Talk:Edwin Barry Young

Controversy
There is no reason to list so many media outlets in this article. The fact that Ed Young has received so much attention from media outlets for talking about sex does not necessarily give him credibility. This unnecessary listing appears to be an attempt to divert attention from recent controversies around Ed Young, namely the WFAA report that provided evidence that he used a private jet to vacation in Mexico and the Bahamas, that he instructed members of the church to remain silent about the jet, and that he runs several for-profit businesses that are connected to the church. This controversy receives only one line in the article.

Both sides of the story are told and FC members like Andy Boyd should leave the controversy in the article for public information, as Wikipedia exists for this very reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.126.177 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP and WP:NPOV say otherwise.
 * I think the source could be used with caution, and Young's responses should be included with whatever information is included. --Ronz (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

-

I hope Andy Boyd is getting paid overtime for constantly doctoring Ed's Wiki page. Maybe HE should go re-watch the message where Ed "cleared things up". He admitted to the 12 million dollar jet (which btw costs $50,000 to operate a trip to Miami), he admitted to the mansion--disputing that his home was only 8500 sq feet, not 10,000 as the article claimed. He admitted to selling his sermons and resources for profit through personal businesses (although he failed to mention that he sells resources like the "next step" salvation booklets BACK TO FELLOWSHIP CHURCH for a profit!). He did not disclose his salary, only insisted that the figure quoted by WFAA was wrong. To include such vapid nonsense as the Dallas Observer's endorsement (which read like a Craigslist ad) but not these admitted controversies is a drastic misrepresentation of Ed Young and his public career. Grow a conscience Andy, and stop covering your boss's nakedness.

Cleanup
I've removed much of the blatantly promotional material from the article, although it probably still needs another pass or two and a lot of additional citations from reliable sources. At least the most egregious material is gone. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)