This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 [3] more than other recent things concerning the church, as seen at [4] 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 to Floridapeaches ( talk) 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is an edit war, and it's mostly being led by davidwr. It's sad to see a church abuse the rules of wikipedia to try to do damage control on their image. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for Prestonwood. - Jesse —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.110.199.51 (
talk)
22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have a question about copy editing on Prestonwood. In the first section (I think), the acreage and square miles, I wanted to add " " to prevent a bad line break, but it came up as a Template and showed up wrong in Preview. I'm not sure how to fix that. Also, some citations I couldn't research because my computer crashes on some websites and I didn't want to lose my changes, so I requested Citation instead of inserting the reference myself (sorry). (I am hoping to convert to a different computer soon.) Thank you :) Dkon 12:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikonped ( talk • contribs)
Sorry, thank you for fixing my oversight. I forgot to add my signature yesterday and was also distracted at the time (was interrupted).
Dikonped ( talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is "A similar incident" addition in there - did I miss something? It seems to have nothing to do with Prestonwood story and has no citations. It also needs copy editing, but I didn't work on it because it appears unrelated to the specific Prestonwood topic and has no citations. Dikonped ( talk) 22:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This section has twice been removed with no comment, though it seems both well-cited and relevant to the article's subject to me:
...would someone else weigh in on what they think? Would one of the people who's removing it explain why they feel it should be removed? -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous and not relevant at all. If this was an encyclopedia on your bookshelf do you think for a second either one of these events or "scandals" as you call them would be listed...of course not. They are in no way representative of this church and are simply being added by those wishing to make this church look bad 216.62.217.90 ( talk) 20:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This section was once again added back and I have removed due to the above conversation. I'm sure it will be added yet again soon as this page is under a coordinated attack. I'm sure the next course of action is to try and ban this IP address even though nothing wrong has occurred and protocol of bringing it to the talk page has been followed 216.62.217.90 ( talk) 20:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The Langworthy scandal is relevant to the church because the church failed to fulfill their mandatory reporting requirements. Had they contacted authorities as required by law, this may have been long forgotten and there could possibly have been fewer downstream victims of Langworthy. This is why it's relevant to church history. -- 173.71.54.62 ( talk) 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
As Lyonscc stated, if this was a Wiki page for Langworthy it would probably be relevant but it's not 216.62.217.90 ( talk) 21:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
If you search the above user's IP 216.62.217.90 it is registered to the "church" so there's no neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.203.209 ( talk) 21:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This issue is a conflict of interest for IP address 216.62.217.90. The controversy does currently involve the church directly, as the church has still not given an answer as to why they did not report sexual abuse to the police authorities as required by Texas State law. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.4.38.53 (
talk)
21:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Was alerted to this revert war and wanted to note that this is the only official Wikipedia user account of the church. The IP address that is posting does belong to the church and is from inside our building but we have hundreds of people at any given time in our Commons area connected to our free Wifi so comments from this IP address do not represent the church. Our account obviously agrees with the Prestonwood IP address in this particular argument of this not being relevant for inclusion on this page but we'll let others talk thru this Prestonwood ( talk) 22:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
an incident has occurred within the church involving some type of sexual scandal. There is a discussion between the churches ip and members of Wikipedia if this : Between 1984 and 1989 John Langworthy was a youth minister at Prestonwood Baptist Church. On January 22nd, 2013, Langworthy pled guilty to five of eight felony counts of gratification of lust against young boys, receiving a suspended sentence of 50 years. He was also required to register as a sex offender. The offences occurred at Morrison Heights Baptist Church in Clinton, MS.[11] It was reported that Langworthy also admitted, in a pulpit confession, to prior sex offenses at Prestonwood Baptist Church. Some of the alleged victims made complaints to Prestonwood Church at the time, which were dealt with internally by church officials.[12] There are now allegations that Prestonwood Baptist Church covered up Langworthy's offenses by failing to report them to the proper authorities. [11] Should be in the article or not. Please refer to the discussion above.
Thanks for asking for help on this issue. For the record there is a lot of Original Research in this summary above not the least of these is that these are all "allegations" as it pertains to Prestonwood. Also, Mr. Langworthy pled guilty to charges from his time prior to coming to Prestonwood between 1980-1984 not after at Morrison Heights as is stated above 216.62.217.90 ( talk) 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The graf above needs some work, but according to the statement from Jack Graham, as reported by WFAA -- http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/Disturbing-revelations-about-former-Prestonwood-minister-127284918.html --, Langworthy did appear to have molested at least one teenager at Prestonwood. His confession from the pulpit mentioned children in Texas and Mississippi, and stated that he left Texas because of "indiscretions" at Prestonwood -- http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/11/27/former-prestonwood-ministers-attorney-wants-sex-abuse-case-dropped/. The guilty pleading mentioned above is connected to six men in Mississippi, prior to his arrival in Texas, but it was handled through the Mississippi court system. Crimes in Texas would not have standing. The WFAA report states that two Prestonwood teens had come forward. Langworthy was fired by the church, and the church did not report him to police as required, again according to the WFAA press report. All this seems to parallel in terms of relevance with the existing Joe Barton information that has remained on the page and is not in question here: A staff member is connected to contact or attempted sexual contact with a minor and then is fired, all of which is in the public record and acknowledged by the church. The additional issue with Langworthy is that the church was required to report him to the police and, according to press reports, did not. There is no original research in this; undue weight may be in play, but I'd say there's hardly been enough discussion here to warrant that finding. Carter ( talk) 17:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me preface by saying that any abuse by a child is a horrible, horrible thing and i'm glad Mr. Langworthy is paying for his actions in Mississippi from the early 1980's. However, I still do not see how any of these allegations as they relate to Prestonwood are relevant and encyclopedic. These allegations are from 24 years ago and the church has been adamant that they handled it in their own words "forthrightly" and in no way tried to cover this up. Also the main WFAA story that keeps getting referenced is from August of 2011 so if it has not been relative for the past 20 months then why is it all of a sudden relative??? Dirkmavs ( talk) 01:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
While I don't have a dog in this fight, I think this probably touches on undue weight territory, if not notability, in some regards, as well. Also, the length of time (24 years), along with the fact that the church did deal with the issue publicly (even if charges weren't properly filed with the police) makes it even less notable. Just because something is factual doesn't make it encyclopedic. If Wikipedia listed every sexual offense in a school, church or other public institution, their servers would collapse. In this particular case, I don't see that this is really all that notable in an encyclopedic sense, and the primary source that seems to be driving the story (abpnews) isn't a reliable source.-- Lyonscc ( talk) 20:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more with Lyonscc. We're talking about nearly a quarter century timeframe here and the church has commented on their openness at the time of the firing of Mr. Langworthy. You can choose to not like their answer if you like, but the truth is the church said they responded "firmly", "forthrightly" and with no secrecy or coverup. There have been no legal issues with this case as it relates to Prestonwood nor will there be any impacting Prestonwood based on the WFAA investigate article previously mentioned due to the of statue of limitations being long gone. Also any attempts to tie this in with the Joe Barron section already on the wiki page are not good comparisons because 1. In this very talk page there is an old discussion about revisiting this issue down the road once we better know the impact for good or bad of Mr. Barron on the church (which i will soon initiate and will ask for input) but more importantly 2. Mr. Barron was charged with this crimes while an employee at Prestonwood whereas in the case of Langworthy all his charges are from Mississippi before he came to Texas. Dirkmavs ( talk) 20:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Passage of time is irrelevant. Just because it's in the past doesn't mean it's not part of history. The Barron incident and Langworthy are notable in that they involvement church leaders. I'm a little concerned that the "impact for good or bad ... on the church" is being considered a standard for inclusion. That would seem to be veering pretty heavily into NPOV territory. As for the issue of Mississippi charges vs. a lack of Texas charges, Prestonwood acknowledged at least one incident connected to the church and dismissed him over it. That's a pretty straightforward connection. Carter ( talk) 13:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, I'd say this really does fit into WP:UNDUE territory. Typically, pages about existing organizations (like churches, schools, etc.) have been treated in Wikipedia similar to Biographies of Living Persons, in terms of threshhold for including/excluding information. I only referenced WP:NOTABLE, because that also tends to be referenced at times for BLP inclusive items. ReformedArsenal wrote, "If it is part of the church's history, and there is WP:RS coverage, then it should be included in the Article." - this is not a standard for any item in Wikipedia - just because something is true and has WP:RS coverage doesn't make it automatically relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia. If this was the case, then churches could list every clothing drive, homeless mission, etc. that gets reported in a local paper/news station, etc. in Wikipedia. In the same way that WP discourages self-promotion in biography and organization pages, it also discourages the opposite, particularly in tangential matters.
In this case, we are talking about an event 24 years ago in which this organization released a staff member for wrongdoing (which isn't really notable, by itself, absent a larger pattern), and erred in not reporting him to the authorities (which, if you look back to 1989, was not the public awareness issue that it is now). Most certainly, this was very damaging to the victim, but even so, it is not really encyclopedic for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also - (as mentioned above) - ABP News isn't a WP:RS.-- Lyonscc ( talk) 15:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
When I dig into a number of ABP's pages (or open subsections in full-screen), I get a "powered by Wordpress" notice at the bottom. Additionally, they have no physical publications, advertisers, an ombudsman or other items you would expect from an actual news site, nor does their content seem to go through any sort of editorial peer review. I continued to dig into their archives last night, and they're little more than a well-dressed 'discernmentalist' site with some of their content written more neutrally, so as to appear to be fact-based. Even so, there is nothing on the site that identifies policies/processes/information that would lead one to conclude that this is a legitimate WP:RS. Instead, it would be most accurately categorized as WP:SPS.-- Lyonscc ( talk) 19:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Recentism}}
tag for the entire Wrongdoing section?
Carter (
talk)
15:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Comment. Abuse by a communicant member of a church is not the church itself. The section on Langworthy may be linked to on a generic abuse page for that particular church in that particular region of the USA. Australia (yesterday) just commenced a national inquiry into this matter, and I suspect the same principle applies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Institutional_Responses_to_Child_Sexual_Abuse refers. Whiteguru ( talk) 04:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The political advocacy section has been twice deleted by people who don't feel it's particularly relevant to the Church; one comment was that "Hundreds if not thousands of churches are involved in political advocacy." While this is true, we cover it in their articles, when it becomes noteworthy enough to attract coverage from reliable sources; since it has here, I can't particularly see any good reason to exclude it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
There are so many problems with this recent addition to the page. It's not relevant, it places undue weight, and maybe most importantly it’s a classic case of recentism. Also, two of the references used are pages that no longer exist. Dirkmavs ( talk) 20:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose adding information related to Graham's alleged cover-up of sexual assault at Prestonwood Baptist in 1989. The following paragraph was previously removed with no explanation. I have since added more documentation and pasted it below.
Yayfrogs ( talk) 16:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Works for me. I noticed similar behavior at Jack Graham’s bio page. A similar block of text was removed there, too, but entirely without explanation. (Also in the Talk section.) A quick skim suggests conflict of interest there, too. Yayfrogs ( talk) 01:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
References
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 [3] more than other recent things concerning the church, as seen at [4] 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 to Floridapeaches ( talk) 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is an edit war, and it's mostly being led by davidwr. It's sad to see a church abuse the rules of wikipedia to try to do damage control on their image. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for Prestonwood. - Jesse —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.110.199.51 (
talk)
22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have a question about copy editing on Prestonwood. In the first section (I think), the acreage and square miles, I wanted to add " " to prevent a bad line break, but it came up as a Template and showed up wrong in Preview. I'm not sure how to fix that. Also, some citations I couldn't research because my computer crashes on some websites and I didn't want to lose my changes, so I requested Citation instead of inserting the reference myself (sorry). (I am hoping to convert to a different computer soon.) Thank you :) Dkon 12:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikonped ( talk • contribs)
Sorry, thank you for fixing my oversight. I forgot to add my signature yesterday and was also distracted at the time (was interrupted).
Dikonped ( talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is "A similar incident" addition in there - did I miss something? It seems to have nothing to do with Prestonwood story and has no citations. It also needs copy editing, but I didn't work on it because it appears unrelated to the specific Prestonwood topic and has no citations. Dikonped ( talk) 22:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This section has twice been removed with no comment, though it seems both well-cited and relevant to the article's subject to me:
...would someone else weigh in on what they think? Would one of the people who's removing it explain why they feel it should be removed? -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous and not relevant at all. If this was an encyclopedia on your bookshelf do you think for a second either one of these events or "scandals" as you call them would be listed...of course not. They are in no way representative of this church and are simply being added by those wishing to make this church look bad 216.62.217.90 ( talk) 20:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This section was once again added back and I have removed due to the above conversation. I'm sure it will be added yet again soon as this page is under a coordinated attack. I'm sure the next course of action is to try and ban this IP address even though nothing wrong has occurred and protocol of bringing it to the talk page has been followed 216.62.217.90 ( talk) 20:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The Langworthy scandal is relevant to the church because the church failed to fulfill their mandatory reporting requirements. Had they contacted authorities as required by law, this may have been long forgotten and there could possibly have been fewer downstream victims of Langworthy. This is why it's relevant to church history. -- 173.71.54.62 ( talk) 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
As Lyonscc stated, if this was a Wiki page for Langworthy it would probably be relevant but it's not 216.62.217.90 ( talk) 21:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
If you search the above user's IP 216.62.217.90 it is registered to the "church" so there's no neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.203.209 ( talk) 21:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This issue is a conflict of interest for IP address 216.62.217.90. The controversy does currently involve the church directly, as the church has still not given an answer as to why they did not report sexual abuse to the police authorities as required by Texas State law. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.4.38.53 (
talk)
21:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Was alerted to this revert war and wanted to note that this is the only official Wikipedia user account of the church. The IP address that is posting does belong to the church and is from inside our building but we have hundreds of people at any given time in our Commons area connected to our free Wifi so comments from this IP address do not represent the church. Our account obviously agrees with the Prestonwood IP address in this particular argument of this not being relevant for inclusion on this page but we'll let others talk thru this Prestonwood ( talk) 22:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
an incident has occurred within the church involving some type of sexual scandal. There is a discussion between the churches ip and members of Wikipedia if this : Between 1984 and 1989 John Langworthy was a youth minister at Prestonwood Baptist Church. On January 22nd, 2013, Langworthy pled guilty to five of eight felony counts of gratification of lust against young boys, receiving a suspended sentence of 50 years. He was also required to register as a sex offender. The offences occurred at Morrison Heights Baptist Church in Clinton, MS.[11] It was reported that Langworthy also admitted, in a pulpit confession, to prior sex offenses at Prestonwood Baptist Church. Some of the alleged victims made complaints to Prestonwood Church at the time, which were dealt with internally by church officials.[12] There are now allegations that Prestonwood Baptist Church covered up Langworthy's offenses by failing to report them to the proper authorities. [11] Should be in the article or not. Please refer to the discussion above.
Thanks for asking for help on this issue. For the record there is a lot of Original Research in this summary above not the least of these is that these are all "allegations" as it pertains to Prestonwood. Also, Mr. Langworthy pled guilty to charges from his time prior to coming to Prestonwood between 1980-1984 not after at Morrison Heights as is stated above 216.62.217.90 ( talk) 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The graf above needs some work, but according to the statement from Jack Graham, as reported by WFAA -- http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/Disturbing-revelations-about-former-Prestonwood-minister-127284918.html --, Langworthy did appear to have molested at least one teenager at Prestonwood. His confession from the pulpit mentioned children in Texas and Mississippi, and stated that he left Texas because of "indiscretions" at Prestonwood -- http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/11/27/former-prestonwood-ministers-attorney-wants-sex-abuse-case-dropped/. The guilty pleading mentioned above is connected to six men in Mississippi, prior to his arrival in Texas, but it was handled through the Mississippi court system. Crimes in Texas would not have standing. The WFAA report states that two Prestonwood teens had come forward. Langworthy was fired by the church, and the church did not report him to police as required, again according to the WFAA press report. All this seems to parallel in terms of relevance with the existing Joe Barton information that has remained on the page and is not in question here: A staff member is connected to contact or attempted sexual contact with a minor and then is fired, all of which is in the public record and acknowledged by the church. The additional issue with Langworthy is that the church was required to report him to the police and, according to press reports, did not. There is no original research in this; undue weight may be in play, but I'd say there's hardly been enough discussion here to warrant that finding. Carter ( talk) 17:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me preface by saying that any abuse by a child is a horrible, horrible thing and i'm glad Mr. Langworthy is paying for his actions in Mississippi from the early 1980's. However, I still do not see how any of these allegations as they relate to Prestonwood are relevant and encyclopedic. These allegations are from 24 years ago and the church has been adamant that they handled it in their own words "forthrightly" and in no way tried to cover this up. Also the main WFAA story that keeps getting referenced is from August of 2011 so if it has not been relative for the past 20 months then why is it all of a sudden relative??? Dirkmavs ( talk) 01:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
While I don't have a dog in this fight, I think this probably touches on undue weight territory, if not notability, in some regards, as well. Also, the length of time (24 years), along with the fact that the church did deal with the issue publicly (even if charges weren't properly filed with the police) makes it even less notable. Just because something is factual doesn't make it encyclopedic. If Wikipedia listed every sexual offense in a school, church or other public institution, their servers would collapse. In this particular case, I don't see that this is really all that notable in an encyclopedic sense, and the primary source that seems to be driving the story (abpnews) isn't a reliable source.-- Lyonscc ( talk) 20:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more with Lyonscc. We're talking about nearly a quarter century timeframe here and the church has commented on their openness at the time of the firing of Mr. Langworthy. You can choose to not like their answer if you like, but the truth is the church said they responded "firmly", "forthrightly" and with no secrecy or coverup. There have been no legal issues with this case as it relates to Prestonwood nor will there be any impacting Prestonwood based on the WFAA investigate article previously mentioned due to the of statue of limitations being long gone. Also any attempts to tie this in with the Joe Barron section already on the wiki page are not good comparisons because 1. In this very talk page there is an old discussion about revisiting this issue down the road once we better know the impact for good or bad of Mr. Barron on the church (which i will soon initiate and will ask for input) but more importantly 2. Mr. Barron was charged with this crimes while an employee at Prestonwood whereas in the case of Langworthy all his charges are from Mississippi before he came to Texas. Dirkmavs ( talk) 20:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Passage of time is irrelevant. Just because it's in the past doesn't mean it's not part of history. The Barron incident and Langworthy are notable in that they involvement church leaders. I'm a little concerned that the "impact for good or bad ... on the church" is being considered a standard for inclusion. That would seem to be veering pretty heavily into NPOV territory. As for the issue of Mississippi charges vs. a lack of Texas charges, Prestonwood acknowledged at least one incident connected to the church and dismissed him over it. That's a pretty straightforward connection. Carter ( talk) 13:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, I'd say this really does fit into WP:UNDUE territory. Typically, pages about existing organizations (like churches, schools, etc.) have been treated in Wikipedia similar to Biographies of Living Persons, in terms of threshhold for including/excluding information. I only referenced WP:NOTABLE, because that also tends to be referenced at times for BLP inclusive items. ReformedArsenal wrote, "If it is part of the church's history, and there is WP:RS coverage, then it should be included in the Article." - this is not a standard for any item in Wikipedia - just because something is true and has WP:RS coverage doesn't make it automatically relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia. If this was the case, then churches could list every clothing drive, homeless mission, etc. that gets reported in a local paper/news station, etc. in Wikipedia. In the same way that WP discourages self-promotion in biography and organization pages, it also discourages the opposite, particularly in tangential matters.
In this case, we are talking about an event 24 years ago in which this organization released a staff member for wrongdoing (which isn't really notable, by itself, absent a larger pattern), and erred in not reporting him to the authorities (which, if you look back to 1989, was not the public awareness issue that it is now). Most certainly, this was very damaging to the victim, but even so, it is not really encyclopedic for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also - (as mentioned above) - ABP News isn't a WP:RS.-- Lyonscc ( talk) 15:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
When I dig into a number of ABP's pages (or open subsections in full-screen), I get a "powered by Wordpress" notice at the bottom. Additionally, they have no physical publications, advertisers, an ombudsman or other items you would expect from an actual news site, nor does their content seem to go through any sort of editorial peer review. I continued to dig into their archives last night, and they're little more than a well-dressed 'discernmentalist' site with some of their content written more neutrally, so as to appear to be fact-based. Even so, there is nothing on the site that identifies policies/processes/information that would lead one to conclude that this is a legitimate WP:RS. Instead, it would be most accurately categorized as WP:SPS.-- Lyonscc ( talk) 19:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Recentism}}
tag for the entire Wrongdoing section?
Carter (
talk)
15:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Comment. Abuse by a communicant member of a church is not the church itself. The section on Langworthy may be linked to on a generic abuse page for that particular church in that particular region of the USA. Australia (yesterday) just commenced a national inquiry into this matter, and I suspect the same principle applies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Institutional_Responses_to_Child_Sexual_Abuse refers. Whiteguru ( talk) 04:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The political advocacy section has been twice deleted by people who don't feel it's particularly relevant to the Church; one comment was that "Hundreds if not thousands of churches are involved in political advocacy." While this is true, we cover it in their articles, when it becomes noteworthy enough to attract coverage from reliable sources; since it has here, I can't particularly see any good reason to exclude it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
There are so many problems with this recent addition to the page. It's not relevant, it places undue weight, and maybe most importantly it’s a classic case of recentism. Also, two of the references used are pages that no longer exist. Dirkmavs ( talk) 20:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose adding information related to Graham's alleged cover-up of sexual assault at Prestonwood Baptist in 1989. The following paragraph was previously removed with no explanation. I have since added more documentation and pasted it below.
Yayfrogs ( talk) 16:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Works for me. I noticed similar behavior at Jack Graham’s bio page. A similar block of text was removed there, too, but entirely without explanation. (Also in the Talk section.) A quick skim suggests conflict of interest there, too. Yayfrogs ( talk) 01:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
References