Talk:Preying from the Pulpit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. The expectation is that Vivaldi, Arbustoo, and other editors of these articles will in the course of editing remove poorly sourced controversial material.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 30th April 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

It is beyond silly that we should have an article about a miniseries that appeared on a news show, when we don't even know the date the series aired, what channel, who the reporters were, or any other relevent details. Not enough information for an article. Vivaldi (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though the only place this particular news show is ever mentioned is in two articles in the newspaper that are over 13 years old. I suggest that this means that this topic is not notable at all. Vivaldi (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Some mentions from around the US include:
  • A conversation with the Rev. Jack Hyles Northwest Indiana Times. May 30, 1993
  • Hyles: I'm no dictator. First Baptist leader defends Northwest Indiana Times. May 28, 1993
  • "Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union San Diego, Calif.: May 17, 1993. p. A.7
  • "Springs drive-by baptisms immersed in controversy." Bruce Finley, Denver Post Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Aug 22, 1993. pg. 7.C
  • "7 accused of abuse linked to preacher." The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Mich.: May 17, 1993. pg. B.2
  • "Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5"
Plus the two articles mentioned in the article. Arbusto 00:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Proposed deletion

I have proposed that we delete this article from Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Take it to AFD, and argue your case there. I want to hear arguements on both sides, before deletion.. --Rob 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I did. I just wanted to make sure that I tried the proposed deletion process first. Vivaldi (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable Source of News

How could you call an MP3 copy of a TV network news broadcast that is hosted on a personal Website a reliable source? I already know the answer is, "You can't," and I know that many Wikipedia editors don't know that. However, you could contact someone with high credentials in document reliability--at least a high school English teacher--and find out the answer. Please, go ask the Dean of your local college's English Department how reliable a source those MP3s are. I would love to hear about the University that would accept such material for its own courses. Pooua 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A recording, MP3 or otherwise, is not considered a reliable source? I think that Richard Nixon would agree, but most folks... not so much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.143.133.191 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Copyright issue

I'm concerned about the copyright status of the audio material we are linking to. If it was hosted by Fox or the TV station that broadcast the report then I would be OK with it. However, the material is hosted by an obscure website, jeriwho.net, which doesn't indicate if they have any permission to host the material. Since they have put up audio for the entire series, they can not claim "fair use". As such, they have probably violated copyright by putting the audio copies on their website. We are not allowed to link to copyright material under these conditions, as per WP:Copyrights, which is official policy. The applicable section is the following:
Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is OK.
I am therefore removing the links from the article given the likely copyright infringement. -- JJay 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
JJay thanks for your concern, but regarding your statement 1) It is not the full program. Note these a few minute clips from a 1/2 hour news program. A) There are five out of the seven nights of the program partially reproduced. B) From the half hour news program" six minutes of a half hour, six minutes of a 30 minutes, seven minutes of a half hour, thirteen minutes of a half hour, and lastly seven minutes of a half hour are reproduced. C) It is also partially reproduced in the sense of it is only audio not video of a newsreport. 2) There is no restrictions that calls into question reproducing minutes of video a half hour news reports in audio format at Wikipedia:Fair use.
This is no different than political blogs that make certain newsclips available. Well, except the people who seem concerned about the copyright law voted delete in the AfD and this is simply audio reproduced.
In contrast, to the copyright concerns of three people who have resorted to name calling with me, at Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner there is eight full reproductions of audio than includes video[1], which is being sold by C-SPAN here[2]. Pay attention to the note at the bottom of that page, which says "Note: This is a copyrighted duplication of the program as it aired on C-SPAN." Arbusto 09:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyright law forbids people from distributing other people's material without permission. C-SPAN has the authority to distribute its own material, which is what it is doing on that page to which you linked. In contrast, Jeri Massi has not given notice of copyright ownership for the MP3 files she is distributing, and we have no indication that she has permission to distribute it.
Re-read the above section, wikipedia has linked 8 different non-CSPAN downloads of the program. Arbusto 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
If true then those editors are likely violating the same policy. Policy can't be ignored just because you find a few examples that you think are similar. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Generally, to meet fair use, the excerpted material must be limited to specific material, that is, the copied material must be no longer than is necessary to meet a specific point. But, the Web page offers no specific point to the Jeri Massi links; it simply says, in effect, "Here are some links to criticism in MP3 format." No indication of origin, no indication of copyright, no indication of what specific point the linker hoped to make in each link. Copyright law does not permit shotgun copying for fair use.
In this case, the material is only a fraction of the full program. For example link one is 6 minutes the broadcast is a half hour news program. 6/30= 5, thus the audio is 1/5 of the broadcast. It is also only the audio. Arbusto 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It is 39 minutes of a complete program called "Preying from the Pulpit". The other news segments weren't part of this story and can't be included in your calculations. Otherwise you might as well calculate the 6am, 7am, 12pm, 5pm, and 6pm newsbroadcasts from that day too. Or maybe you can say its only 39 minutes out of 1 year of programming! A 1/2 hour broadcast of news has 15 minutes of news. The rest is commercials. Only the audio is still a copyright violation. Transcripts, translations, or deriviative works are all protected by the same copyright protection. "Fair use" for educational purposes would require much smaller individual bits taken out and then analyzed in an educational manner. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if your Stephen Colbert example were the same situation as "Preying from the Pulpit," that does not necessarily mean that either usage is appropriate or legal. Pooua 10:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
1) The Colbert example is a full reproduction. 2) This case is a segments reproduced. 3) This shows that the people discussing copyrights are only "worried" about it in one article. I wonder why that is... Arbusto 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
We don't have time to edit all the articles Arbustoo. We all have interests. I had no particular at all in Jack Hyles, and in fact never even heard of him until I accidentally stumbled upon your horribly biased and intentially deceptive edits to the article. If you have free time you should try to tell other people to follow the policies when you see them being violated elsewhere on Wikipedia. You will be far more respected as an editor if you follow the policies and try to get others to follow them. Trying to use other people's violation of policy to justify your own is wrong. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the links that Arbusto reverted, because 1) these are not Jeri Massi's property 2) the links are not attributed to the owner 3) the links are to unreliable source material. Pooua 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to the original: 1) Mintues-fractions of the audio program of a half hour news service partially reproduced for non-commerical, educational purposes, is fair use. Arbusto 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
A half-hour news program typically has only a few minutes on each story and almost all have a total of 13-16 minutes of news. I thought these audio extracts were the complete program? You mean that the owner of the personal website has edited the audio files so that they do not contain the full unedited audio from the original source? What parts of the newsstory did she find convenient to delete? Vivaldi (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
From the article: Preying from the Pulpit aired as a multi part segement of the 10:00 news. The MP3s contain the full segment of Preying from the Pulpit and not the other news aired, so there are no local sports highlights or anything of that nature. They are "unedited" in the sense of the Preying from the Pulpit segement, but clips in relation to the full night's broadcast. Arbusto 23:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well then, if they are the entire "mini-series" that is called "Preying from the Pulpit", then that is what it is judged on. It is like a chapter of a book. A single chapter in a thirty chapter book still has copyright protection and nobody can ever just copy the chapter and put it online without the owners permission. And what segments of the audio program are unavailable? Is it possible that the two segments she left off are mainly retractions or clarifications of prior statements they made? Are the missing segments comments from Hyles? Do you know? Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
That is the problem. The audio clips are not snippets. They are the complete audio for the entire segments. They infringe the copyright for these segments since they are obviously being hosted on an unauthorized site. It doesn't matter that the entire newscast has not been posted, or for that matter, the entire day's programming. It is identical to making an MP3 of just one song off an album. The song is copyright protected as is the entire album. "Fair Use" would allow a small portion to be used, such as 10% of a song. However, Jeriwho has posted the entire audio from "Preying to the Pulpit", which is not "fair use", regardless of whether use is for commercial, educational, or entertainment purposes. -- JJay 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The fair-use of 10% would have to be for a specific purpose. You couldn't even use 3 notes from a song if you didn't follow the rules of fair-use. There must be a purpose for the fair-use. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
A MP3, which is a song SOLD for download on the internet is much different that the audio portion of a publicly aired TV report. The song is strictly for commerical interests the other is not. Once again this portion is merely 1/5 of the entire broadcast on the 10:00 news and is only the audio of it.Arbusto 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The TV news is put on the air to make money. TV news brings in money for stations and the stations have explicit copyright notices on their broadcasts. Also, many TV newsstations do sell their video, audio, and written transcripts. Many even specifically mention how to get those transcripts at the end of their shows. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong about this. All commercial TV broadcasts are copyright protected including the news and both the Audio and video portions. TV is commercial, via advertising. That is why it is illegal to tape and then redistribute the broadcasts. If Fox wants to make the broadcasts available over the internet that would be fine with me. However, the policy is clear that we should not link to sites that have "stolen" the material. Alternatively, if jeriwho can assert that they have permission to use the broadcasts, then I think we can and should link to their page. However, I searched their site and could find no claim that they were authorized to distribute the material. You should also bear in mind that the audio covers the entire "preying from the pulpit" segments. That is not "fair use" and it is irrelevant what the station broadcast before or after the segments. 60 minutes, which broadcasts three or four segments per show, is a good comparison. Can I tape and then distribute one segment claiming "fair use" because I haven't distributed the entire show? The answer is no. The segment is copyright protected, as is the entire show. -- JJay 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I tape and then distribute one segment claiming "fair use" because I haven't distributed the entire show? The answer is no. The segment is copyright protected, as is the entire show. My response: That is exactly correct. One chapter in a 30 chapter book is still copyrighted. Even 5 notes out of a one hour album are copyrighted and can't be duplicated unless a specific fair-use provision is cited. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Segments (in this case 6 minutes) of a broadcast (in this case 30 minutes) are allowed to be quoted under fair use. Interesting... removing something that you have voted to delete and get in an argument with someone you have a history of being uncivil to.Arbusto 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Broadcasts are not 30 minutes. You are counting the 15 minutes of commercials. The commercials are not even included in the copyrighted portion of a news broadcast. The copyright of the commercials is owned by someone else entirely. And even a 30 second commercial cannot be copied in total under fair-use. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... removing something that you have voted to delete Do you find it odd that people that would vote to delete something would also want to remove it? Only one person besides yourself voted to keep this article.. Read the AfD. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would stick to the matter at hand: (i) The article was not deleted; (ii) I have no interest in arguing with anyone; (iii) any past history we may have had does not play any role in the fact that these links look very clearly to be violating the Fox affiliate's copyright. As such, it seems obvious that it violates our policy to link to the complete audio of "preying from the pulpit" (i.e. the subject of this article). -- JJay 00:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Segments (in this case 6 minutes) of a broadcast (in this case 30 minutes) are allowed to be quoted under fair use. Arbusto 01:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you are right about this. The use of the audio here is substantial since it is the entire audio portions of the segments. They are not short excerpts or citations, which might be permitted under the fair use doctrine. This page gives some good examples of court decisions regarding fair use of copyright material

[3]. You will see that courts have ruled that using as little as 30 seconds of copyright material in news broadcasts have violated fair use. -- JJay 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that case is at all similar in the case in question the total video was only 4 minutes and " took the heart of the work and affected the copyright owner's ability to market the video." I'm not convinced one way or another that the segments are fair use. May I suggest posting a note on the village pump for people who are more copyright savy to give their opinions? JoshuaZ 01:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ: this is 5/7th of the entire Preying from a Pulpit series including a full 39 minutes of directly copied audio. It is not fair-use to do this. Even taking out single chapters of long books is a violation of copyright. The "fair-use" must be for a specific purpose. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
There are many cases listed on that page. The optimal problem here is that we are linking to the entire audio portion of the 6 part "preying from the pulpit" news segments, hosted on a site that does not indicate any permission to use the material. -- JJay 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If the copyright owner doesn't want this shared and believes the blog to violate fair use then it goes between the blog owner and copyright holder. At that point in time, once a claim is made by the copyright holder that it is not fair use then the links should be taken down.
As of right now, wikipedia is not the only party to link to these mp3s [4]Arbusto 02:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You are making up your own policy now. Wikipedia says that we should not link to works that are likely to be violations of copyright. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What you are asserting is not wikipedia policy regarding links. The policy has already been quoted here, but please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. It is also not particularly relevant if other sites link to jeriwho. That is not our concern here and does not address the underlying copyright issue. -- JJay 02:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What I am asserting is that this under fair use. You claim is it not. You do not own the copyright in question nor do you have a citation that the copyright owner believes this is not fair use. Also you have dubious reasons for wanting to take this off as well. Arbusto 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What I am asserting is that this under fair use. You claim is it not. You do not own the copyright in question nor do you have a citation that the copyright owner believes this is not fair use. Can you show us some court cases that have shown similar copies that were ruled to be fair use? What is your basis for claiming fair-use? Do you even know the requirements for fair use? Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Also you have dubious reasons for wanting to take this off as well. The "dubious reason" is that we want Wikipedia policy to be followed. I could care less about Jack Hyles personally. I'm not a Baptist, or even a Christian for that matter. The only reason I am here at all is because I stumbled upon your gross and repulsive edits that demonstrate your complete lack of willingness to maintain a neutral tone in the articles about Hyles. When left to your own devices, these articles are 90% criticism of Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going by wikipedia's copyright policy. Regarding fair use, it would be very difficult to make the claim given that the use encompasses all the audio from broadcast segments. It is even more difficult to make the claim when the material is being distributed to anyone with an internet connection, rather than in a more limited setting, such as the classroom. I also don't see any reason for your continued insinuations regarding my "motives". My "motives" are that I like to see articles adhere to the policies and guidelines here. I would appreciate, again, if you would refrain from making personal accusations and stick to the issues involved with editing this article. -- JJay 02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
1) Segments (in this case 6 minutes) of a broadcast (in this case 30 minutes) are allowed to be quoted under fair use. 2) A few examples of your past incivility to me, from your talk page "Have you always been this much of a troll or is this a recent problem you've developed" JJay 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Then you followed up with "maybe your intelligence is absent tonight" and concluded with "If you are asking for a date the answer is no." 3) Thus, given your past interest in the articles I work on and the chance to argue with me, I believe this is no different than the time you prevented my redirect[5]. Instead of just letting the redirect happen, you cried vandalism, the article went through AfD with one keep vote-You, and it was redirected. Arbusto 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
1) its a total of 39 minutes of the program called "Preying from the Pulpit". The 30 minute news broadcast is filled with 15 minutes of commercials that aren't even copyrighted by the newschannel at all. 2) Your past examples of violation of policy are also numerous. Listing them all out in every thread is silly. Lets stick to the main issue. 3) This article had exactly one person besides you that voted to keep it. And 8 times as many people that voted to get rid of it. Can you stick to the issue? Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the fair use issue, there is a discussion on the WP AN/I that may be informative. Otherwise, I think my views on these links are fairly clear and I believe closely alligned with wikipedia policy and standard practice concerning linking to copyright violations. Finally, for the third time, I need to ask that you stick to the issues involved with editing this article. If there are examples of incivility on this page please point them out (or remove them). Besides that, I have no interest in discussing these unrelated articles or discussions you keep trying to bring up. If you have a personal complaint to make, then make it in the proper forum. However, this talk page should be used to discuss editing this article. -- JJay 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
While JJay should stop making personal attacks, his attacks, do not change the underlying issue of whether or not it is acceptable to link to them. Based on the discussion at WP:ANI, I now think that under the policy it is best not to link to them. JoshuaZ 15:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks???? Please point out personal attacks on this page, or related to this article, or even related to the copyright issue we have been discussing here. Your comment, frankly, seems unnecessary to me. As an admin, I would hope you would seek to reduce tensions, rather than increase them. -- JJay 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't look at the timestamps on Arbusto's above quotes. JoshuaZ 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I appreciate your efforts to arbitrate here. Having said that, I would perhaps encourage you to read the entire discussion here before intervening. My interest in removing the links was strictly policy based. It makes no difference to me who else is editing the article (and nor will I be goaded into revisiting an unrelated dispute). As I stated above, if the copyright issue is clarified, or if the copyright holder makes the material available, then we should possibly link. Barring that, we should be cautious with links as with any edit, because our reputation is on the line. Our sources should be beyond reproach (which to my mind mostly eliminates blogs due to the lack of accountability), partly owing to NPOV concerns. Our readers are intelligent enough to use google, find the MP3s, and make up their own minds. However, we should not put our rep on the line by steering them to possibly dodgy sources-- JJay 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This not considered a settled matter because two out of four people at the adminstrators board sides with JJay. Arbusto 18:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but no one sided with me. Despite your continued attempts to personalize the issue, it is about wikipedia policy. If the policy changes regarding linking to sites that infringe copyright, or if the copyright holder releases the material, then we can link. Until then, the jeriwho mp3s should not be linked from this article. -- JJay 18:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Source that the copyright holder questions it as fair use? If you can't provide a source it is merely your personal opinion. Arbusto 03:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy doesn't require that we do this. Taking 39 minutes of audio that doesn't belong to you and distributing it for free is a violation of copyright. Since the person who has stolen the intellectual property has not asserted ownership or permission, it clearly must not be linked to until you can show that permission of the copyright owner has been given. This is clearly not a case of "fair use" because we have a full 39 minutes of audio, including over 70% of the show called "Preying from the Pulpit". Vivaldi (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It should be fairly clear by now that we are not dealing with personal opinions but rather with wikipedia policy. You seem to disagree with the policy. In the case, I can only advise you to take up the matter on AN/I where I hope you will find an answer to your questions concerning copyright infringement. -- JJay 03:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair use allows the quotation of certain media (in this case five minutes) of a program (in this case 30 minutes) without permission of the copyright owner. Wikipedia policy discourages against KNOWINGLY LINKING TO WEBPAGES that VIOLATE COPYRIGHT LAW. You have not proved this violates fair use nor have you supplied a citation that the copyright owner disagrees that this is fair use. Arbusto 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the truth yet again Arbustoo. The news show was not 30 minutes long. You are counting the 50% of the show that was commercials. Secondly these are links to over 70% of the audio of "Preying from the Pulpit", which is clearly not fair use by any standard. Read some case law about this and read what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say about fair use: "brief excerpts", "short passages", and other such terms are used by judges. Trying to suggest that a 39 minute audio broadcast encompassing over 70% of the entire work passes as fair use is plain silly. I challenge you to find a single case that suggests what you are trying to do passes as fair use. Vivaldi (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Those who would use copyrighted material have to prove that use of the material meets copyright requirements before they use it. That is simply the nature of copyright law, never mind smart policy by people who don't want to be sued. Arbusto has it completely backwards, as I have pointed out to him several times over the last month or two. This is simply part of his desperate campaign to defame Jack Hyles without regard to the reliability, verifiability or suitability of his material. Pooua 00:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again, fair use by definition is using copyrighted material WITHOUT permission. Provide a claim by the copyright owner disputing this is fair use. Arbusto 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
We don't need to. It is an obvious case where "fair use" does not apply. The person has extracted 39 minutes of audio from the program that makes up over 70% of the entire show called "Preying from the Pulpit". No court has ever ruled that this type of theft is allowable under "fair use" principles. Check out what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say about "fair use" and check out what judges have said about it. "Brief extracts" or "small parts" or "short passages" may pass as fair use, but only if they meet further fair use requirements. An educational fair use would typically include criticism and analysis of the content quoted -- and the analysis would make up a much larger portion of the entire work than the quoted material. Vivaldi (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP Policy about external links to copyrighted material

From the Wikipedia policy about external links to copyrighted material:

External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Vivaldi (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern and your nomination for deleting this page, but regarding your "worries:" 1) It is not the full program. Note these are a few minute clips from a 1/2 hour news program. A) There are five out of the seven nights of the program partially reproduced. B) From the half hour news program" six minutes of a half hour, six minutes of a 30 minutes, seven minutes of a half hour, thirteen minutes of a half hour, and lastly seven minutes of a half hour are reproduced. C) It is also partially reproduced in the sense of it is only audio not video of a newsreport. 2) There is no restriction that calls into question reproducing minutes of video a half hour news reports in audio format at Wikipedia:Fair use.
Thanks for your concern and your nomination for deleting this page My response: 8 out of 10 people think this page should not be here. That was the result of the vote on AfD. You had one person that agreed with you Arbustoo. Vivaldi (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
1) It is not the full program. Note these are a few minute clips from a 1/2 hour news program A) There are five out of the seven nights of the program partially reproduced. B) From the half hour news program six minutes of a half hour, six minutes of a 30 minutes, seven minutes of a half hour, thirteen minutes of a half hour, and lastly seven minutes of a half hour are reproduced. C) It is also partially reproduced in the sense of it is only audio not video of a newsreport. My response: 1A) 5/7th is not fair use 1B) A half-hour news-program is only 13-16 minutes long typically. The rest are commercials. These clips amount to nearly half or more than half of the entire news broadcast. Also, they amount to stealing an entire 39 minute story. Whether or not they broke it up into 5 or 7 chapters does nothing to give you fair use. The personal website has taken 5/7th of the body of work called "Preying on the Pulpit", a body of work for whom they do not appear to even acknowledge the copyright holder. Nor do they have a statement of authorization to duplicate and distribute from the copyright holder. 1C) The audio portion is protected by the same copyright. What you are suggesting is that you could have one link to the audio and another to the video and make it fair-use. Your argument is hog-wash. Even people that publish transcripts or translations of copyrighted material are violating the owners copyrights. Vivaldi (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Also there was little need to copy and paste to create a new section for this; it is copy and pasted above. Arbusto 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I missed it until after I hit save page. Sorry about any confusion that it caused you. Vivaldi (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a "Tie"?

all with ties to Jack Hyles, it said - What constitutes a tie? Financial support? Shared property? An occassional handshake? The reader really needs to know. Pooua 00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the tie is they followed "teachings and philosophy' of Hyles." Arbusto 09:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Rather vague, don't you think? How would they know? Do they say? Pooua 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It talks about the case of a Hammond Baptist sponsered event, ran by a Hyles graduate/pastor at another church who was convicted for molesting a child at the Hammond event for example. Arbusto 18:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"Rather vague, don't you think? How would they know? Do they say?" --Pooua My Response: That is why articles in professional encyclopedias do not typically get filled with references to newpaper articles. Historians realize that biographies should not be a collection of newsclippings. (And actually Wikipedia mentions this same idea in its guidelines). Vivaldi (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Historians also don't add full paragraphs and bold sections that support their bias while down playing and deleting others. In this case the newspaper articles are added because there is a mission to white wash criticism of Hyles. Allegations need to be supported to keep them in the article. And if need be I will add more if this drive continues. Arbusto 05:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You don't believe that the statement of the police chief that contradicts his underling from 4 days prior is the most important comment that should be considered when judging if there was an ongoing investigation? The guy's boss said THERE IS NO INVESTIGATION. That means the other guy's opinion is not the prevailing opinion of the police department. This entire article should be deleted. All the comments should go. But if you are going to include such worthless comments as the ignorant comments of a police underling that is directly contradicted by his boss who is speaking on behalf of the entire police department a few days later -- then by goodness -- we are going to point out that his boss clearly and unmistakenably said "there is no investigation". When the FBI is quoted as saying they aren't investigating....that is the important quote. That is actual FBI saying "there is no investigation". When the police chief speaking on behalf of the police department says, "there is no investigation", that means there is no investigation, even if one of his underlings got it wrong a few days beforehand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivaldi (talk • contribs)
That's a judgement wikipedia shouldn't make... the article you included didn't say "correct" or "underling" that is your POV. Also criticisms don't go in the body of the articles subject they go in a criticism section. Arbusto 18:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
So, now you dictate Wikipedia policy, as well as content? But, Vivaldi did not say anyone was corrected; he said the junior officer was contradicted by the superior officer. Your objection is pedantic, because it is clear that if one officer says there is an open-ended investigation, then an officer of a higher rank is reported a few days later saying there is no investigation, you have to be picking at mighty fine nits to object that "the article you included didn't say "correct" or "underling" that is your POV." At some point, the ability to comprehend meaning from reading material must be used. Pooua 08:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Contradicted is not the same as "corrected." Arbusto 17:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are being pedantic. An honest editor would have to admit that, based on the news reports, the Hammond police were no longer investigating First Baptist Church of Hammond or Jack Hyles, and any statements to the contrary are wrong. So, whether Sgt. Charles Hedinger was corrected or not is irrelevant; no investigation means no investigation. Pooua 05:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Criticism

The childish games by Vivaldi (talk · contribs) are out of line. Ignoring the removal of unaccredited and the POV of the investigation, this user has added in full quotes of paragraphs from a bias sourced in the middle of the main text.[6] This violates wikipedia policy. Criticism can be added throughout the article if "criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow." Certainly adding in a 5 sentence Hyles diatribe on a one sentence description disrupts the flow and then adding another 5 sentence claim to another sentence makes the article very point of view. Also all this comes from one article, which would be better to mention and link to. If need be add a criticism section. Arbusto 00:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The childish games by Vivaldi (talk · contribs) are out of line. You have no room to talk, Arb. Your behavior on all the Jack Hyles-related topics has been pedantic, stubborn, arrogant, slanderous, overbearing, dishonest and generally a disgrace to scholarship. You refuse to reason; you twist Wikipedia policy to suit your whims. You demand that irrelevant, insignificant or incorrect material remain in the articles, all to avoid what you call "white-washing." You are on a constant campaign to defame Jack Hyles, regardless of the sources you have to use or the way you have to use them. You lack editorial integrity. So, you have no room to criticize Vivaldi, who actually is trying to do a fair job of editing these pages and has written extensively exactly the reasons you are in the wrong. Pooua 08:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Everything I have cited has been from articles, you have defended a child molestor in an effort to defend Hyles. And of course you approved of Vivaldi's edits, that user has been removing "unaccredited," removing quotes of criticism, and has voted to delete pages related to criticism of someone you have a personal bond with. Also slander and libel have nothing to do with reprinting what was in the media years ago.
What are your comments to the substance of my claim? You call someone pedantic, stubborn, arrogant, slanderous, overbearing, dishonest and generally a disgrace to scholarship... more attacks. You and Vivalda are childish. Arbusto 17:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You and Vivalda are childish. Arbustoo, anybody can look at your edit history regarding the Jack Hyles related articles and see that your single-minded desire to defame Jack Hyles is an unsatiable task on your part. You have made an article about Jack Hyles, who had a 50 year career of leading churches including the largest church in America, into tabloid fodder. These articles don't belong in an encyclopedia. Your writings don't belong in an encyclopedia. Your words deserved to be written on used toilet paper and flushed down the drain.Vivaldi (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Just take a peek at your work. The Jack Hyles article. The Hyles-Anderson College article. This article. Everything you have written has been pure garbage. You have intentionally and recklessly left out any information that in any way disagrees with your intention to slime and besmirch and defame the character of Jack Hyles. Now when somebody comes along and points out your unencyclopedic and wreckless and outright terrible edits -- you go into a tizzy. You are the kind of editor that makes Wikipedia look like garbage. Vivaldi (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that a couple of do-nothings made unproven allegations against Jack Hyles should not be the dominant focus of a biography of Hyles or the dominant focus of an article about Hyles-Anderson College. However when you are left to your own devices you would have all the articles about Hyles and the College nothing but criticism. You are an embarassment to yourself. You are an embarassment to all Wikipedia editors that strive to write articles in an unbiased manner. You should be ashamed of yourself. Vivaldi (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPOV and heed the advice there. Your deliberate exclusion of all contradictory evidence has been shown time and time again. You have also deliberately chosen to use wordings that put Jack Hyles in the worst possible light in every circumstance that you are able to. Vivaldi (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Criticism can be added throughout the article if "criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow." Certainly adding in a 5 sentence Hyles diatribe on a one sentence description disrupts the flow and then adding another 5 sentence claim to another sentence makes the article very point of view. Also all this comes from one article, which would be better to mention and link to. If need be add a criticism section. Arbusto 03:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Being called childish by a playground bully like yourself means nothing to me. Vivaldi (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously so does policy at Wikipedia:Criticism. Arbusto 07:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Hyles words can be added to this article Arbustoo

Arbustoo, Jack Hyles words discussing the show can be added. Please quit removing information that goes against your personal bias. If you can put in the words of every nimwit that talks about the show in some newspaper, then surely you realize that the subject of the show itself should be given equal time to discuss it as well? Vivaldi (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So do it according to wikipedia policy, as I mentioned above. Also don't remove things. Arbusto 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I added Hyles comments about the show. You removed them. Vivaldi (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
And I removed them again because Wikipedia:Criticism can be added throughout the article if "criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow." Certainly adding in a 5 sentence Hyles diatribe on a one sentence description disrupts the flow and then adding another 5 sentence claim to another sentence makes the article very point of view. Also all this comes from one article, which would be better to mention and link to. If need be add a criticism section. Arbusto 07:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Certainly adding in a 5 sentence Hyles diatribe on a one sentence description disrupts the flow and then adding another 5 sentence claim to another sentence makes the article very point of view Huh? Hyles was asked to explain parts of the show and he did. What do you mean by "makes the article very point of view"? Do you think that Hyles really waved his gun regularly at Sunday service? Do you think that Hyles is lying? Vivaldi (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It is like arguing with a teenager.
Arb, nothing in the Wikipedia guide should be used as an excuse for inserting pointless claims and criticisms. You have indicated previously that you add criticism simply to spite those of us who believe your edits are inappropriate. You look for an excuse to defame Jack Hyles, even though you have admitted that you know nothing about him. It is really funny that you think you can accurately portray a place of which you know nothing. Pooua 05:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I know nothing about Jack Hyles, FCBH, or Hyles-Anderson College, either. And to be honest, if FCBH or the college burned down tomorrow it wouldn't mean anything more to me than if any other buildings were burned down. My only concern with the Hyles articles is that Arbustoo is a terrible editor that is making Wikipedia look like trash by including information in the Hyles articles only when he decides that it makes Hyles look as bad as possible. He phrases his words in such a way to make Hyles look bad. He puts in unproven accusations into an encyclopedia making these articles no better than a tabloid. Arbustoo is a premier example of how not to edit on Wikipedia. He has access to the newspaper articles that provide Hyles's refutations and the refutations by many other people, but he has never put those in. The only time he quotes Hyles is to make him look as bad as possible. It is just plain horrible editing. Vivaldi (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
All points-of-view should be represented and given the prominence that each deserves based on the reputation and reliability of the sources. Vivaldi (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your diligent efforts to improve the quality of the Jack Hyles articles. If you don't know enough about the ministries, at least you know enough about editing. But, this does raise the point; someone who has familiarized himself with the subject matter, yet is a good, objective editor, needs to oversee these articles. I don't know who would be a good person to do that; maybe Dr. Elmer Towns, though I hesitate to impose on him to ask.
A person who looks up articles on Wikipedia is looking for enough information to familiarize himself with the subject. Readers deserve candid, factual, unbiased, reliable articles.
FWIW, I am somewhat familiar with the religious association in general, and Jack Hyles and FBCH in particular. I spent 20 years or so in various Christian fundamentalist churches and schools, in 6 states (Hawaii, Tennessee, Arizona, New Mexico, Indiana and Virginia, besides visits to associated churches in Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and other places that I have probably forgotten). I attended First Baptist Church of Hammond for 3 months, and my sister has attended there for about 15 years. I think I have a pretty good idea of when someone's statements about Jack Hyles or FBCH have gone completely off the deep end. Attempts to portray FBCH as another Jonestown, or Jack Hyles as another Jim Jones or David Koresh, are completely off the deep end. I don't know what the truth is behind all the allegations, though I would like to find out. The sensationalistic, tabloid reporting making up the Jack Hyles and FBCH articles makes me angry because it only obscures the truth. Pooua 05:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graduates of What?

I notice that Arbusto removed the line identifying Mark Foeller Timothy Leonard as graduates of Hyles-Anderson Christian College, preferring the term, "Hyles graduates." I see no reason for making this change. Pooua 05:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is only one higher education institution mentioned at the start of the article, which is Hyles' college. Yet, you removed [7] a definite connection about a later convicted child molestor/Hyles graduate in that edit with the summary claiming "The single sentence regarding the Tim Leonard investigation is irrelevant to the investigation of FBCH or JH, and the sentence disrupts the flow of thought of the paragraph." Well, the article is about the TV series not Hyles and FBCH, your edit is POV and meant to downplay the broadcast's conclusions. That is not acceptable. Arbusto 23:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The name is Hyles-Anderson Christian College, not Hyles college.
Your shoehorning the comment about charges against North Sharon members into a paragraph that essentially says there is no investigation against First Baptist Church of Hammond is just another attempt by you to smear Jack Hyles through guilt by association. Furthermore, your inclusion weakens the paragraph structure. Pooua 07:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually the paragraph above that section noted the FBI investigation began because of the north sharon case. The FBI and police looked into it. Leonard was charged (later convicted) and the one police member said it was ongoing another said there was no investigation. But I moved it nonetheless to one section. Arbusto 12:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind about these churches is that they are independent churches. They answer to no hierarchy on Earth. First Baptist Church of Hammond does not own North Sharon Baptist, or any other Baptist church. They may associate with each other, and maybe even occassionally exchange personnel; but, none of the churches are under the administration of FBCH. So, it makes little sense to talk about a conviction at North Sharon when discussing First Baptist; the two churches are independent.
When I asked previously what constitutes a tie (as in, these events happen in churches with ties to Jack Hyles), I was making this point. The supposed ties are arbitrary; the lines could be drawn far from FBCH. What about Robert Sumner? He had ties to Jack Hyles, too, in that he preached at some of the same churches. Is he suspect as a result? Or, are we only going to tie people who had positive things to say about Jack Hyles?
Connection, tie, link etc. are terms used by the broadcast. Clearly, the FBI was saw a connection to briefly look into it. Arbusto 01:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, the FBI was a connection to briefly look into it. That sentence does not make sense. Pooua 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Arbusto 05:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The connection the FBI saw was that a group of children from one church crossed state lines to attend a camp hosted by the other church. A bunch of alarmists--at the time, there were many--made a lot of noisy speculation, so the authorities looked into it. Not surprising to me, the FBI found nothing wrong and ended its investigation. Pooua 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I have my own way of dividing these preachers; those from Texas are really weird. For that matter, anyone from the South is strange, or, as they like to term it, "peculiar." Maybe it is because they have so many Irishmen, or English Cavaliers? English cavaliers responsible for Southern predisposition to violence Whatever the answer, I am mindful that I am working with people a little offset from what I would consider reasonable. The key is to learn and observe the rules. Jack Hyles had his rules, too; he wasn't acting randomly. Pooua 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging to First Baptist Church of Hammond

During the discussion of deletion of this article here -- we had 2 editors out of 10 that suggested that we keep this article. 8 out of 10 said that we should either delete this article or merge it with the First Baptist Church of Hammond article. I believed at the time of the AfD that this article was already sufficiently merged with the FBCH article and also the Hyles-Anderson College article and the Jack Hyles article. I believe it is nearly unprecendented in Wikepedia to document individual news stories by local news stations with their own articles in an encyclopedia. I think it is unwise to start doing so now. The relevant and necessary information from this article is already present in the First Baptist Church of Hammond article and that article is sufficient coverage of this matter. I intend to be bold (as it suggests at WP:MM) and merge this myself in a day or two unless I can see a consensus that opposes such a move. Is there any other local news station that has had one of its stories made into an encyclopedia article on its own? Vivaldi (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article's topic meets the requirements for notability and so deserves it's own article, and this article is well-supported and rather well-written I'll add. Your edit history here and else is beginning to look like a campaign to rid wikipedia of anything you consider to be casting a critical light on Christianity. How about you consider contributing to articles instead of working only to delete/merge/or whitewash them? FeloniousMonk 15:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"The article's topic meets the requirements for notability and so deserves it's own article," Is there any other example where a single news story has received its own article on Wikipedia? I'm not talking about a piece of news -- I'm talking about the story itself receiving its own coverage seperately from the topic. I believe it is unprecedented for a news story to have its article. I would be overjoyed if you could show me ANY examples of similar articles on Wikipedia that would justify this article. For example, let's take a show that has received thousands of times more notability than "preying from the pulpit" -- take the Tom Cruise couch-jumping appearance on Oprah Winfrey. This particular show was watched by tens of millions of people and parts of it were probably seen by hundreds of millions of people. No less than 5,000 seperate articles were written about the Tom Cruise on Oprah show. Thousands and thousands of trees were killed to make newspaper and magazine articles about the show. Satirical web-pages were devoted to it. Thousands of bloggers commented about it. However, just because the event was notable doesn't mean that it deserves its own article. The encyclopedia properly places the event with the topic of the story, rather than making the story its own article. This is what should happen here, too.
"Your edit history here and else is beginning to look like a campaign to rid wikipedia of anything you consider to be casting a critical light on Christianity." This is completely unfair. I am not a Christian. I have no interest at all in editing articles about Christianity in general. I am not a Baptist. I am not a Jack Hyles supporter. In fact, truth be told, I personally have particular distaste for evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Christians that make their living by preaching. However, I do not let my dislike of Jack Hyles to affect my editing or influence my actions, like Arbustoo (talk · contribs) does. Arbustoo has only made edits that have inserted biased and negative information into the Hyles-related articles. I have made edits that have inserted both positive and negative information into the articles about Hyles. We are working on presenting the information in a neutral tone -- and I would be overjoyed if other editors would get involved and participate.
"How about you consider contributing to articles instead of working only to delete/merge/or whitewash them?" This is not fair. Your statement verges on being uncivil. Firstly, 8 out of 10 people that commented on the AfD suggested that we should remove this article. Secondly, in the thousands of edits that I have made here I have only "campaigned" to remove one article. That is this one. (I have also participated in a discussion on the Sollog page to delete or move that page to the "bad jokes" pages, but I didn't create an RfD). I have made a number of recent contributions to Wikipedia recently including to Narconon, Fair Game (Scientology), World Literacy Crusade (which I created), Study Tech, and I even expanded the article about Robert Sumner (the man who criticizes Hyles: see my additions here), I also added a listing of the books that Hyles has written to his article: see here (is that what you call whitewashing? Or is my insertion of the heading "Hyles sued for negligence" whitewashing?) I want to improve Wikipedia and make it a valuable resource and a valuable tool. I believe that if we follow the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V when we are writing -- it vastly improves Wikipedia. I fully intend to follow these policies and to continue to make quality improvements to Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please. What you are doing is utterly transparent. First you nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preying_from_the_Pulpit. Failing there, you've been bowdlerizing the article, removing criticism, and now want to merge it with another article that would make removing criticism even more easily justified per WP:NPOV. It's an old story. FeloniousMonk 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please. What you are doing is utterly transparent. First you nominated the article for deletion: -- Yes. I nominated this article for deletion because I felt that the material in this article was already properly covered at First Baptist Church of Hammond. During the AfD -- only 2 out of 10 people that commented suggested that we should keep this article. That being the case -- it makes sense that I would press forward and try to get the will of the overwhelming majority of editors to be heard. I have just now asked that others contribute to this discussion -- and I do appreciate it -- because until very recently there has only been one person that has agreed with Arbustoo's viewpoint and made comments on this talk page. Even an admin JoshuaZ (talk · contribs)

that started up an RfC against me -- indicated that even he might support the merger of this article to FBCH. I'm not alone in believing that wikipedia should place the topics of news stories in their own articles -- and not create new articles for each news story. It is not only unprecedented -- it is unwise and inappropriate. Vivaldi (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think merging this to the Hammond church article would unbalance that article. It's also much longer than it was during the AFD discussion, so I'm not sure you should assume that the merge rationales would still hold. Guettarda 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments Guettarda. Just because we merge the article from here to FCBH doesn't mean we have merge every last detail. This article now has snippets of text from nearly every source that has ever talked about the topic, but if we merge it to FCBH we can pare it down a bit to include a summary of the accusations made by the program and the response to the program by Hyles, his congregation, and the newspapers that covered it. Guettarda. I would also challenge you to find another article in Wikipedia that is similar to this one -- where a news story about a topic has actually become an article that is seperate from the topic itself. Can you find even ONE example? Vivaldi (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is rife with articles on specific episodes of various popular TV shows, which would seem to be analogous. Ehheh 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That isn't analagous at all. An episode guide for a popular show might have an article, but this is a local news story that had a few details picked up by the AP. Is there any examples in this encyclopedia where a news story has been made into an article seperate from its topic? Vivaldi (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There really is no need to merge this article. Such a move suggests to me an ulterior motive, rather than any desire to improve Wiki (no lectures about WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF or ascribing motives needed, thank you). As FM noted, what you are trying to do is rather transparent. Adfditionally, your argument is specious; whether or not there is another article like this on Wiki is irrelevant: when the first article on an album released by a group was written, one could have used the same argument -- but I doubt anyone did. •Jim62sch• 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments Jim62sch. what you are trying to do is rather transparent. I certainly hope so. Encyclopedias don't make articles about the news stories -- they make articles about the subjects of news stories. I hope that my motives are very transparent. Vivaldi (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"Adfditionally, your argument is specious; whether or not there is another article like this on Wiki is irrelevant: when the first article on an album released by a group was written, one could have used the same argument -- but I doubt anyone did." Are there an articles about new stories about an album that has been released? We aren't talking about topics of discussion -- we are talking about a news story about a topic. The news story itself is not worthy of an article -- it never has been worthy of article -- and there are no other examples of articles here that show that seperating a news story from its topic in seperate articles is appropriate.
Also, Jim62sch, I would like to inform you, since you seem to be accusing me of being a Hyles-supporter. I am not a Christian. I am not a Baptist. I have never seen Jack Hyles in my life. I have never been to Hammond, Indiana. I do not like hardly anyone that sells religion in order to make money -- as Hyles and other evangelicals and fundamentalists do. In fact, I am very averse to such creatures. I do not agree with Hyles, Christians, Baptists, Evangelicals, or Fundamentalists, at all regarding any of their religious beliefs. For some reason it seems that Arbustoo and others believe that my suggestions to improve Wikipedia are meant to "whitewash" the Hyles-related articles. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to present relevant criticism when it is appropriate -- however I want that criticism to be appropriately placed. Encyclopedias should not created seperate articles for each news story that discusses a topic. The topic itself is the appropriate place for this information. I believe the editors that participated in the AfD for this article made many good points. I would suggest that you review their comments here. Out of the people that participated in the discussion I only see 2 out of 10 that suggested that we keep this article. Vivaldi (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of properly sourced material

I find it amusing that C56C thinks that it is appropriate to add "criticism" to articles about living people that are sourced only to personal blogs of individuals, but when real criticism (of PftP) that is sourced to newspapers is added to this article, he thinks he can just remove it at will. The police, FBI, and prosecutors all say that there was no investigation of Hyles or the church -- and yet Arbustoo and C56C want to give readers the exact opposite impression. This is highly inappropriate. Wikipedia has policies that discuss how this should be handled and I would suggest that C56C take a gander at WP:V and WP:NPOV before he makes any further edits. Vivaldi (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You have personalized each discussion with people you don't agree with. Deal with the issue not the people- there is a difference. Arbusto 01:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I am discussing the issue that you are apparently engaged in a mission to ensure that you get as much critical and defamatory information inserted in articles about Fundamentalist preachers as you can. Your edit history is important because it conclusively proves this assertion. When left to your own will, the articles about these people end up being 90% criticism. Now I'm not going to be uncivil and call you any names -- but when I am discussing your edits I will be mentioning your userid. If I am discussing a general issue then I won't mention your userid. However, I was specifically referring to the edits by particular editors. And again, I notice that you are being a hypocrite as you have on numerous times mentioned by username and discussed edits by me and mentioned my username -- you think its just fine to single me out and discuss "the editor" as long as it suits your purpose. It is called hypocrisy, Arbustoo, and I'm going to keep calling you on it as long as you engage in it. Vivaldi (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unaccredited. POV or just silly?

Firstly, I'm impressed by the neutrality, sourcing and style of the article. I suspect this will have taken a LOT of hard work. Thank you to all concerned.

I'm an Australian, so somewhat in the dark about the incidents covered by the article. Saw the page on a list of controversial topics, thought I'd stop by. I did some copy-editing while reading, there's room for some more of that, but the thing that stands out is the strange phrase "an unaccredited college".

I used to drive a car that wasn't flouro-green. When I go for a walk, I don't do it on my hands. I eat dinner with non-gold cutlery. My friends are inoffensive to me. My work is unrecognized by people in Timbucktoo. I have written several unpublished articles. I attend an institution of higher learning that is indeed accredited. Mind you, the coffee there is not accredited (and I'm not surprised). We use unlicensed table tennis tables. Results of matches go unrecorded. We have unmonitored lunch-breaks, eating unregistered food.

To me, there's something unnatural about using negative descriptions unless they are relevant. Now, a de-registered or dis-accredited institution grabs my attention, it is worthy of note, something actually happened. Accredition refers to something that happened, deregistration refers to two things -- registration, then cancellation.

Perhaps, if this was in the UK and the institution called itself a University it would be notable to mention it was unaccredited, because it would be illegal. Am I missing something? Should I start adding this helpful aside to any article with College in the title? Royal College of Arms perhaps? Would it be more responsible to call home-schooling, home-unaccredited-schooling? Perhaps unaccredited academic journal (where professors teach one another) would be a helpful term? Are skydiving schools accredited?

I admire American championing of individual and corporate liberties, like the right to associate. Isn't it great to have things like accreditation that represent common standards, mutual trust and give transferability between groups. Isn't it good deregistered groups can pick up their game and reapply? But I think it's also great that people can dissent if they wish. I think it is pressuring minorities to present it as questionable if they don't join majority associations. And that is what we are doing if we label education associations that don't apply for accreditation as unaccredited. If they claim accredition, but they are not, then it is relevant to specify they are not accredited.

Whether the College is accredited or not is immaterial to the issue here. It's either irrelevant or POV.

I've said more than enough. I hope someone will remove the reference.

End of rant. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)