rewrite was good, and made two minor changes to clarify the act and Mr. Barron's position.Floridapeaches (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
this is a better wording and not as gossipy and I think we can agree--Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey we need a picture!!!

Has it struck anyone else that the page of Prestonwood Baptist, one of the largest churches in the world, and one of the most visually stunning, has NO picture?!!! Does anyone have a good picture of Prestonwood (or can one of you Prestonwood staff members that deletes everything negative on this page) that they can contribute?Doublet89 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. With the obvious members of this church being so busy at removing edits, you'd think one of them might have enough time to take a digital picture of the church and upload it to the page. It would be encylopedic to have a picture. 67.141.93.199 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Also a picture of Dr. Jack Graham on this page and his page would be nice. Could someone who is a member of this church take a digital picture of your church and your pastor and upload them to wikipedia? Pictures would make your article look nicer. Or are you too busy deleting references to Joe Barron? 67.141.93.199 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. Despite incoming redirects, this is not about him, it's about the church. A single picture of the building OR of the church logo is sufficient. The latter can be done under fair-use, the former should be done only with a free license. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I said Jack Graham (the pastor of the church). I wouldn't suggest that you put a picture of Barron on the page. A single picture of the church would be great. If anyone who actually attends services there could snap a picture then that could be uploaded as public domain. No fair use needed. Or I could find a picture online then do a pencil sketch of it, scan it and upload that under public domain. (I'm not too bad at it.) However, wouldn't it be better to have a photo? Of course.
Davidwr, If you are commenting about my other post, please reply to it under that post. This section is about pictures, not Barron. 75.88.55.169 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arrest details removed

The details of the arrest are not encyclopedic to this article. It would have made no difference if he didn't have condoms, or if he had a love letter or porn or something else titillating instead. It makes no difference if he drive 300 miles or 30 or 3000. The key facts are: An ordained minister on staff committed a sexual sin which was also a felony and which indicated a mindset capable of committing offenses against children, that he resigned, and that the church didn't try to hide it. Save the details for WikiNews. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, arrest details are important. It lends credability to the claim. The package of condoms are evidence of Barrons intentions. The quote from a newpaper editorial, IMO, is unencyclopedic because it is the writer opinion not fact. However, I'll stop inserting the details. I wasn't wanting to start an edit war. To be honest, I thought it was a little funny to link a church (that is probably for abstainence only education) with the article on condoms (which has realistic illustrations on how to put one on). I apollogize. Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. 67.141.90.157 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) '
I agree with 67.141.90.157. While I am a Christian and do no want to see all this extra information about condoms I do think that an encyclopedia is collection of knowledge on subjects. And, I don't think trying to hide things makes us look very good to those who aren't Christians.

In the same way that we ask if a subject or person is noteworthy in order to have a wiki page, we must ask if the detailed information is noteworthy, and as anonymous wrote, factual in nature. The fact that the condoms were extra large would not be noteworthy, but the miles driven, the condoms, and the camera all go to the case against Barron and are material, noteworthy, factual, and (can be) sourced. The newspapers opinion is an opinion, not fact. In fact, it is an opinion of what they THINK people at Prestonwood might be thinking. It might be noteworthy, but it is not a fact, or anything known, so it can not be sourced. We can only source the the thought that it might be fact. I'm going to remove the opinion part, and may post the other facts as well, unless there is a good consensus about the opinion being good wiki, and the details being bad wiki, so to speak. So speak up, or forever hold your piece!Romans9:11 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a solution. Why can't one of the Prestonwood members write an article on Barron. They know about him and the details of his life. The arrest details can go there. The churches article will only need to link to Barrons article. This scandal has possibly made Barron notable enough to warrant his own article. BTW, If you search for Joe Barron it is redirected to this article. You should fix that, because it makes this article about Joe Barron too. Besides Barron is no longer faculty at this church. 67.141.93.199 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am speaking up about both your suggestions and could not disagree more with your comments and will reverse them every time. There have been numerous discussions already about this topic and I believe consensus has already been made to leave the article as currently written without the gory details. Wiki is not for reporting news or giving detailed stories...if someone wants to read the article for the details then it is right there to do so. As far as the "opinion" page goes this is not what the sourced link in question is...it is in fact an "editorial" column which to me carries much more wait and is def encyclopedic as it shows how the general public (or at least it's representation from the editorial page at largest newspaper) feels about how the situation was handled. I also would like to disagree with your thinking that everything on Wiki should be "fact"...the key word is "verifiability" not "fact" and in this case it is perfectly acceptable to show the opinion of the most respected local editorial board and the article does not try to make this seem like any thing other than that. Take a look at the wiki guidelines if you'd like but this source is perfectly acceptable as long as it is stated who made the statement and it is from a credible 3rd party.Dirkmavs (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Still this article is about Joe Barron. If you type Joe Barron into the search box and click on Go, you will be directed to this article. That IMO needs to be fixed. Give him his own page with all the "gory" details in it. Just link to it. Like I said, this scandal probably has made him notable enough for his own article. The reason I first came to this article, was to find out more about Barron. When I first read this article, there was nothing about Barron, because it was being deleted over and over again. It's starting to look like you guys are wanting to hide the facts because it is embarrassing to your church. Information is the key here. Black collar crimes deserve to be handled factually. I believe that reporting such crimes factually will be a deterrant to it happening again. Sweeping it under the rug, does not help anyone. It most certaintly won't help any future victims. (It could have just as easily been a real girl in your church who was solicited instead of a cop 200 miles away. You guys got lucky.) I promise not to edit the article but I will comment on it here. 67.141.93.199 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is not about Joe Barron. The redirect which causes "Joe Barron" to redirect here is because people looking for Joe Barron will find a little information about him here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Then fix the redirect. I'm not going to do anything to this page. But, as long as the redirect is there, you are going to get vandalism. If that redirect was not there, you wouldn't even be dealing with me. That is probably the cause of so much woe. The editorial comment is not inforamtive and it's speculative. I'd just take it out entirely and mention that Barron was arrested. If Barron had a page of his own then you could just link to it. Someone had to put the redirect in there. It just doesn't happen because this page mentions Barron. It probably was redirected when Barron was in good standing at Prestonworld. 162.40.172.235 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It was redirected on May 19, 2008. It's not unusual for names in the news to get articles or redirects at the time of the news. In this case the person would have clearly failed AfD, so the person who created the redirect wisely chose not to go that route, and created a redirect instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
More history on the article: An article by the same name was speedy-deleted twice before for lack of notability. Here are the traffic statistics for the redirect for May and June. Stats from January and February show zero, which can't be right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The stats have to be zero for a time when my redirect didn't exist. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
They stats should be non-zero during the short time in late January and early February that short-lived articles existed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What if they were speedied in a few minutes? Or perhaps the pageview tool drops articles that have been deleted from its database? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Those are logical explanations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The purpose of the DMN Editorial reference and quote

The purpose of the quote was to show the impact of this incident on the church's perception in the larger community. The church got out ahead of the incident, was open about it, and as a result, gained respect from at least one member of the press. If there is a way of saying this without citing that particular article, then feel free to replace the text with something else that gets the point across. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record my opinion is that you worded this very appropriately David. I actually still do not believe the entire story is encyclopedic and time will prove that, but I have agreed to leave for now based on the consensus of other editors and will revisit this later.Johnb316 (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please leave invisible WP:BLP warning

I re-added the invisible WP:BLP warning so new editors won't go off and add stuff about Rev. Joe without putting in a good citation. It happened once, it can happen again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight for arrest - maybe not now but in a few months

Right now we devote several lines to the recent arrest. It's too early to tell, but in a few months we should know if that is too much space. I'm going to tag it with an {{update after}} tag so the article will be looked at again before Labor Day. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I may have inadvertantly contributed to the WP:UNDUE issues in cleaning up what was there, so if somebody wants to trim that section down preemptively, that is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure the tone was encyclopedic and the sentences parseable (the "minister to married adults" in particular confused the hell out of me), and now that's done, feel free to choppy-choppy. -Jaysweet (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I still believe that this section of the article needs significant trimming. How is it that this one story takes up probably 40% of this page. If this is such a big deal to some editors then why not just start his own page and let it try to stand the test of time as encyclopedic. I personally continue to believe (as do other editors apparently) that in short time any mention of this incident on the Prestonwood page will not be encyclopedic and we will revisit that later I assume but for now what is wrong with a sourced, brief statement including Pastor Graham's reaction. I'm fine with or without the DMN editorial source although it does add something to the article in my opinion. The reader opinion however does not belong regardless of their opinion and if this is a sticking point then just delete all mention of DMN editorial.Johnb316 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnb, I think what you have now is very good. It states the controversy succinctly and neutrally. As davidwr mentions, if this ends up being an enduring story, we can update the article to include more coverage (or, as you mention, even create a separate page). But since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we shouldn't do that prematurely. I like this version for now. Good show! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization,addition of headline and subheadlines, and added content for balance for Joe Barron scandal

I've added a headline and subheadlines for the Joe Barron section. The section lacked balance on the communities reaction and it appeared to be a compilation of statements that didn't read like an encyclopedia. All of the content, at this point, is sourced and balanced. If you desire to add or delete anything from this section, please consider the notability/relevance and whether your addition or subtraction will make the section unbalanced. In the future, if this section's notability and relevance to the churches history should subside, we can remove the sections and include a sentence or two, as the Bill Webber incident is. But for now, this is still a current event, is still in progress, and the number of revisions, discussions, and edit warring that has happened suggest that this additional information to make the section balanced is needed.Romans9:11 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you beat me to the deletion, John. This version gives WAY to much space to this section. If you want to start separate page for Mr. Barron fine but this article is about Prestonwood Baptist Church.Dirkmavs (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a PR page for Prestonwood Baptist Church. Google it. Look how substantial this story is, and try to argue that the arrest of Minister Joe Barron isn't now a major part of the identity of this church. We are all sorry for those of you embarrassed by these events, but wikipedia is for information, not advertisement. (6/9/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.199.51 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intent to ask for PP if edit wars resume

If edit wars resume, I intend to ask for PP for 3 days, followed by a few weeks of semi-protection. I strongly encourage all anonymous editors to register now so they will be able to edit the article when it is semi-protected. The 3 days will be long enough for new accounts to edit the article on the same terms as established editors, subject to 3RR sanctions and the like if they become necessary.

I sincerely hope the edit wars do not continue.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page without you asking. Toddst1 (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Barron's title

I have been asked why I removed John Barron's title, "minister to married adults." The reason I did is because it was confusing to me. Not being someone who frequents megachurches, I had no idea that was a job title. I am not sure it is relevant anyway (seems like an unnecessary detail), but I am bringing it up here in case anyone else feels it should be included. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The only reason it was relevant is that it clearly indicated his job was not to minister to children or to the general church population: He had a specific job to do, and that job did not involve direct ministry to children. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
See, that's another part of why I originally removed it, is I thought there was sort of a hidden apologist implication, and I thought it was a bit insidiously pov. But I dunno, I don't feel that strongly about it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that it would be worth noting that he was one of the married adult ministers just to avoid any confusion that he was the senior pastor...i'll let you decide David as i'm ok either way.Johnb316 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)