Talk:Jack Hyles/Archive 2

A note on sources
A editor just added a totally disputed tag to the page. For interested parties on the sources visit www.Chicagotribune.com search archives for Jack Hyles and you will find the sources in the article. To read the articles you must register. The search that comes up is: Arbustoo 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Capsules were compiled by Nathan Baird, Henry Del Valle,Chicago Tribune; Nov 18, 2002; 14;
 * 2) REV. JACK HYLES LED BUS MINISTRY James Janega, Tribune Staff Writer; Chicago Tribune; Feb 9, 2001; 11;
 * 3)  No investigation of church in abuse cases, police say Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 24, 1993; 3;
 * 4)     Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case Chicago Tribune wires.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Oct 16, 1991; 3;
 * 5)  Newspaper feud adds fuel to preacher's fire Eric Zorn.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Jun 30, 1989; 1;
 * 6)  Charges all lies, Hammond pastor says Michael Hirsley, Religion writer.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 28, 1989; 3;
 * 7) Charges All Lies, Hammond Pastor Says Hisley, Michael; Chicago Tribune; May 28, 1989; 2C3;
 * 8) Pastor denies adultery, 2 other charges Michael Hirsley, Religion writer.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 25, 1989; 1;
 * 9) Pastor Denies Adultery, 2 Other Charges Hirsley, Michael; Chicago Tribune; May 25, 1989; 11;

A note on Manner of Presentation

 * As a reply / response to your questioning of this tag, please note that the "manner of presentation" of the controvery is an issue and is not written in a NPV, also, the sheer quantity of "controvery" data as presented in relation to other Hyles information on this wiki gives readers a distict feeling that the page has been hijacked by those with a grudge against this man. Also, you are in effect trying to get readers to come to a conclusion that Hyles is guilty of all these charges, simply because someone accused him and those accusations were published in the press.  Yes, I'd say a lot of people who supported Jack Hyles have a problem with your efforts to discredit him and his ministry and a lot of people dispute the facts as you present them here, hence, the disputed tag.  Try writing your controvery sections in a NPV, adjust the sheer amount of data downward to reflect a more reasoned presentation when compared to the other data here (or increase the other data here to compensate for the large amount of controvery data, and don't try to lead readers into false conclusions based upon such juvanile reasoning as "the press quoted the accusations, therefore it must be true".  --Teeja 01:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say he's guilty or the color purple. It offers facts that Jack was accused of this, Jack's connection to Ballenger, and Jack was sued for various things. Whether he's innocent or not, it comes from a credible source and will be included. Also don't edit/add to my posts or titles. Arbustoo 02:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you didn't say he's guilty, but that is obviously what you are trying to get readers to believe, and you are having an aweful struggle to write anywhere near a NPV style here. Your edits have proven that you indeed want readers to draw this faulty conclusion, but your conclusion is not a valid nor logical fact.  Guilt by accusation is not the way things work in the United States and many civilized countries.  The whole point is that all these things are in dispute, not the existance of the press reports you cited.  --Teeja 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please post one example of POV in the article. Arbustoo 02:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, really don't have time to play mind games, nor follow rabbit trails. You seem to have a lot more time for that sort of thing, since you're the one that is adding a mountain of data against Jack Hyles, which makes it appear to the average reader as though the wiki has been hijacked by "Hyles-haters". I really must go now, I hope to come back soon and chat about these issues when I have more time. Good luck, take care and happy editing.  --Teeja 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So no examples then? Arbustoo 03:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

accuracy disputed tag reinserted?
How is the accuracy disputed? More specifically how is the Chicago Tribune disputed? Arbusto 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, you guys win. Congratulations, Arbustoo, your steadfast efforts have paid off for you. This is a big waste of time and effort. Arbustoo has too many editor friends and admins who are willing to defend his warped view of what constitutes "facts" and valid sources. He also has so much time on his hands that nothing can be done to stop him from using the Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church and Hyles-Anderson College and related wikis as a forum for his grievances. I'm done editing this wiki. It's all yours. In the long run, reasonable readers will see right through this kind of one-sided article, anyway. Nice try at keeping the "community spirit" and "cooperative efforts" of Wikipedia. That's nothing but a joke, it seems, at least on these entries. Good luck and happy editing. --Teeja 01:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a competition. This not about being "anti-Jack Hyles." This is about sources. If you want to add a tag that questions the sources, you must give a reason. You were given the chance, you did not. You were asked to give an example, you did not. You were given a chance to remove the tags yourself, you did not. Your bias is very clear. You are personally involved with this church and another editor as you admitted on your talk page. Arbusto 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like he did give a reason for questioning your sources, with examples (I submit his quote from the First Baptist Church talk page here as evidence:
 * Much of the information you have currently in the controversy section is not from a reliable or neutral source and is therefore not a valid factual source for a Wikipedia entry. As examples, the paragraph concerning Bob Ross and the associated backup documentation is not from a reliable news source, rather, it's from a completely biased and dubious web site (www.kjvonly.org); also, the quotes supported by The Biblical Evangelist are not a reliable source, since it was this paper's editor (Robert Sumner) who first launched the public attack upon Jack Hyles in 1989 - hardly an unbiased and pristine source - Mr. Sumner has a deep personal axe to grind here; also, all the information supported by the Way of Life Ministries footnotes are unreliable and highly opinionated, but yet you have it listed here like it's a legitimate news source; also, the section on Joe Combs should not even be here, this is like suggesting that because Joe Combs used to be member of First Baptist Church many years ago, the church is now somehow responsible for Mr. Combs' actions. That's very poor logic and does nothing but try to lead readers into a false conclusion. All these things together add up to a GREAT dispute of the facts as you have presented them here. The "Dispute" tag will remain; this is a dispute of the facts, not just a NPV concern. --Teeja 20:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC) --68.78.120.207 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are too busy removing stuff and not reading it. For example, the claim that the Combs piece has no business in the article. If you take the time to read it, the connection is: one babysitter testified "that they suspected Esther was mistreated but didn't want to contradict Combs, who had been their Bible professor at Hyles Anderson College." Furthermore, the other babysitter testified she "reported her suspicions to the college president, but apparently nothing was done, she said." Considering Hyles was the main man at the college and this was reported in a court of law, it is very relevant to the article. Arbusto 08:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Much of" is a weasel phrase. Specify which, and remove it.  That which cannot be substantiated from reliable sources should be removed.  That which can, should not. You are the ones who care, you can do the spadework, I'm only here to make sure open warfare does not break out. Just zis Guy you know? 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article, "Preying from the Pulpit," does not come from a reliable source, nor is it attributed. The copy linked on Wikipedia is archived on the personal Website of a highly vocal Hyles-basher. The material was removed from Wikipedia, only to be re-enstated. This proves that the editors of this page are not interested in verifiable, factual material. Pooua 06:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) If you read the article and the footnote, the broadcast was referenced with the Chicago Sun-Times as the source. 2) If you visited the archived talk page you would know that Preying from the Pulpit is sourced from the Chicago Sun-Times on June 2, 1993 and there is a partial transcript from Eyewitness News; WJBK; Detroit, February 15-16, 1995 6:00pm; ET on Lexis/Nexis. The Sun-Times and LexisNexis are not personal websites and they go into detail on the broadcast. Arbusto 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your points only show that WJBK created an article titled, "Preying from the Pulpit." That in no way confirms that the audio links on the article page go to the program produced by WJBK.


 * The fact remains that the audio links in the Jack Hyles article go to the personal Web page of Jeri Massi, who is not a representative of WJBK, nor does she display any attribution for the material on her page. Therefore, the audio links hosted on her personal Website are not a reliable source.


 * The fact remains that the audio links in the Jack Hyles article are unattributed.


 * Therefore, the fact remains that the Jack Hyles article contains unattributed, unreliable links to audio copies of copyrighted material that are hosted on an outspoken Hyles opponent's personal Web page.


 * The facts are overwhelming; if you cared at all about document integrity, you would remove the links to the audio files on Jeri Massi's personal Web page. Pooua 20:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The content in the article and transcipt match what is presented on the links. What "overwhelming facts" do you have that Jerri Massi's webpage is providing false content? We need sources, not conspiracy theories. Arbusto 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You guys are not all interested in verifiable anything. We have corrected Arbustoo's junk with a more balanced view, only to have his junk reinstated again and again, supported by his admin friends, who state that we are "valdalizing" the wiki.  This seems to be nothing more than a hatchet job against this church and it's ministries, simply because it's fundamentalist Christian beliefs don't fit into your world view.  All anyone needs to do is check out Arbustoo's editing history to confirm that.  Of course, he'll reply with a lot of arm waving himself, I'm sure.  Arbustoo posts a bunch of unverified, unsourced, or poorly-sourced data against the church and college and gets a few of his editor and admin buddies to back him up, who now say that it's somehow the church supporters who must constantly be on guard against his 24/7 misinformation spree and if they don't spend hours and hours and hours correcting Arbustoo's junk, (which only gets reinstated anyway), they deserve what they get.  That sir, is not fair.  --68.21.178.199 20:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you start with something specific? Speaking in broad general terms will get this discussion nowhere.  Pick a single point - just one, and dispute it.  Argue against the source, it's factuality; provide a counter-source, whatever.  Maybe you don't have "hours and hours", but with a little effort over time you can improve the quality of the article.  --Awcga 21:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Arbustoo is a good editor with a history of well-researched contributions, but nobody is infallible, so if definite, specific, cited and verifiable corrections can be provided, they will obviously achieve consensus. Right now what's in there does seem to be proven. Just zis Guy you know? 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I really enjoy the personal attacks. First this anon. editor claims there is a conspiracy behind "unsourced" attacks, then I source the article and provide independent sources and I become part of the conspiracy. Anon. IP, attacking me does nothing for your case. This is about facts. If you can't dispute them you don't have a case. Arbusto 01:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This article improperly uses sources from personal webpages and biased religious sources. These sorts of sources are specifically advised against by the policy of Verifiability and reliable sources.  If the claims by Rev. Cloud are worthy of reporting in an encyclopedia, then those claims ought to be published by someone other than Rev. Cloud on his own personal defamation webpages.  I don't believe Rev. Cloud can be considered a reputable or reliable source on the topic of Jack Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hyles Controversy AfD
Hello people, the AfD for the above article has just closed with the decision that it should be merged here. Could somebody knowledgeable in this area please do that? Thanks! Babajobu 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It basically is merged, as least the verified/national press stuff. Arbusto 05:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs cleanup and POV adjustments
I removed the doctrinal dispute with Bob Ross because the only source is the critic himself. Unlike other allegations, which were reported in the newspapers which (presumably) offered Hyles' side a chance to rebut, there is no way to neutrally portray a religous dispute between two preachers, unless you have something like a ruling from the National Council of Bishops or the general Synod or whatever passes for ultimate authority in this denomination. On the other hand, I consider the material from the Biblical Evangelist to be appropriate because the PDF file includes responses from Hyles. Thatcher131 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the command structure of this denomination, it should be noted that officially, there isn't one. Or, if there is one, it is in the order of God, pastor, head-of-household, children (though that could be disputed on the grounds that it re-introduces the concept of clergy coming between God and laity, something that Baptists historically opposed more than most denominations have). That's a vulgar and brief summary of the concept, anyway. This subject of the proper structure of the church is a matter of theological discussion in itself, especially amongst Baptists. First Baptist Church of Hammond is a fundamental, Independent Baptist Church. The reason it is called an Independent Baptist Church is that it answers to no earthly hierarchy; it is independent. So, there is no higher theological authority on Earth for this church than the head pastor (who was Jack Hyles until his death), at least in theory. The only court amongst these churches would be the court of public opinion, in which hear-say is presented and people decide what they are going to believe, if anything. Indeed, Wikipedia has unwittingly become an accessory of this process. Whether the allegations against Jack Hyles are true or not, the reason they are presented so dogmatically here is that the anti-Hyles side is evangelizing for its position. Pooua 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Biblical Evangelist stuff is part of the claims made in the press/newspapers (ie Sumner is cited by the newspapers). For that reason alone it should be left in. Arbusto 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The last I checked, I was on friendly terms with Robert Sumner. He and I were also on the same message board until Hurricane Katrina forced the relocation of the board and real life intruded on his life. But, if you want to judge character on the basis of what is reported in newspapers, I could smear Sumner the way you all have smeared Hyles. "Sword of the LORD" published several strongly-worded articles opposing Sumner's claims about Jack Hyles.


 * Part of the reason that I am so conflicted on this matter of Jack Hyles is that I have had personal correspondence with both men, and I have respect for both men. I've also conversed with many other people on all sides of the debate, from all across the United States. This is not such a simple matter as you are presenting here. Pooua 19:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This article needs cleanup and there are two main issues. First is redlinks; if there is little or no chance that a person or term will be Wikified, then remove the link. Second is the issue of references. I know the footnote template was used but the problem is that multiple footnotes refer to the same source but they follow no logical order. For example, both note 8 and 16 refer to endnote 5. This is very confusing and only works if the browser window is small enough that the browser can put the right endnote at the top of the page. (My monitor is large enough that clicking on any note just goes to the bottom of the page with no ability to distinguish which note was being aimed at.) Is there another citation template that would work better? I will eventually look into this if no one else fixes it but not right away. Thatcher131 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Red links removed and I don't know about any other citation method, but I agree the citation layout can be confusing. Arbusto 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The links really are a mess, and so is some of the writing (I mean, in addition to issues of factuality). Let's start with, "Victor Nischik has accused Hyles of ... questionable financial dealings.[9]" Endnote [9] is "Hyles-Anderson College Catalog (pages 8-23)"; the correct endnote appears to be Endnote [8].


 * The paragraph, "Reverend Tom Neal, amongst others ... with God to compensate for sins" is contradictory (or, POV). Why would someone who follows another person "in a 'cultic' way" claim that his leader is taking increasingly extreme positions? Well, the answer is, he probably would not; it is more likely that the editor is trying to project his own views through Tom Neal. Also, "purported" is probably the wrong word in "Neal purported that Hyles..." Pooua 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You editors are so smart, can any of you tell me what "ibid" and "MLA" mean? And, why is it that repeated references to the same source material are printed out in full each time on the Jack Hyles page? Pooua 03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete Article
I attended First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, as a young sailor during the Fall of 1984. For years, I had heard of Jack Hyles (I remember my pastor giving high school graduates from his school a copy of Hyles' "Blue Denim and Lace."). I was quite willing to make the 100-mile bus ride from Great Lakes, Illinois to First Baptist Church every Saturday so that I could attend church services there on Sunday.

There are many things about Jack Hyles that have not been mentioned in this article, but the article is lop-sided with controversial negative statements regarding Jack Hyles. That is all the more odd, considering that I never heard of any of these allegations until 1988. All those years that I heard of him, and heard his detractors, but no one brought these kind of charges into the public until then. They sound so out of character for him.

The statements made by the news media would have more weight with me if I had not witnessed their attacks on Jack Hyles for several years prior to these allegations. They always were looking for something to bring him down. Remember the time that FBCH gave out chicks (that is, baby chickens) to the Sunday School students? A newspaper editor called Hyles directly and accused him of cruelty to animals. Pastor Hyles replied that he had done even worse. The editor asked what he had done. Hyles replied, "I ate their mother!" Something similar happened when the Sunday School gave away guppies (small fish) to the Sunday School students. The newspaper was up in arms about the little fishes flopping around in the dwindling puddles in the parking lot.

When my sister was an aide to Pastor Hyles, about the same time that these allegations began to surface, I asked her about the allegations of sexual misconduct. She said they were untrue. She still attends FBCH, along with her husband (who she met at Hyles-Anderson Christian College) and her 4 children. Her two oldest children are now students in the day school run by FBCH.

I think that it is appropriate to be highly skeptical of such scandalous accusations against someone of Jack Hyles' stature. For the reason I mentioned, newspaper reports aren't very useful. Hyles attracted a lot of enemies, so it is natural there would be people who would try to destroy his reputation. Of more weight is the word of Robert Sumner, a man with whom I have had direct, though brief, communication. I have never attended Pastor Sumner's church, or sat under his preaching, but I have corresponded with him via mail and a Web forum. From what I know of him, he is an honest man, but I simply don't know either him or Hyles well enough to decide who is more reputable. The article mentions court cases brought against Hyles, but it does not state the deposition of those cases. As far as I know, no one was able to convince a jury that Jack Hyles was responsible for all these things of which he is accused.

This issue is highly controversial, even within Christian fundamentalism. I know of several leaders within fundamentalism who never spared Jack Hyles from criticism. Several of his fellow preachers around the world simply did not like him, and easily accepted these reports when they came out. But, there are many other people who are fiercely defensive of Jack Hyles. It is not easy to tell who is fighting for the truth.

Pooua 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you're absolutely right, it never is easy. The problem is that much of what he did that is verifiable, is essentially trivial (in that it does not distinguish him from any other pastor) - it is the controversies, more than anything else, wihch mark him out as a notable person.  Do feel free to suggest any specific changes or additions, though. Just zis Guy you know? 20:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should consist mostly of varifiable information. If there is any hear-say or rumor or unsubstantiated claims mentioned in an encyclopedic article, it should be a very small part of the whole article, maybe a footnote or a paragraph. This article on Jack Hyles turns that concept upside-down; the majority of the article is nothing more than hear-say, even if reported by news organizations. I believe this undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.

Jack Hyles loomed large in my world and in the lives of many other people without reference to these controversies. So, I must disagree with your statement that the controversies make him a noteable person, or that he would be essentially the same as any other pastor if not for the controversies. Not very many pastors have increased attendance at their church from 44 to 20,000. And, as Jack Hyles himself points out, not very many Independent Baptists write books; he wrote dozens (Amazon.com currently lists 43). Furthermore, Jack Hyles is one of the most recognizeable names of any fundamentalist pastor; few are more famous than he. Few fundamentalist pastors have had as big an influence on a major city--if not the nation--as Jack Hyles. Pooua 21:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Which specific items lack verifiable evidence? Just zis Guy you know? 22:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny, aren't you the guy who wrote, "The problem is that much of what he did that is verifiable, is essentially trivial"? That looked like you agreed that the claims in the newspaper articles are not verifiable claims. But, since you now ask, here is a list of my answers:

1) We cannot confirm that Jack Hyles taught a doctrine of celestial marriage, and the other statements in that paragraph regarding wife-swapping have nothing to do with the Mormon doctrine of celestial marriage.

2) The statement that Jack Hyles had questionable financial dealings is just an accusation, i.e., hear-say. It does not belong in an encyclopedic article unless there were some significant history attached to it. All the claim serves here is mud-slinging. We don't even know from the article what sort of questionable financial dealings he is supposed to have had, or how much money is supposed to have been involved, or how his accuser knows of such improprieties!

3) We don't have verifiable evidence that Jack Hyles committed adultery with Jenny Nischik, or any other woman.

Additionally, the statement that "Reverend Tom Neal, amongst others have been said to follow Jack Hyles in a 'cultic' way" is obviously POV as worded. I should also point out that if Tom Neal is not going to have a Wiki page made for him--and why should one be made for him?--he should not be red-worded.

Then, there is the matter of the seeing-eye dog. First, is this actually a significant event? What became of it? Nothing, that's what. The man left and that was the end of the matter. That's besides the point that the dog may have been causing trouble in the church, and the man--a long time attendee--had only recently gotten the dog.

I don't know if Jack Hyles is innocent or guilty on any of the accusations made against him, but I know that Wikipedia is not the place for publishing gossip. Pooua 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But we have verifiable evidence of the accusations and other events surrounding it, don't we? You wouldn't want to bury published criticism, I'm sure. Just zis Guy you know? 10:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The accusations by individuals on their own websites about the alleged misdeeds of Jack Hyles are not appropriate to be used in an article about Jack Hyles. Rev. Cloud's website can be used to discuss himself, in his own article, but they shouldn't be used as a source about Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's called, "hear-say," and it is not appropriate in an encyclopedic article. What do you think this is? The "National Tattler"?

When you read an encyclopedic article about George Bush in an encyclopedia with professional editors, do you imagine that all the claims and accusations that you now find in the newspapers will be in that article? At most, there would be a brief summary or indirect reference to them, and only if they were significant in themselves to his term in office.

Anyone can make any claim or complaint against anyone. An encyclopedia is not the appropriate place for it. If this information is not summarized or reduced, I will have to escalate the issue up the Wikipedia command structure. I cannot allow this to continue. It is bad for the interests of history and the interests of Wikipedia. Pooua 14:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can add sourced articles do so. Arbusto 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What is really amazing about you guys is that if someone said they were going to sue Wikipedia, you wouldn't include that in the article about Wikipedia; but, if a newspaper reports that someone says they are going to sue Wikipedia, suddenly it's a sourced reference. Do you not see the inconsistency in your position?

This is nothing more than a smear campaign. Whether it is intended to discredit Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Christian fundamentalism, Christianity, religion in general or Americans in general, it is a smear campaign. It is based on the flimsiest material. Your inclusion of this material is exceedingly unprofessional of an editor.

From Wikipedia:

"NPOV" {Long quote of NPOV removed- see link}

This article about Jack Hyles violates at least the NPOV and the No Original Research basics. You attempt to justify what you are doing solely on the basis of Verifiability. I must point out that for there to be a controversy, there must be two sides, but you have only reported on one side, and the reporting you have done is nothing more than clips of accusations provided with very little context. Pooua 18:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How does it violate NPOV and NOR? Specific examples please?

I already gave you 3 numbered specific examples. Someone referenced newspaper articles reporting that someone was making defamatory statements about Jack Hyles or First Baptist Church of Hammond or Hyles-Anderson Christian College. Those allegations are then posted here. No further context, no further information. In the 3 cases I specified, we are told that someone is going to be sued, but we never hear the outcome of any lawsuit, or even that there actually was a lawsuit. This is clear-cut NPOV, and you are simply being obstinate in refusing to admit it.


 * If your problem is that there isn't enough positive aspects.

No, my problem is that you have a bunch of hear-say and people making claims, and then no follow-up.


 * Feel free to improved it with sourced material.

Oh, sure; I could use the same yellow journalism you and your friends have used to post glowing praise for Jack Hyles, if you want sourced material. It's cheap editorial practices like this that give Wikipedia a bad reputation; it's exactly what Wikipedia's critics predicted would happen when it was created.


 * I browsed through lexus-nexus and the Hammond-area papers, I did not see positive stories.

You could have browsed "Sword of the LORD." It's a newspaper, just as much as Sumner's paper that is referenced in the article.


 * There is a story about theft being linked to Hyles-Anderson students that isn't on that page, but other than that the newspaper stories are well-represented. Arbusto 19:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Real encyclopedias are not collections of newspaper clippings. Pooua 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about that theft... how convenient that you failed to point out that these were ex-students, and that First Baptist Church of Hammond actually assisted the victims and police in finding the culprits and finding the stolen goods. Northwest Indiana Times: "Officials charge ex-Hyles students in burglaries" I guess you know of a college of a thousand students that has never had a thief in their membership; otherwise, why would you mention it, here? Obviously, this is all Hyles' fault, even though he has been dead for 6 years. Pooua 18:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So, my first complaint about the controversies is that nothing specific is ever determined from them; it's just a bunch of people making a bunch of statements that may or may not be true.

My second complaint is that the significance of the controversies in the life of Jack Hyles is not demonstrated to be sufficient for an encyclopedia article. No one has shown on this page how these events changed the life of Jack Hyles in a significant way. In fact, no one has shown that any of these events changed the life of Jack Hyles in any way. That is partly because they are presented as just a bunch of claims that people have made. But, because this is a biographical page on Jack Hyles, the information presented MUST show exactly what this article does not; the things Jack Hyles did, and the things that life did to Jack Hyles.

My third complaint is that several Wikipedia editors are using Wikipedia as a smear machine, not a source of encyclopedic information. Pooua 06:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What a concidence - our complaint is that several editors are intent on whitewashing a controversial figure. So between us the balance should come out about right. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write a book or even a newspaper article, that's one thing. An encyclopedia should not be written as a tell-all book, an investigative report or a newspaper column. This article should be written from the POV of the subject, not the POVs of the people making accusations. That is simply standard in real encyclopedias. And, yes, people have long complained that this "whitewashes" controversial figures.

Wikipedia should not be used as your own private gossip column. Pooua 18:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your POV is clear. If you can add anything to it fine, but if you browse through the article history you see a revert war over the criticism. The article was cleaned up with newspaper sources and now you want them deleted just because they are negative. That is POV. Arbusto 21:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to delete them because they are not substantiated claims. Also, they violate the Wikipedia NPOV. "Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral." see NPOV dispute Pooua 04:07, 1 April 2006


 * Also, just because Jack Hyles hid his background from his students (i assume this since Pooua didn't hear any of the controverisies) David D. 21:38, 31 March 2006


 * I was never a student at Hyles-Anderson Christian College. Out of 25 years that I attended this denomination of Christianity, I spent a total of 3 months visiting First Baptist Church of Hammond. I have met several people--particularly from Bob Jones University--who were happy to point out Hyles' flaws. Pooua 04:07, 1 April 2006


 * this is even more reason to have some of it in the article. David D. 21:38, 31 March 2006


 * Are you claiming that any of the statements made are true? Pooua 04:07, 1 April 2006


 * They are documented so why shouldn't they be included? David D. 21:38, 31 March 2006


 * They should not be included because you don't know if the claims have a factual basis. Pooua 04:07, 1 April 2006


 * If you take out the controversies then Hyle is not notable. David D. 21:38, 31 March 2006


 * That's an absurd point of view. Jack Hyles built a church of less than a thousand members to a membership of 100k members (average Sunday attendance of 20k). That's noteable. Jack Hyles practically invented the church bus ministry. That's noteable. Jack Hyles initiated and oversaw the annual Pastor's School, which this year attracted more than 7000 visitors to the Hammond area (as reported in the "Northwest Indiana Times" March 24, 2006 ). That's noteable. Jack Hyles has published more books than most fundamentalists have. That's noteable. Jack Hyles is one of the most significant people in Christian fundamentalism. Pooua 04:07, 1 April 2006


 * It seems to me that the real problem with wikipedia is that some editors think they can write pages with huge POV and then get pissed off when the other verifiable information gets added to the page. The lesson is that POV users need to look for the skeletons in the closet before they write new articles about their heros. Writing an article in wikipedia is like opening Pandoras box David D. (Talk) 21:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, any article that does not trash the reputation of Jack Hyles is not good enough for you. Pooua 04:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Pooua, you need to understand something about Wikipedia. The policy of verifiability is linked to the guideline on reliable sources; what this means in practice is that everything on Wikipedia is what you call "hearsay" because we only include that which has been reported elsewhere.  The citations include the Chicago Tribune, which is a good source.  They can't just make stuff up or their ass gets sued, there is no indication that happened in this case.  The controversy section could use a little polishing to present a logical development, and the "saddest story" comment could do with expansion because this is precisely the point you are making: that many people who admired and respected Hyles were dismayed by these actions in the later years of his life.  But it has to be said that it is very common for people in positions of authority who have been in office for a long time, to go off the rails towards the end.  That's why you have a limit on the number of terms a President can serve.  All power corrupts, and all that. Just zis Guy you know? 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are the positive aspects of Hyle?
So, why *is* there no mention of Jack Hyles' military service? Isn't that sort of biographical data standard in an encyclopedic biography? There is virtually nothing in this article about Jack Hyles' career, his past pastorates or the books he wrote. There are just a few introductory paragraphs, and then a bunch of mudslinging. It is clear what the POV of the editors of this page is; the destruction of Jack Hyles reputation. Pooua 18:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure no one will delete it if you add the information. David D. (Talk) 21:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would hope not. But, the question is, why isn't it already in there? If this were a real biographical page, instead of just a hash of accusations--that is, if real research had been performed in writing this page in the first place, instead of as an after-thought--we would already have a record of the life of Jack Hyles from birth to death on this page. As it stands, the focus is on a bunch of unsubstantiated claims reported 3rd-hand. Pooua 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason it is not there is because the data is not readily available. Give us some sources on his military career and it can be put in the article.  David D. (Talk) 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Not readily available"?! He only talked about his military service every month! He refers to it in his books. Here, a 2-minute search on Google pulls up:


 * "When I was in the 82nd Airborne Division as a paratrooper, two men headed up our division as generals. One was James Gavin. We called him "Gentleman Jim." Every time the division jumped, he was the first man out of the plane. We were proud of him; we respected him. We later had another general who did not jump. He somehow did not go over so well with the paratroopers. We wanted someone to lead us, not push us." Source The Jack Hyles Website: "Strength and Beauty"


 * "When I was a Paratrooper in World War II I was taught to take pride in the fact that I wore the wings and boots of the United States Paratrooper. I was taught that when I did something wrong I brought reflection against my branch of service." Source Jesus-is-Savior: "Blue Denim and Lace"
 * Incidentally, "Blue Denim and Lace" was a very popular book across the nation when I was young. My pastor, who led a 2000-member church and a private Christian school for all ages up to college, gave away copies of "Blue Denim and Lace" to all his high school graduates. That is the only time that I know of that he ever made any reference of any sort to Jack Hyles. He was a Bob Jones University graduate, and most of his employees came from either BJU or Maranatha.


 * "During World War II, Jack Hyles served as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division."Source Baptist City: "Dr. Jack Hyles"


 * Here, there is even a picture of young Jack Hyles in his uniform: Lighthouse Baptist Church Hyles Army photo Pooua 03:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well when i did my google search for "Jack Hyles" + military, there was nothing obvious. i notice that the The Jack Hyles Website: "Strength and Beauty" article was number 10.  I also notice it had 29,000 words, the word military occurred once and did not refer to his own service.  I had no intention of reading Hyles 29,000 words just to check for other references to his military career. Pooua, if you know all this stuff so well i have no idea why you are spending all this time complaining on the talk page.  Why don't you just get started and write a decent article such that the controversy will seem trivial? David D. (Talk) 04:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't simply edit the page because the page is compromised by editors who have a vendetta but don't have a clue how to edit an encyclopedia.


 * In that case live with what is there. I have tried to tidy up what is present on the page and create new sections for you to add the information you think is missing. Now its your turn. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tapes of some of his sermons, covering at least a year, maybe 3 years. Maybe in the distant future, I could extract more references from them?


 * As for all the other things you mention, books, bus ministry and church from 100's to 100 of thousands. It is all there. The fact he has led a double life is not the problem of the writers.
 * You don't know it is a fact. That's the main problem with putting this material here; you cannot prove he did the things of which he is accused. All you can do is repeat the accusations.
 * Wikipedia is not about proving anything. It repeats information that has been published.


 * If Wikipedia is to be authoritative, it must publish only material that meets a high standard of reliability. Excerpts of quotations of accusations printed in newspapers does not meet the standard that any reputable encyclopedia would permit. You are not just trashing Jack Hyles by putting this stuff here; you are trashing Wikipedia.
 * What are you suggesting, that all the controversies be removed? You are trying to paint a picture of Jack Hyles that is POV. I suggest that attitude is more likely to trash Wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot deny the controversies exist. If you wish to claim they are a conspiracy theory to bring down Hyles you will have to have some very legtimate source. Not somthing from Hyles own web site. David D. (Talk) 04:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hold on... you just said that Wikipedia is not about proving anything. Now, you turn around and claim that if I am to make a claim about the accusations, *I* have to prove something? OK, you have proved beyond all doubt you don't know how to produce an NPOV. Pooua 06:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ? Who said anything about proving something? I said, find the source that makes your case. Preferably an independant source from Hyles own web site.  This has nothing to do with proof.  It is about verifiable facts. I believe you have the information at hand but for some strange reason you refuse to edit this page. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that those that attend his church choose to ignore his short comings (or forgive) is not the problem of the writers. David D. (Talk) 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that ungodly people have often tried to disgrace and destroy famous preachers is reason enough to be cautious about the claims we believe.
 * I think several of these famous preachers spent time in jail for fraud. Was it all a set up? David D. (Talk) 04:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He may be notable for the books and successful ministry but he is also notorious for his hypocricy. Do you deny this? David D. (Talk) 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have written several times on this page that neither I, nor you, nor anyone else posting to this encyclopedia knows the truth of these accusations. The reason they do not belong in an encyclopedia is because they are unsubstantiated; all we know is that someone made the accusations. Pooua 02:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And you have also been told that these controversies are just being documented from the press. Everything is sourced and legitimate. Where is the evidence that these sources are unsubstantiated? David D. (Talk) 04:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For starters, you have it backwards. A reputable publication does not print a claim and then state "prove it wrong." A reputable publication first validates the claims, investigates the situation and then reports its findings.
 * Next, the only thing documented in the press is the fact that someone is making claims. Nothing is demonstrated about the reliability of those accusations. That by itself means the articles don't belong in an encyclopedia. Pooua 06:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You write "A reputable publication first validates the claims, investigates the situation and then reports its findings" Exactly. Which is why all the controversies in the press are legitimate sources for this article. You seem to think that the role of wikipedia is to investigate (or you believe that I think this).  It is not, it is to document the information that is verifiable. Whether they are claims or facts they have been reported. With regard to your statement "Next, the only thing documented in the press is the fact that someone is making claims.", I'm not sure which example you are referring too. To date, all you have presented is your opinion that the negative article in the press are biased and possibly inaccurate. That sounds like original research and POV, if you want to make this case you will have to find quotes and articles from verifiable sources. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For sure. All non-trivial verifiable facts welcome. Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that verifiable statements about Jack Hyles don't fit in with the tone of the page. This Wiki page is a hatchet job. Pooua 02:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you feel uncomfortable improving his article here you should consider writing the article for the wikichristian. At present they do not have one for Jack Hyles. David D. (Talk) 18:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll give Pooua a few days then I putting back the biography paragraph.

You should have removed the Controversy section, not the biography section. In particular, that paragraph on the seeing-eye dog is too trivial for an encyclopedia article. It is only there because you want dirt on Hyles.


 * For example, there is a section for military service, but no proof or claim he was in the military. Arbusto 23:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If you would spend less time looking for gossip and more time doing actual research, you would find out a lot of details about Jack Hyles' life.


 * Okay and how much non-"gossip" verifable facts have you added? Well, looking at the page history none. Your predetermined conclusion is not matching with the evidence. Arbusto 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you left out Jack Hyles' childhood. In particular, there is no mention of his Dad. Jack Hyles talked about his Dad a lot. What Jack Hyles said about his childhood puts considerable perspective on his career as a pastor. Pooua 02:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The seeing eye dog section stays. A man bans a person who needs a seeing eye dog and doesn't even bother giving the public any reason for it. Instead he tells the others to give "no comment." Plus it is written by the AP, which isn't a church newsletter. Arbusto 18:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that if you have 20,000 people in a church, and one man leaves because the pastor says his seeing-eye dog is causing trouble, that you have a very thin case for claiming you are describing a trend. Pooua 05:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should a pastor have to explain such things to the public, anyway? If the public wants to know what goes on in the church, the doors are open. An isolated incident, particular from 22 years ago, is hardly worthy of an encyclopedia entry. What conclusions could you make from it? It is just an isolated incident, just another negative comment, but one without connection to anything that happened before or after it. Pooua 06:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Arb com
Let's see. An editor who refuses to contribute to the section stubs:
 * "I don't simply edit the page because the page is compromised by editors who have a vendetta but don't have a clue how to edit an encyclopedia."


 * "I'm afraid that verifiable statements about Jack Hyles don't fit in with the tone of the page. This Wiki page is a hatchet job."

Is now filing to Arb com rather than editing this page? Bizarre. Apparently this editor is not interested in presenting the side s/he perceives to be missing from the article but instead just wishes to delete information about verifiable controversies that have surrounded Hyles during his life. 128.104.98.114 20:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I wrote several times, the same people who are intent on putting unsubstantiated claims on this page will simply revert the page if I remove the claims. Before putting these kind of claims on the page, someone should have investigated a lot more than just seeing that a newspaper had printed them. Pooua 03:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the issue: 1) There is publicly cited cricitism of Hyles 2) It is published by reputable newspapers. Due to these criteria it is going to be included despite your personal feelings. Arbusto 04:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal feeling is that Wikipedia is claiming that Jack Hyles has committed various scandalous acts. There are many reasons that Wikipedia should be careful about the way that it makes such claims, not least of all because it brings into question its reliability. Pooua 05:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pooua clearly does not want wikipedia readers to read anything he does not personally agree with. Arbusto 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your accusations against me are not useful or accurate. I take reference information seriously. The Controversies section presents hearsay as if it were fact, when the factual basis of the claims has not been established by any third party, much less Wikipedia. Pooua 03:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This edit where you deleted someone's comments on this talk demonstrate how "seriously" you care about voicing opposing opinions. Arbusto 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC) User did not delete post, but divided the paragraphs sentence by sentence. I don't think paragraphs should be broken up by other editors. Arbusto 04:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, my first thought was WP:AGF and that this occured as a result of server non-synchronization, but the edit times are too far apart for that to have happened. Pooa, do you have an explanation? JoshuaZ 04:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. His comments are still on the page. The aren't in a single block, anymore, because I posted my replies beneath each of his statements, but you can scroll up the page or do a search and still find them. Pooua 04:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, but please don't modify other people's writing. Arbusto 04:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that replying to each of his statements individually is modification of his writing. Pooua 05:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Look the first line was a post by David that said "Also, just because Jack Hyles hid his background from his students (i assume this since Pooua didn't hear any of the controverisies) this is even more reason to have some of it in the article." You changed it so your post was first and the first line became "I want to delete them because they are not substantiated claims. Also, they violate the Wikipedia NPOV." That is drastically changing the context in which David was replying to. Arbusto 05:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) It varies based on what forum one is in. In some fora, it is acceptable under limited circumstances with appropriate notation (such as Usenet). On Wikipedia it is not. One reason is that it can get much more out of context/confusing when one has multiple responses at different times moving around, possibly at the same or different indentation levels in either direction. It is therefore best to not modify statements in that way here. Especially when in a case like this it does in fact modify the context drastically. Please do not split statements again. JoshuaZ 05:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How then do you make new replies to material that is not at the end? I'm willing to work with whatever method of notation you have here, but it makes sense to me to keep statements and replies together. Pooua 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply directly after it. If you have multiple points to respond to, try to make clear what you are responding to. If it seems like there is still ambiguity quote the most relevant part of a sentence. JoshuaZ 05:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The first line of David's reply to me was "Also, just because Jack Hyles hid his background from his students (i assume this since Pooua didn't hear any of the controverisies) this is even more reason to have some of it in the article."


 * It was changed so the first line replied to me was by Pooua: "I want to delete them because they are not substantiated claims. Also, they violate the Wikipedia NPOV." So it looked like David was replying to Pooua. That is drastically changing the context in which David was replying to. Not to mention breaking up other people's paragraphs modifies the meaning of the paragraph. Arbusto 05:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reformatted the section so that it reads a little more clearly. i also added atributions so it is obvious who wrote each line.  I think we can WP:AGF with Pooua. The formatting errors are quite common for new users.  i had the same issues when i started editing here. David D. (Talk) 05:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"church bus ministry"
What is a "church bus ministry"? Please expand the introduction to explain exactly what we are dealing with. I tried linking the phrase but it came up red. --kingboyk 21:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * May be Pooua could give us a brief description? He writes above "Jack Hyles practically invented the church bus ministry." David D. (Talk) 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A church bus ministry is an aid to evangelization. It provides transportation to a church for people who would otherwise find it difficult or impossible to attend church services. Most churches with a bus route ministry have organized a system of regular bus routes that follow a pre-determined circuit and generally-set times. But, Jack Hyles went beyond simply providing transportation. He used the church bus routes as outreach programs in their own right. He also sent bus workers out to recruit people to church, providing both the invitation and the means of attending. Many mainstream churches hardly do more to evangelize than to open their doors and put a sign out front; Jack Hyles sent workers on buses hundreds of miles to invite people personally to attend, and scheduled pick-up times. Nor are the rides to church passive; bus workers are expected to engage the passengers in theological activities, usually singing spiritual songs and hymns, listening to Bible verses read aloud or sermons prepared by one of the bus workers. Pooua 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That whole section sounds made up and has no sources. This stuff about a bus ministry violates No original research without sources. Arbusto 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow! Someone asked me to provide a brief description. I did so. Take it as that and nothing more; that's why it is on a talk page.


 * Now, here is a question for you, Arbusto: What causes you to be interested in this matter of Jack Hyles? Pooua 03:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The white washing. I noticed people were removing criticism and claimed there was a conspiracy. So I looked into and sourced the article (removing blogs and citing newspapers). You can read about it on the archive of this talk. Arbusto 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I guess having a local newspaper cite a statement means the person who makes the statement isn't involved in a conspiracy?


 * Your conspiracy theories and personal feelings about Hyles don't concern wikipedia. Arbusto 03:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is, you can't claim the accusations are reliable simply because they appear in a newspaper.


 * Do you know anything about the source of Robert Sumner's statements? Pooua 03:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * He is cited by the Chicago Tribune on May 28, 1989 in an article titled "Charges All Lies, Hammond Pastor Says" criticizing Hyles. Thus, his criticism comes from a good source and is part of public discourse. So wikipedia is repeating allegations that are published in a major newspaper concerning the subject of this article. Arbusto 03:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You have it backwards. His criticism doesn't come from the Chicago Tribune. The Chicago Tribune got (some) of its criticism from Sumner. Sumner actually published his accusations against Jack Hyles the previous year, and Sword of the LORD replied to Sumner's statements in the May 26, 1989 issue. Pooua 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read my comments carefully. I wrote "he is cited by the Chicago Tribune", which means the Tribune quoted Sumner in his accusations (which is what you wrote). Allegations cited in media are used in the article. Arbusto 03:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and then you wrote, "Thus, his criticism comes from a good source...." You apparently intend us to believe that having someone quoted in a newspaper makes them more reliable than if they make the statement without the aid of the newspaper. Pooua 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, his allegations were published by a good source. Arbusto 04:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The allegations are not any better by being published in the Tribune than they were when Sumner first published them. Having a statement appear in the newspaper does not make the statement any more reliable than it was before it appeared in the newspaper. The Tribune is no better a reference than the quality of its own sources.


 * BTW, you are using the word, "source" in a confusing way; the Tribune is not the source of Sumner's quotes... Sumner is. You seem to be confusing primary and secondary sources. Pooua 04:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Roughly speaking, the Wikipedia rules and guidelines do not make the strict distinction between primary and seconday sources that you might find if one was writing a history paper or something similar. JoshuaZ 04:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is clearly the case that in a controversy, quoting only the accusations made against one party, and presenting those accusations as if they are established as fact, must result in a great deal of trouble. If you want to alienate people and discredit yourself, then this is a good way to do it. Pooua 04:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion between Arbusto and me concerning the use of newspaper quotations in producing encyclopedia articles to a new section that I have named, "Insufficient Investigation." Pooua 06:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Three section stubs
I removed three section stubs: I what way? To what extent? What authority is there for this statement? It's not a section-stub, it's a single contextless uncited sentence. Was he not of an age when the draft was in force? If so, almost all his contemporaries would have served in the military, and not doing so would be notable. In what capacity did he server? Where? And is there a source for this fact at all? It's not a section-stub, it's a single contextless uncited sentence. This comes straight from the "No shit, Sherlock" department. It's almost unimaginable that he could serve as pastor in Hammond without having served as a pastor. You want to write up the history of his ministry, go right ahead - places, dates, whatever. Absolutely fine. But please do make the effort to include actual data rather than just half-sentences with a section stub, because that looks a lot like "I know there is some stuff out there somewhere but I can't be bothered to find it". In the end, if the original editor does not care enough to write a complete and sourced paragraph, why should anyone else? Just zis Guy you know? 08:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack Hyles' parents influenced his career as a pastor.
 * Jack Hyles' served in the military.
 * Jack Hyles' served as a pastor.


 * JZG, your edit messed up the footnotes. There are two footnotes without citations now. Arbusto 00:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually put those sub sections in place as an encouragement for Pooua to start some constructive editing. The half sentences were based on the topics that Pooua thinks should be expanded (as mentioned on the talk page here).  Since Pooua did not go onto texpand these sections with content, i support you pulling these sections out. David D. (Talk) 14:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it prudent for me to alter the main page until Wikipedia determines a way to represent Jack Hyles fairly on it. So, take the stubs out, if you like; I don't want to be a party to one-sided statements on that page, as you demonstrate you would force me to do. Pooua 16:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually i am not sure you would have to be party to one sided statements. If you build a case for exclusion, or moderation (a more likely solution), I think a compromise could be found. From what I have seen so far you seem like a reasonable editor who does not edit war. I am sure people will listen to your comments and work with you towards a compromise solution. Obviously the controversy section will not be removed but there is always room for improvement.  Certainly adding more positive information will help a lot too.  The problems on this page are quite similar to another page i have edited.  See Jonathan Sarfati, the views were very polarised but a compromise was found that was acceptable to all parties and recently the page has been very stable.  I think you should look through the history on the Sarfati talk page as well as a special page that was set up to try and resolve the disputed content.  Reaching a compromise is often hard work but it can be done. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One problem is that you have accepted a secular newspaper as a reliable source of information about this church, while rejecting most religious publications. The problem is, many old-fashioned preachers considered themselves as separate from the world, both in terms of involvement and accountability, and so kept their statements to the press to a minimum. Therefore, it is not possible to get a complete view by focusing on the secular press.


 * Adding to that problem, Arbusto is over-eager to accuse, and none of you are willing to put any real effort into fact-finding, published or not. Pooua 16:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument is getting rather desperate "a secular newspaper as a reliable source" is a "problem." Also someone who has done nothing but complain about sourced criticism and has failed to add anything of relevance claimed "none of you are willing to put any real effort into fact-finding." You're arm waving isn't impressive. Either add sourced facts to the article or go away. Complaining isn't going to get anything removed. Arbusto 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right that i am not willing to fact find. i don't even remember how this page got onto my watch list.  However, i would happily consider the information you bring to the table and defend any content that is appropriate.  i would also defend any even handed editing to the controversy section if it is well reasoned. Why don't you test out the system?  You seem to have a lot of information that could make this into an excellent article. David D. (Talk) 16:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I will consider it. I would need several weeks to collect the materials I think I need for the citations. Pooua 04:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing you will discover about wikipedia is that things can go slowly and that is OK. There are no deadlines. David D. (Talk) 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A question I have about that... Answers.com copies Wikipedia. I made a change to an article, because the article was factually incorrect, but my changes have not been reflected on Answers.com. You wouldn't happen to know anything about Answer.com's mining of Wikipedia info, would you? Pooua 05:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * i don't know how often they update but the mining of data from wikipedia is one of the huge problems with the internet. At least in wikipedia people know not to trust the information 100%. The problem with all these mining sites is the wikipedia attribution is not always obvious so many people take the information as fact. Excuse the rant.  David D. (Talk) 07:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Insufficient Investigation
Here's the issue: 1) There is publicly cited cricitism of Hyles 2) It is published by reputable newspapers. Due to these criteria it is going to be included despite your personal feelings. Arbusto 04:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't object to some reference made to the controversies. However, they are presented on Wikipedia as if they are substantiated or factual, when, in fact, they are only hearsay. They are presented out of context as if this were legitimate history. In doing so, Wikipedia performs a disservice to her readers. Pooua 04:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In two sections above you claimed you wanted "gossip" removed. Yet, when you were told it is cited by newspapers you said "secular newspapers" are a "problem." Did you changed your mind? Arbusto 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No; the newspapers were spreading gossip. Pooua 04:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should we dimiss the newspaper entirely? Don't rehash the above, but offer WP:RS to explain why. Arbusto 02:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Who said we should dismiss the newspapers completely? I do have to question the validity of your article if all you have are some third-party accusations from old newspaper articles. Even if I did not know that many newspaper articles contain significant inaccuracies, a newspaper is a poor vehicle for providing detailed research. I know that newspapers articles are often inaccurate because I have been witness to events that were later reported in various newspapers; most reporters don't understand the situations they are reporting. The reporter, in the cases I've witnessed, is some young kid, maybe with a college degree or not, who gets sent out to collect basic facts and put them together into something that is somewhat understandable. And, by "sent out," I mean that he might show up at an incident before everyone involved has left. Depending on the article, he may or may not do any fact checking or follow-up.


 * Statements in newspapers can be useful for telling us where to BEGIN our research, but we definitaly should not END our research with them.


 * I generally don't agree with the views of "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting," but they make a statement that says what I have been saying here:


 * "Profit-driven news organizations are under great pressure to boost ratings by sensationalizing the news: focusing attention on lurid, highly emotional stories, often featuring a bizarre cast of characters and a gripping plot but devoid of significance to most people's lives. From Tonya Harding to O.J. Simpson to Elian Gonzalez, major news outlets have become more and more dependent on these kind of tabloid soap operas to keep profits high." FAIR: Issue Area: Sensationalism


 * The American Society of Newspaper Editors states,


 * "Beyond the typos, 23 percent of the public find factual errors in the news stories of their daily paper at least once a week." ASNE: Accuracy Matters


 * Encyclopedia articles should be written by thoughtful, careful and conservative people who are proficient in the field of study for which they are writing. They have more time to examine facts than do newspaper writers, and so should be held to a higher degree of accountability.


 * Even the most credible publication can be mis-used to make suggestions or statements that go beyond what facts support. It is my opinion that the Wikipedia article on Jack Hyles has fallen victim to this short-coming. Pooua 05:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like even Jimmy Wales admits that encyclopedia articles should be written by professionals in the field of study:

"Editors at Britannica would not discuss the findings, but say their own studies of Wikipedia have uncovered numerous flaws. 'We have nothing against Wikipedia,' says Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications at the company's headquarters in Chicago. 'But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written. There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor.'

"But to improve Wikipedia, Wales is not so much interested in checking articles with experts as getting them to write the articles in the first place." Nature: "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head"

Pooua 06:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So, this raises a question: How familiar are the editors of this page with the subject of Jack Hyles? Arbusto, do you have any background that has given you signficant insight or education into the subject? If so, what is it? Pooua 06:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Other than the media articles and the Hammond webpages I have no knowledge of Hyles, ect. 2) Which leads me to: Don't rehash the above, but offer WP:RS (reliable sources) to rebutt the criticism on why the particular Hyles-related articles should be removed/modified. I am not interested in your blanket statements about newspapers or out of context quotes. Arbusto 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. You can post whatever nonsense you find in the newspapers and then think that I have to prove they are wrong. What great editing style! But, I know why you are doing it. You hate Christianity. Your entire purpose here is to dig up as much dirt as you can find and display it in public, hearsay or not. The type of dirt doesn't matter; that's why you insist on posting a lone event from 22 years ago, without providing a cause-and-effect summary.


 * Your efforts to harry me will need to be more intense than this. I will post in my time, the material I believe summarizes and explains the life of Jack Hyles. You, meanwhile, are just another bitter, frustrated, angry, anti-Christian skeptic. Pooua 03:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally, that's how things are done. You provide citations to support a biography. The conclusions of the biography change only when evidence does. Not the other way around. Personal attacks don't prove your case, instead they make you look desperate. Arbusto 06:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to get clear in your head the difference between "things" and encyclopedias. An encyclopedia is not written by taking a series of quotes out of some newspapers to advocate a view. In fact, an encyclopedia is not supposed to be an advocacy paper. It is supposed to be unbiased, fairly representing the subject through in-depth research and comprehensive understanding. It is exactly because so many Wikipedia articles are written by the copy-and-paste amateurs that Jimmy Wales is trying to get experts--people who actually know the subject and can present it comprehensively–-to write Wikipedia articles.


 * The Controversies section regarding Jack Hyles is just a bunch of statements that, left without so little historical context, can only appeal to the biases of the reader. They really don’t mean anything by themselves, and there is nothing else connected with them. Pooua 02:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

References broken
Some recent edits broke the references; see it for yourself. Obviously, they need to be fixed. The errors were caused by people removing sentences wholesale, including their references, not realizing they were removing named references which were referred to later in the body. --Cyde Weys 07:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Nothing was removed but sentences were moved wholesale. David D. (Talk) 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Not an Indiscriminate Collection of Information
"News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories" WP:ISNOT So, the "Controversies" section should not exist, because all of its referential basis is first-hand news reports of breaking stories. Pooua 17:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You completely misread that section. Posting newspaper articles on controversies surrounding the subject of the article is not a "breaking story" nor is it "first hand," first hand being original material. Arbusto 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hard to see how there could be many breaking stories in relation to Jack Hyles. "Controversial preacher still dead" is unlikely to make the front pages. Mind you, if Smith Wigglesworth were to show up and raise him from the dead, that would be worth an additional sentence, even if it were a current event. Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a fine example that due to Pooua's personal attachment/relationship with Hyles and Hyles' church he simply is just looking for reasons to have the criticism removed. Arbusto 05:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper Calls Negative Articles Into Question
NWI Times ran an article on May 19, 1993, that specifically calls into question several of the news articles that now happen to be cited without question on the Jack Hyles article page.

"If one were to take the insinuations of Detroit television station WJBK-TV seriously, one could get the impression that the First Baptist Church of Hammond is a sex-crime factory and that its pastors school in Hammond and the affiliated Hyles Anderson College in Schererville are institutions where people minor in molestation. WLS-TV in Chicago has also picked up on the story and sensationalized it. Even for the month of May, when the rat race of ratings drives TV stations to produce and hype stories that should be bright yellow in vivid color, this is a monstrous overreach.

"There is no large institution of any kind where some wrongdoers cannot be found. First Baptist and its affiliated institutions are no exception. To tar an entire congregation or student body and alumni with indiscriminate innuendo is highly irresponsible." NWITimes: "Baptism by innuendo"

No, that wasn't from a letter to the Editor. That was the printed editorial of the newspaper's editor, calling into question the reasonableness of these stories. He identifies those "news" articles for what they are: sensationalized yellow journalism. It was inappropriate material when it was produced; it certainly is inappropriate on Wikipedia. But now certain people on Wikipedia have glommed onto them, demanding that we not touch them. At the very least, this published rebuttal, from a professional news service, should be included in the Jack Hyles article. More responsibly, the inclusion of those negative articles should be assessed with much more skepticism, if they are included at all.

I read through 9 pages of search results from NWI Times, looking for all references to Jack Hyles. NWI Times has shown reasonable balance in the articles that I read, with only one strongly critical article (appearing in 2002 as I recall). Inasmuch as they are local to the Hammond, Indiana area, I have asked them if they could provide additional published information on Jack Hyles. Pooua 04:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Which articles do you believe are "called into question"? 2) How does this ..."there is no large institution of any kind where some wrongdoers cannot be found" call into question anything? It seems to be just saying the cases of molestation are not in the norm.
 * 3) That article also says "Regrettably, Hyles does not seem to think that Ballenger's conviction is something that should require the former deacon to be removed from any contact with church children." So there you have it, from a newspaper, that Hyles allowed Ballenger, a convicted child molestor, to be around children at the very church he molested a girl at. That does not "call negative articles into question." Arbusto 07:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You really don't know the article to which I am referring, do you? That's because the source of that article was never attributed. So, Wikipedia is distributing copyrighted material without attribution or permission. I wonder what Fox News would think of that? So, I made a long distance phone call to Detroit to ask them.


 * For the record, I don't know who is deleting the material from the Controversies section, but I am enjoying the show. I hope they continue to the Wikipedia page, "Preying from the Pulpit" and Jeri Massi's personal Web page that is hosting the Fox News programs. Pooua 17:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that Will Beback reverted the page a few hours after the changes were made to it. I am interested in knowing why he did that, particularly given that he is forcing Wikipedia to publish illegally sourced material. Other than learning his reasoning, I'll leave that matter between you folks and the copyright holder. Meanwhile, moving right along...


 * Regarding Question 2 above, the newspaper's statement calls into question attempts to characterize Jack Hyles or First Baptist Church of Hammond on the basis of statistically-likely events. No organic connection has been shown between Jack Hyles and the criminal convictions of some of the members of his church. He does not endorse or encourage child molestation, but he strongly denounces it. The newspaper made this meaning clear in its opening paragraphs, by stating, "Our opinion: The church and its affiliated institutions should not be villified without any proof..."


 * Your statement that "Hyles allowed Ballenger, a convicted child molestor, to be around children" does not follow from the newspaper's statement that Hyles "does not seem to think that Ballenger's conviction is something that should require the former deacon to be removed from any contact with church children." Regardless of Jack Hyles' opinion, the fact was that Ballenger was sentenced to 5 years in prison. He would not have had access to church children at the time the newspaper article was written, so it is unlikely that is the editor's meaning in that statement.


 * In summary, you completely ignore the editor's explicit statements that the negative articles on First Baptist Church of Hammond and Jack Hyles are sensationalistic yellow journalism, while attempting to spin a conviction that is clearly the opposite of the editor's statements. The fact that you do this is no surprise to me; I said from my start here that you could not be called to reason. Pooua 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing
If a news source has made a report, then we can use it as a source. If other news sources have filed contradictory reports, then we can use those as well. Where those reports are copied is of little concern to us, though we don't want to promote copyright violations. Please see reliable sources. -Will Beback 05:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A legal citation, that is, one that respects copyright, must clearly identify the source of the copyrighted material. The Jack Hyles article fails to do that. I defy anyone to tell me, based only on the Jack Hyles article, who holds the copyright to the linked material. You sound like you are making excuses for bad research. Pooua 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We may cite copyrighted material. There is no question about that. Virtually all material that we cite in this encyclopedia is copyrighted. -Will Beback 05:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the issue is that the source is improperly labelled, then fix the label rather than deleting the material. -Will Beback 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, copyrighted material may be cited. I have cited many copyrighted articles in my books and school papers. However, all copyrighted material must have the correct attribution clearly attached to it, or the citation is plagiarism.


 * I believe the problem is more extensive than just the label, though, because the entire contents of all the episodes of the series are linked on Wikipedia. That is never permissible, even with citation, unless the copyright holder has granted explicit permission. This permission must be clearly noted.


 * Real editors would know these things about copyright. Pooua 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I say, though, it really doesn't matter what I think, and I need not argue any points on this matter. The copyright holder has been notified, and they will decide whether Wikipedia's links constitute acceptable use. Pooua 06:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So I understand, are you claiming that citing articles is a copyright violation? Arbusto 06:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, citing articles is not a copyright violation. Reproducing extensive passages of copyrighted material is a copyright violation, regardless of attribution, unless the copyright holder has explicitly authorized the reproduction. What constitutes "extensive passages" is a gray area, but it is much less than the entirety of a work. Indeed, regardless of attribution or permissions, the copyright holder always has the final say in how much material, if any, may be reproduced, allowing for fair use. The fair use clause does not permit wholesale reproduction of copyrighted works. Pooua 06:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair use: "Quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." The source is the US government. So you can reproduce a summary and include quotes for educational purposes. Arbusto 06:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Jack Hyles article goes beyond brief quotations, by actually linking directly to the MP3 files of the entire broadcast, from a pirated version of that broadcast. Pooua 06:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So your problem is only with the MP3's? Arbusto 06:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, man, if you think that simply slapping the correct attribution to the Fox News articles will fix the problem, I say, "Go for it." Just, don't tell me that I need to do that, because I don't believe that fixes the problem, and I don't want to be partaker in your theft. Pooua 06:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes or no- your problem is only with the MP3's? Arbusto 06:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, for crying out loud, will you get a life? You act as if arguing with me is going to change the opinion of the copyright holder. Pooua 06:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't insult me for failing to properly express your argument. So you are speaking only of the MP3s and not the "article" quotations? Arbusto 06:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Take it up with Fox News. Pooua 07:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Let's focus on the constant removal of criticism in the wikipedia article instead of your beliefs about copyrights on someone's personal website. So you contacted someone about someone's website. So what? My concern is the article, which I want to make sure you don't delete/remove any article quotes in the name of "copyrights." Afterall, your drive has continually been to remove negative mentions. Arbusto 07:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This sub-section is titled, "Sourcing," so you should be commenting on that. But, if you want to talk about drive, let's talk about Wikipedia's drive to defame Jack Hyles. None of you were so concerned with the quality of this Wikipedia page as long as it simply associated child molestation with Jack Hyles. None of you cared to investigate the reliability of your sources, or look for opposing viewpoints, or try to produce anything resembling a reasonable article. All you did was look for defamatory statements, as long as they were associated somehow with Jack Hyles. You have turned this page into an "Anti-Hyles" page, daring any "Pro-Hyles" person to oppose them, instead of taking the responsibility on yourselves to ensure that any statements made on this page are reasonable (not just published!) and fully investigated. Any editor that would tolerate the Jack Hyles page as it is, is a fraud. Pooua 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your name calling of those you don't agree with doesn't help you. Arbusto 00:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your opinion could not mean less to me, nor do I have any illusions about your determination to make the Jack Hyles page say what you want it to say, regardless of any lack of evidence you have, or any evidence I provide. Pooua 06:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed an interesting observation on Wikipedia's Talk:Richard_Nixon page; "I eliminated the quotes contributed by User:202.156.2.138. I'm assuming they may have come from the White House Tapes but no sources were cited, that alone is cause enough for removal." User:Wgfinley It is interesting that the only attribution for the "Preying from the Pulpit" section is a fake label that is really a generic news team tag line. It does not bother anyone that the material referenced is from a personal website, and could just as easily be something her neighbor's child created. Even more interesting is that it bothers no one else besides me. And, yet, all of you pretend you are editors. Pooua 07:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The user who removed the Nixon quote wrote, "all of the Nixon tapes have been transcribed so if there is a quote from that tape it should reference a transcription. Additionally, I don't find it useful to quote random obscenities from candid tapes and that's a lot of what I remember I removed." Yet, with this article your problem is that the Chicago Tribune mentions the news report and there are six links to the actual complete report. The broadcast is cited in the article and available on the internet and consquently the article is linked to the available broadcast. Arbusto 00:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) If the Chicago Tribune references the news article, "Preying from the Pulpit," that reference is not quoted in the Jack Hyles article. I just searched the Chicago Tribune website for references to "Preying from the Pulpit," but no articles were found from 1985 to present.


 * I was wrong it was the Chicago Sun-Times June 2, 1993, but was referenced properly in the article. Lucky for you someone posted the entire article for the "Chicago Sun-Times June 2, 1993" on the archived talk page for reference. That article noted the newsreport in question "Titled Preying From the Pulpit, the series said it found seven U.S. churches - all with ties to Hyles, it said - involved in sex scandals. It also said some ex-members described Hyles as a cult leader." Thus, a direct mention by the article in question. That article also goes in some detail on the broadcast. Arbusto 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So, the Jack Hyles article should be quoting from the Chicago Sun-Times, not linking to an unattributed audio copy hosted on the personal Web site of an enemy of Jack Hyles. Of course, that would make the Chicago Sun-Times a secondary reference, which is not the most desireable reference, but it is better than linking to unattributed material on the personal Web page of someone who is hostile to Jack Hyles. Pooua 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 2) If the links in the Jack Hyles article actually go to an archive of the news broadcast, "Preying from the Pulpit," then it must have an attribution, that is, copyright information, who the source is, who produced it, who owns it; but, it does not. The fact that the person who created the link did not put this information in the article is sufficient reason to delete the links, even in the absence of any other reasons.


 * I am no expert on copyright law. What I do know is the article mentions the broadcast. That the broadcast is available on the internet. So the broadcast is linked. Arbusto 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone could create an audio file and title it "Preying from the Pulpit." Indeed, I found in a Google search other Web articles on unrelated topics titled, "Preying from the Pulpit." It is a severe violation of document reliability to link to an unverifiable copy that is hosted on someone's personal Web page, particularly when the person hosting that material is an outspoken opponent of the subject.


 * Ignorance of copyright law is no excuse for breaking it. Regardless of the location of the hosted material, the links must be attributed to the source of those audio files. No, the Chicago Sun-Times IS NOT the source of the audio files that are linked on the Jack Hyles article page. Pooua 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 3) The purported news broadcast that is identified in the Jack Hyles article, "Preying from the Pulpit," is unreliable, because its authenticity cannot be confirmed. We do not know who created the work that is hosted on that personal website, even if we think we are reasonably certain. That is a problem with pirated copies of copyrighted material. This, again, is sufficient reason to delete the references, even in the absence of any other reasons.


 * It was reported and part of the public discourse (TV and print) as noted with several articles including the "Chicago Sun-Times June 2, 1993." Arbusto 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Sun-Times does not tell us that Jeri Massi has an authentic copy of the TV news program, "Preying from the Pulpit." Pooua 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. If the source of the claims in the article are the original broadcast, then there isn't a problem.  The external links, or courtesy links, or convenience links, are not required to be from reliable sources.  They are just external links.  All that is required is that the actual claims in the article are properly sourced to the correct reliable and reputable source.  Vivaldi (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that "Incredible claims require incredible evidence." You are making incredible claims against a highly popular preacher, associating him with activities that are uncharacteristic of people with his reputation. You must provide exceptional, extensive, unquestionable evidence to support your statements, or you are just a troll.


 * Even with the loose reporting you allow yourself, you cannot claim to have done more than imply guilt by association. Pooua 06:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This was a controversial man and consequently the controversy needs to be included. Please cease with the name calling per WP:CIVIL. Arbusto 07:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not call you a name; you are allowing yourself highly questionable documentation procedures, all in the pursuit of defaming Jack Hyles. If you tried this in a college English class, you would be red-marked. Pooua 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't know the arrangements or lack of arrangements between the two parties. You claiming there is no permission is not proof of a violation. In fact, given your interest in removing the material critical of Hyles it is strongly suspected that you are less interested in copyright laws and more interested in removing public access to the mp3s.

As you said above, "your opinion could not mean less to me." Provide a public statement made by the copyright owner that shows this is a violation. Arbusto 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't need a public statement to know that Jerri Massi is in violation of copyright. The fact that she has not indicated on her page that her copy is used by permission automatically means that it is not used by permission.


 * When I did research for my book, I cited several copyrighted documents. I received permission from several copyright holders to use their material, but, as is standard procedure, I had to include a blurb stating that I had used their material by permission. Even material that falls under fair use has to have a copyright acknowledgement.


 * The burden of proving reliability rests on the the people who would use the material. It is not my responsibility to show that your material is not reliable; it is YOUR responsibility to show that it IS reliable. Pooua 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So no proof in backing up this alleged "copyright violation"? As I understand it, to host images, copyrighted work, and media files on wikipedia you need copyright information. Yet, this deals with links to a personal website. The latter wikipedia is not responsible for in terms of this "alleged" copyright issue. Arbusto 02:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Copyright information must ALWAYS be provided. Wikipedia is supposed to be reference material; of course you have to include the copyright information in it! It does not matter where the files are located; this is just basic scholarship!


 * Good scholarship always requires an acknowledgement of the source. Nothing in the article states that Jeri Massi is the source of the MP3 files. Are we to assume--which we should never do in scholarly articles under any conditions--that a TV news program converted their 1993 broadcast into MP3s for free distribution? Pooua 02:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Will Beback writes: If a news source has made a report, then we can use it as a source. If other news sources have filed contradictory reports, then we can use those as well. Where those reports are copied is of little concern to us, though we don't want to promote copyright violations. Please see Wikipedia:reliable sources. My response to Will:  What is the source being used for the "Eyewitness News" claims?  On what day did this broadcast air?  What time?  What station?  Is it verifiable?  Is there any way that I can check the source to make sure that it is being reported accurately here on Wikipedia?  If there isn't, then perhaps we should remove this material.  Vivaldi (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The information in the article about the news program in question is footnoted. The footnote is The Chicago Sun-Times June 2, 1993. The full article is posted on this talk archive. Arbusto 05:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, enacted in 1998
Pooua, who has tried very hard to get criticism removed from the article, is now claiming the mp3s are a copyright violation. It should be noted that David S. Touretzky has explained "one of the favorite tools of both cults and corporations seeking to take embarassing information off the Internet is to falsely claim violation of a copyright or trademark." In this statement he noted several criteria for rejecting supposed copyright infringements regarding the "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, enacted in 1998," that"set out a notification procedure that can be used to request an ISP to remove allegedly infringing material from a web page." Touretzky explained:


 * 1) "The material in question is not copyrighted, or the copyright has expired. It is therefore in the public domain and may be reproduced by anyone."
 * 2) "The complainant has provided no copyright registration information or other tangible evidence that the material in question is in fact copyrighted, and I have a good faith belief that it is not. The allegation of copyright violation is therefore in dispute, and at present unsupported."
 * 3) "The complainant does not hold the copyright to the material in question, is not the designated representative of the copyright holder, and therefore lacks standing to assert that my use of the material is a violation of any of the owner's rights."
 * 4) "My use of the material is legally protected because it falls within the "fair use" provision of the copyright regulations, as defined in 17 USC 107. If the complainant disagrees that this is fair use, they are free to take up the matter with me directly, in the courts. You, the ISP, are under no obligation to settle this dispute, or to take any action to restrict my speech at the behest of this complainant. Furthermore, siding with the complainant in a manner that interferes with my lawful use of your facilities could constitute breach of contract on your part."
 * 5) "The complaint does not follow the prescribed form for notification of an alleged copyright violation as set forth in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 USC 512(c)(3)."

The bolded section is Pooua's reason to have this criticism removed. Arbusto 02:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you dispute that the original news program was copyrighted? Are you unaware that use of another person's copyrighted material must be acknowledged in reproductions? But, this goes beyond just copyright violation, because Wikipedia is citing material found on a personal Website that is supposed to be more authoritative than the person who owns the Website.


 * Arbusto, you are so eager to defame Jack Hyles that you will post anything from anyone that says something negative about him. You have exibited absolutely no critical thought regarding your sources. Now, you are attempting to slander me for pointing out the blazingly obvious truth. Pooua 02:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So no proof that it is considered a copyright violation by the copyright holder? Arbusto 02:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You really want to push it, don't you? You can't be a responsible, moral citizen and obey the law; you have to wait until you get a cease-and-desist letter. I guess you are gambling that the copyright holder won't ever act on this issue, and maybe they won't. But, it is still illegal, and you are still using unattributed material in an encyclopedia article. Pooua 02:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The complainant has provided no copyright registration information or other tangible evidence that the material in question is in fact copyrighted, and I have a good faith belief that it is not. The allegation of copyright violation is therefore in dispute, and at present unsupported."
 * "The complainant does not hold the copyright to the material in question, is not the designated representative of the copyright holder, and therefore lacks standing to assert that my use of the material is a violation of any of the owner's rights."
 * Please offer proof that the copyright is believed to be violated according to the copyright owner. Arbusto 03:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, that form letter by Dave Touretzky is bunk. Copyright practically never expires; currently, it lasts almost a century past the death of the author. What is more, virtually all original material automatically falls under copyright protection, even original e-mails. No copyright registration is required under the law for a work to be copyrighted.

See also:

Top 10 Urban Copyright Myths - by Richard Keyt

10 Big Myths about copyright explained - by Brad Templeton

TEN COMMON COPYRIGHT PERMISSION MYTHS - by Attorney Lloyd J. Jassin

It is no wonder that Wikipedia is such a collection of nonsense, when so many of her editors don't know even the basics about writing a research paper. Pooua 03:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Another introduction to Attorney Lloyd J. Jassin's article: Gigalaw: Ten Copyright Permission Myths by Lloyd J. Jassin

"If you intend to use someone's copyrighted work, unless the use is considered a "fair use" (which is technically a defense to copyright infringement), you must obtain that person's written permission. Under federal law, only the copyright owner or someone acting with the owner's authority, such as a publisher, can grant that permission. Without written permission, you expose yourself to legal risks."

That means that you cannot get around the need to request permission to use material simply by quoting (or linking) to someone else who uses the material. Pooua 03:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pooua, you claimed the mp3s are a copyright violation. Produce a source that the copyright holder believes it is a violation. Arbusto 03:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have to provide anything; the person who quotes the material has to provide proof that THEY ARE NOT in violation. Not only must Jeri Massi have permission to use this material, but Wikipedia must have permission to use this material. Neither is in evidence, as is required under copyright law. Wikipedia's links directly to the MP3 files constitutes copying. Pooua 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe Jerri is hosting the material under fair use for educational purpose? Provide evidence that it is a copyright violation. Also linking to a website does not constitute any copyright violation. This is just you trying to get things removed. Arbusto 03:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair use does not permit the reproduction of the entire 3-day news series! You are truly clutching at straws.


 * Wikipedia did not just link to a Website or a Web page; Wikipedia is linked directly to the files, themselves, so that the files begin to play when the user clicks on the link in Wikipedia. This is a clear-cut case of unauthorized reproduction. The specific server hosting the material is irrelevant. Pooua 03:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm clutching on straws? Those links were there long before I viewed this article. You have tried everything to get the negative articles/aspects removed. You tried Arb, pleading, contacting wikipedia, and now copyrights. You admitted personal invovlement with Hyles and the church. Provide a source that this is a copyright violation. Arbusto 04:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out that I have exhausted the Wikipedia mediation process. As I predicted from the start, it has been to no avail in correcting or improving the Wikipedia article in question. This demonstrates that Wikipedia is incompetent. It is only a matter of time before someone sues it into oblivion.


 * As I wrote earlier, it is the editor of the article who must prove that the quoted material is legal and reliable. I have no need to prove that it is not. I have provided you with 4 links saying as much. Pooua 04:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside views on copyright
(All ye brave souls from AN/I enter the fray here...)


 * Posting mp3s recorded from a TV broadcast on a personal web site very likely is a copyright violation. (Fails fair use on at least two ground, for example.)  However, that is between the TV station and the web site owner or host.  Wikipedia does not become a party merely by adding a link.  The issue for wikipedia is whether they are accurate recordings of the news broadcasts they claim to be.  If so, then they constitute a reliable source just as if they were obtained from the TV station with proper permission. (If I posted an article from the NY Times' subscription-only archives to a personal web site, it would still be a NY Times article, although The Times might be irked.) Thatcher131 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not responsible for the content of external links. The wikimedia foundation has a responsibility to deal with copyvios it finds (or is informed about) on its servers. Nothing else.Geni 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question is: "This news team produced a 30-minute documentary called "Preying from the Pulpit" for the Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News program (Preying from the Pulpit pt. 1, pt.2, pt.3, pt.4, pt.5)."Arbusto 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Any reputable reference body would ensure that their sources meet the highest standards. Third party hosting of unattributed material does not meet the highest standards. We don't know, for example, how accurate the material is on Jeri Massi's Web site. She simply claims this is a recording of a Detroit TV news broadcast. A reputable reference body would have gone to the actual source, instead of a copy that probably is a pirated version of the original.


 * As for copyright, the Wikipedia links point directly at the file, so that the files play when the user clicks on the links. That means that Wikipedia effectively has a copy of the files. The physical location of the files is irrelevant. Pooua 03:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your copyright concerns should be raised with web host of of jeriwho.net, and with the TV station. Both of whom, may havea  reason to be concerned.  But, really this is not a Wikipedia matter.  Many sites we link to have copyright problems, and we can not be held responsible for their actions.  --Rob 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an admission that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Pooua 04:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is true. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as that term is defined in the Wikipedia guideline at WP:RS.  Hopefully Wikipedia is fun and useful to many people, but in its current incarnation it cannot be deemed a reliable source of information.  And I don't think many editors would disagree with you.  Vivaldi (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In most cases, external links to media files should not be placed in the main body of an article (That's why we have "External links", "References", "Further reading", etc... at the bottom of articles). Also, a user clicking on an external link, should have a clear idea of where they are going, before they click.  So, I converted it to a footnote.  Other formatting options are fine with me.  As long, as its kept out of the main body, and its made clear to the reader, where they're headed.  Once that's done, we're not responsible for what the reader finds.  --Rob 04:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that I am re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if I point out to you that there is no such entity as the "Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News." That is merely the tag line used by a news team of a TV station. Wikipedia: Eyewitness News Pooua 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You should be given an exact date, time, and station that these reports were broadcast. If the material is not verifiable, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.  I don't mind the links to the .mp3s, but they can't be used as a source for anything.  They are merely external links on a personal webpage.  I think we should remove any of the claims that are not properly sourced to a verifiable source.   Vivaldi (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a partial transcript from Lexusnexus: Eyewitness News; WJBK; Detroit, February 15-16, and the article about it from Chicago Chicago Sun-Times June 2, 1993 posted on the talk. Arbusto 05:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So, why is the link in the article to Jerri Massi's personal Web page, instead of to Lexusnexus? Pooua 05:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The topic of verifiable source was mentioned a few times earlier on this page. Arbusto is ready to repeat any accusation against Jack Hyles that is in print and call that verifiable (because it is in print). I, as a user of information sources, would like to know what the outcomes were of all those accusations made a decade ago. What were the outcomes of all those lawsuits of which Jack Hyles was named a party? As far as I know, he was never successfully sued. So, in my view, the fact that even the most reliable newspaper published some accusations does not mean that the accusations amounted to much. And, I certainly don't regard the old CBS news report as all that reliable, an opinion that the editor of the NWI Times expressed on May 19, 1993. Pooua 05:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The footnote is the Chicago Sun Times. 2) The program is linked because its mentioned and directly related to Hyles. Arbusto 05:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you prove that the MP3 files on Jeri Massi's personal Website are faithful reproductions of the TV news broadcast? How about tomorrow? Or, next year? What about the next time that someone wants to strengthen their claims by linking to an anonymous file hosted on their personal Website? Pooua 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above statement is absurd. We should not link to the MP3 files (per WP:EL) but there is no reason either to believe that they are fake; we can cite them as a source giving the broadcast details.  There are many facts which are verifiable only from sources which are hard to get to: the article on Robert Hooke cites as a source a book by Robert Gunther of which only a few tens of copies exist.  As it happens I have one of them, but I haven't put copies on my website (even though it is now out of copyright).  Whether or not I put copies on my website, the source is verifiable and valid.  If you are suggesting, as you appear to be, that the broadcast was never made, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that. If you are not suggesting the broadcast is a fake then the facts and citation stay and the links to the MP3s go per normal practice. Just zis Guy you know? 08:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Reputable scholarship requires using the best sources available. The MP3 files on Jeri Massi's personal Website have many problems that red-flag them just as standard practice.


 * 1) We know that these are not originals, or official copies of originals, because no TV network newscast is going to distribute a 1990s-era TV broadcast as MP3s. That means that someone who is uninvolved with the official broadcast had to create the MP3s. Any reputable researcher would discard them at this point. He cannot cite them, because they are unverifiable. Anything he could use to verify them would have to have greater reliability than the MP3s, and so should be cited instead of the MP3s. So, the MP3s are worthless for research.


 * 2) The MP3s are on a personal Website. That automatically means they cannot be more trustworthy than the personal Website is. They cannot be considered or represented as being the broadcast from the TV network, because they no longer are; they are broadcasts from the personal Website.


 * 3) We have no guarantee that someone, such as the Webmaster of the personal Website, might not alter the MP3s, either in the past or future.


 * These 3 objections are simply standard practice for any research. It is irrelevent how confident you are that the copies on Jeri Massi's personal Website are accurate reproductions; they are unreliable, simply because of the way they have been handled. Try looking up the need to confirm how source documents are handled.


 * Whining that it is difficult to obtain reliable sources is not an acceptable excuse for using unreliable sources. Pooua 20:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, reliability, and reputation of sources
1) Membership and Geography data for 4,300+ religions, churches, tribes,ect.. Adherents.com. URL accessed on Feb 23, 2006. adherents.com is the personal website of one man.  It does not meet the guidelines of WP:RS and WP:V.

2) The Jack Hyles Story. The Biblical Evangelist. This is a partisan and personal religious website owned edited and authored by one man, Robert Sumner.  Sumner should not be used as a reputable and reliable and verifiable resource about Hyles.  He is clearly just the kind of source that is warned about in WP:V and WP:RS
 * Please view the footnotes for the claims. You missed the Chicago Sun-Times for the TV report and you have missed the Sumner quoted in the Chicago Tribune, the Richmond Times, ect. Not mention if you visit Sumner's personal links, which includes the book he wrote that is mentioned in the articles, he includes correspondence with Hyles' denials. Arbusto 06:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * you have missed the Sumner quoted in the Chicago Tribune, the Richmond Times, ect. Not mention if you visit Sumner's personal links, which includes the book he wrote that is mentioned in the articles, he includes correspondence with Hyles' denials If you want to quote the Chicago Tribune then quote the Chicago Tribune.  Don't quote Sumner's own self-published works in an article about Hyles.  Don't use Sumner's own personal website as a source about Hyles.  Sumner is clearly a partisan hack with a religious and personal bias against Hyles.  He is just the kind of person that WP:RS warns editors not to use as sources on Wikipedia.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The only citation of Sumner's book is also backed up with the Chicago newspaper. Arbusto 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By "backed up," you mean, "repeated." That doesn't make Sumner's claims any more reliable. Pooua 07:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The newspaper reported what Sumner said. Sumner has a website detailing what he said. Arbusto 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sumner's website shouldn't be used as a source. It is self-published.  It is by a partisan.  It is by a biased critic of Hyles.  Sumner is not reputable or reliable, and his website and self-published books do not meet the guidelines of WP:V or WP:RS. Vivaldi (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Hammond webpage is biased to Hammond. According to WP:V, "Self-published sources... In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Sumner is quoted by the Chicago Tribune, etc. and previous member of the Hammond church. Arbusto 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You left out the important qualifiers from WP:V where it says, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs, while verifiable, are often unreliable sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material in his own field." Sumner is not a well-known professional researcher, nor is he a well-known professional journalist.  Thus his self-published works may not ever be used in any circumstance in any articles about any topic other than himself. Vivaldi (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

3) Megachurch Pastor Jack Hyles Dead at 74. Christianity Today. URL accessed on April 2, 2001. Another partisan religious website that is not appropriate to use in an article about Hyles. see WP:RS and WP:V
 * Christianity Today is not a "partisan religious" website. It is a news source for Christian related news. That is an obituary. CT has been around for 50 years and has 10 million pageviews per month. Arbusto 06:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is an evangelical Christian website that holds an clear extreme viewpoint. If the claims about Hyles are worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, they will have been mentioned by reputable and reliable sources of information that do not have clear bias. Vivaldi (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You do realize this it is a magazine available at newsstands across the country. This is merely the online version of the stories? Arbusto 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You do realize that World Weekly News is available at newsstands across the country? You realize that WWN also has an online version?  Other papers like the National Enquirer, and the SUN are also widely published, but still do not likely meet the requirements for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Vivaldi (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Source that compares Christianity Today to the Weekly World news? Arbusto 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Source that compares Christianity Today to the Weekly World news? Me.  I just did on this talk page.   CT is admittedly an evangelic religious publication.  They have a clear bias towards that viewpoint in their news stories.  If you read WP:RS and WP:V they specifically mention that we should be leary of claims made by religious organizations.  (and this particular one is not mainstream, but rather espouses a conservative or fundamentalist agenda)  CT is useful for making claims about CT, but they are not a reputable and reliable source for making claims about other people.  Vivaldi (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your personal belief made without proof does not interest me. Arbusto 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your mistaken belief that CT is not affiliated with a conservative evangelical religious group does interest me. I believe it demonstrates that you are willing to use biased sources to defame others and to insert your point-of-view -- a point-of-view that is not repeated by other reliable sources that are not biased.  Vivaldi (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, to put the shoe on the other foot. Can you provide some evidence of the reliability and reputation of CT when discussing stories in the news? Is CT regarded in the field of journalism as a reliable source for news? Is CT regarded in the field of history for providing reliable information? Are there independent sources that have examined the reliability and reputation of CT? Where would you go to verify that CT is reputable and reliable? Vivaldi (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been around for 50 years, a published monthly magazine, 10 million hits a month, and your failure to produce any source that calls into question its work. Arbusto 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am wondering why you think any of that would make a magazine a reliable source of information? Pooua 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should let Arbusto answer your challenge, as he is the one who most needs to learn from the experience, but I can provide some answers to your questions. Ah, well, Arbusto isn't ever going to answer, anyway, so here goes...


 * Google is a handy, quick-and-dirty search tool for research. The New York Times has the reputation as a reliable news source. I would begin by looking for how reliable news sources, such as New York Times, regards Christianity Today, and I would begin with a Google search on the terms.


 * After a few false starts, I decided to see how Christianity Today is referenced on the nytimes.com domain. Google shows that Terry Muck, executive editor of Christianity Today, did a book review for New York Times on January 24, 1988 NYT Archives: WAITNG OUT THE SECOND COMING


 * Browsing through the 126 hits, I find that New York Times frequently quotes or refers to Christianity Today, and has continued to do so for more than a decade. Obviously, New York Times considers the contributions of Christianity Today to be generally applicable to Christianity, instead of just a 15-minutes-of-fame, one-time deal in a desperate circumstance.


 * OK, that's a start, with just one leading national newspaper. I would continue investigating by looking for journalistic recognition and how other leading news sources use Christianity Today. Pooua 22:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

4) Jack Hyles Succumbs To Heart Attack. Calvary Contender. URL accessed on March 1, 2001. Another partisan religious website and personal website that is not appropriate to use in an article about Hyles. see WP:RS and WP:V
 * This is an obituary. It's positive and informative. Arbusto 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

5) "Preying from the Pulpit" for the Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News program This is not a proper citation.  Please provide the name of the station, the date, and the time of the original broadcast.  We need a verifiable source that we can check to make sure the article is making an accurate reflection of what was said on the program.
 * Cited by the Chicago Sun Times. Footnoted. Arbusto 06:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't use DMEN as a source for any claims unless you can provide a verifiable source that can be checked for accuracy. All you can do is say that the CST says that DMEN did a story, but they did not provide any time or date of the broadcast. Vivaldi (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

6) Baptist Megachurch Faces Sex Suit. Christianity Today. URL accessed on Dec. 8, 1997. This is another partisan religious website that is not appropriate for use in an article about Hyles.  If these claims have any importance or notability for an encyclopedia then they will have been reported by a reliable source other than a biased fundamentalist religious personal website of a competing church.
 * Christianity Today is not a "partisan religious" website. It is a news source for Christian related news. CT has been around for 50 years and has 10 million pageviews per month. Arbusto 06:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They clearly are a partisan religious website. They admittedly represent news from a fundamentalist christian perspective, which is clearly a bias.  It is not a reputable and reliable source.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Source of their fundamentalism? BTW: Hyles is fundamentalist. Arbusto 06:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean that CT is qualified to speak about Hyles, nor does it mean that the opinion of CT's staff about Hyles means anything. CT is capable of speaking on its own behalf for its own articles, but I don't believe it can rightly be used to comment on other religious people. Vivaldi (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Source on their fundamentalism? Arbusto 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let us say evangelicalism then. Will you admit to that?  (I don't want to get into the fundamentalism debate because its not that interesting, the word has changed meaning over time and I certainly didn't mean it to be pejorative).  Clearly CT is comprised of conservative Christian evangelicals.  They may be qualified to speak about themselves, but they aren't acceptable to be used as a critical news source about others. Vivaldi (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Vivaldi, I agree with all the points you have made, except for your complaint against Christianity Today. I would put it in the same category of reliability as any other popular magazine, including Scientific American. Maybe you wouldn't accept SciAm, either, and I can't say that is wrong. However, I would not say that Christianity Today is less reliable than any newspaper. Pooua 06:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Christianity Today is a reliable, sufficiently-neutral source for Wikipedia articles. Assertions of this type need do need to be well-sourced. -Will Beback 07:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If CT is reliable themselves, then there will be lots of other reliable independent news sources that use CT as a source as well. Also, it would be appropriate to use multiple independent sources to verify claims that only a single partisan website like CT has reported. Vivaldi (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have one caution on the CT Website; they have a blog format, one that I haven't paid enough attention to understand exactly. Some of the articles on the CT Website are from the print version or are otherwise from professional editors; other contributions are from enthusiasts (pretty pathetic, huh? A magazine using blogging enthusiasts!). Pooua 07:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is any consolation, Christianity Today has pretty well corrupted the meaning of the terms "fundamentalist" and "evangelical." Pooua 07:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind using personal Websites or less-than stellar sources for mundane information. But, any publication that carries allegations of a sensational nature had better have the best practices, sources and authoritativeness.


 * In the case of the allegations against Jack Hyles that are printed in various newspapers, the mere fact that someone is making these allegations should not be portrayed as if the newspaper had uncovered evidence that the allegations had any truth to them. I believe that has been done in the Jack Hyles article. And, whatever allegations are mentioned in the encyclopedia article should be taken to their conclusion. That is, don't mention that someone a decade ago said they would file a lawsuit against Jack Hyles, and then not tell us how that issue was resolved. We have had enough time to see how these cases were resolved; merely leading into allegations makes Wikipedia nothing more than a gossip rag. Pooua 07:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And more importantly, don't portray the article in such a way as to present Hyles in the most negative light possible. The article said he was sued for negligence (not rape).  The article said no criminal charges were filed.  (A fact that was left out.) The article also pointed out that Hyles categorically denied all the claims made and it mentioned that Hyles cares deeply about the disabled and spends a good deal of his resources helping them despite the liabilities involved with doing so.   The article also pointed out that Hyles didn't even believe that the woman was raped at all.  Since this happened so many years ago, we have access to the actual court records.  So adding this claim really is spurious.  Go ahead and dig up the court records and you'll see that no crime was ever charged in the case and that Hyles didn't lose this case.

Arbustoo, I would encourage you to read WP:NPOV and follow that policy in repects to this article, because this is just one source that I was able to check on you today and I discovered all these biased edits where you extracted only the most disparaging comments out of the source and you phrased your edits in such a way as to put Hyles in the worst light possible. I will be obtaining copies of the other sources you have used here and making sure that #1) they exist and #2) that you did not do the same smear job with them as you did with this source. Vivaldi (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ALL THE SOURCES USED ARE POSTED ON THE ARCHIVED TALK PAGE, as I said above. Improve the article. Arbusto 17:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no thanks. I've already seen prior editor's efforts at duplication of sources in the main article.  They were less than successful to say the least.  I will be improving the article with verifiable copies of sources that I obtain myself.  Vivaldi (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been working on that very thing, but my progress is slow, due to several factors. One is that I am about 1000 miles from Hammond, Indiana. Another is that I am working full time and attending college. But, in my spare time during normal business hours, I have been making long-distance phone calls.


 * The attorney who filed the civil suit in Lake Superior Court in Gary in September or October 1997 for the mentally challenged woman who was allegedly raped is Vernon Petri. I have been able to confirm his phone number and address from the Clerk of the Supreme Court in Indianapolis, who issues licenses to all attorneys in Indiana. However, I would like to find the actual court records and learn the case outcome before I attempt to contact Mr. Petri. I do not yet know in which of the Lake Superior Courts he filed that case, and I don't know how I would gain access to their records. So far, no one at any of the Lake Superior offices have answered their phones when I have called, but most court record departments would require me to make a visit to the court house in person to look at those records.


 * Professor Elmer L Towns, a Dean at Liberty University, wrote to me about a TV program he saw, in which Vic Nischik was asked if he believed that Jack Hyles had engaged in sexual relations with Jenny Nischik. Vic said he did not. He was then asked why he made all this fuss, to which he replied that he blamed Jack Hyles for making Jenny love the church more than she loved him. Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate that program, and I found another source that says this exchange actually took place in a court room. Either way, Professor Towns says that exchange is what convinced him that Jack Hyles is innocent. Of course, I cannot use the e-mail that Professor Towns sent me in the Wikipedia article. Pooua 19:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Vivaldi, I still would like a source for your claim that Christianity Today is fundamentalist. Arbusto 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I told you that I didn't wish to debate the use of the word "Fundamentalist" and that I was not using the term pejoratively. CT is clearly based on Christian Evangelicalism.   Many people besides myself have used the word "fundamentalist" to describe the new Christian evangelicals.  In fact, even  Wikipedia does so at the article: Fundamentalist Christianity, where it says, "'Thus, many Evangelical groups may be described as 'fundamentalist' in the broad sense, who do not belong in the 'Fundamentalist Movement' in the narrow sense. Many Evangelicals believe in the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, a basic issue of difference in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy a century ago. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, for instance, was signed in 1978 by nearly 300 conservative scholars, including James Boice, Norman Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry (founder of Christianity Today), Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham."


 * I do not wish to state that CT is Fundamentalist in any article. I was discussing CT on a talk page, so I don't need to meet any requirements of WP:RS or provide citations for my statements.  And you are being a pain in the rear for insisting that I provide citations for claims that I have withdrawn even from this talk pages.  CT's founders had fundamentalist roots and they are still to this day rooted in the precepts of Christian evangelic movement.  According to the policy of WP:V and WP:RS, statements by religious groups should be questioned. Vivaldi (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Preying from the Pulpit on AFD
Preying from the Pulpit was nominated for deletion. Some interested in this article will likely be interested in participating in Articles for deletion/Preying from the Pulpit. I previously removed the PROD, as I feel this is something worth discussing. The issue of reliability of the mini-news series, raised here, probably applies more even more so. --Rob 08:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see some research into media attempts to defame Jack Hyles or First Baptist Church of Hammond or Hyles-Anderson Christian College. It is an amazing thing that a TV news broadcast would go so far as the now-defunct CBS news team on WJBK in Detroit went the year before their demise. It was media stories like theirs that rallied so many fundamentalists into politics in that decade. Heh, CBS had the nickname of "Communist Broadcast Service" 20 years prior to that stunt, and their recent news coverage fiascos haven't redeemed them. Pooua 20:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And Faux News claims to be "fairt and balanced" but that's not true either. The myth of liberal bias in the US media is apparent to anybody outside the USA - the centre of US politics is well to the right of the world average, and a so-called left-wing source in the US rarely makes it past the left of centre anywhere else. Just zis Guy you know? 08:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, CBS is so right wing that it waited at least a minute before hammering President Bush based on a forged letter about his National Guard Service. But, you probably expected a reference to that story, right? But, so as to get back on track, why was the Detroit station the only one that did this kind of story on Jack Hyles? Hammond is not all that close to Detroit; many other news organizations had their offices between Hammond and Detroit, if not in Chicago. And, yet, you have to go to this one-time, off-beat, news feature from a small station a few hundred miles away, to get the report you want. Why do you suppose that is? Pooua 07:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong bias and perhaps even deception
I have recently checked out the sources cited by previous editors. One source, which I mentioned above is the Christianity Today article talking about a filed lawsuit against Hyles. A previous editor of this page left a completely distorted version of this incident. Only the most damaging and unflattering information from the CT article was presented in the Wikipedia article and that info was presented in the absolute worst light possible. The editor didn't even manage to squeak out the Hyles completely denied all of the allegations. The editor didn't mention that no charges were ever filed in the case against Hyles or the church and that the police found no evidence of any wrongdoing. (The wiki-editor also failed to check into the court case, which was dismissed.) Vivaldi (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Source on the dismissed lawsuit? Once again, as I said right above, all the sources used are reprinted on the archived talk page. Arbusto 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Source on the dismissed lawsuit? The source on the dismissed lawsuit will be here in a few weeks. Once it arrives and I provide a verifiable source for the claim, I think we should delete this entire comment abount the lawsuit rather than going into 2-3 paragraphs fully detailing the results of the case.  It isn't notable that a man was involved in a dismissed lawsuit, especially since the only group that even bothered to comment on the entire case was a single partisan religious newspaper/website.  Vivaldi (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By what means have you found this information if you cannot supply us with a source? Define "here" (a link?). Arbusto 01:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbustoo, I am getting certified copies of court documents. I'm not going to tell you who told me about them, because that wouldn't be citable anyway.  Once I receive the court documents in a mailbox I have access to (here) and have a chance to read through them, I will be able to give proper citations.


 * Do you think it is odd that Christianity Today would print the accusations of an anonymous claimant in a civil suit, but then forget to follow up with the details from the lawsuit afterwords? Don't you think that the actual lawsuit (and its dismissal) would've been MORE newsworthy than the original notice of filing?  Do you routinely read other "reliable sources" that discuss how lawsuits were initiated or filed, but then never point out what actually happened to the lawsuit?  You'd think it would be big news if Hyles had lost this case, huh?  This is why religious organizations with a bias should not be used as sources for subjects other than themselves.  Christianity Today didn't report on the outcome of the case, even though they had no problem publishing the anonymous accusations.  They are a dubious source of information.  Of course, those little details don't bother you (do they?) when you are on a personal mission to present only the most defamatory comments you can possibly find.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, as I said right above, all the sources used are reprinted on the archived talk page. Once again, as I pointed out above.  The editors of this article previously did a TERRIBLE JOB OF DUPLICATING THE MATERIAL IN THE SOURCE.  Instead of relying on a Wikipedia talk page as a source (and one that was created by people who have demonstrated a lack of ability in correctly duplicating material), I believe I will be using my own verified sources.  Thanks anyway! Vivaldi (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I come to another source, the Daniel J. Lehmann authored article in the Chicago Sun-Times called "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out". Again the previous version of this page culled out every positive thing this article said about Hyles and his church, while simultaneously presenting every negative thing in the article in most terrible light possible. This obvious and blatant biased editing is clearly against the policy of WP:NPOV.

What concerns me even greater than the blantant bias, is that the editor in question has apparently chosen to attribute things to Lehmann that Lehmann did not write:

Here is the Revision as of 01:48, 30 April 2006:

''In May 1993, WJBK of Detroit, Michigan news team, following up on allegations in five different fundamentalist churches of children molested by church workers, traced each alleged perpetrator back to Hyles-Anderson college.[12] This news team produced a 30-minute documentary called "Preying from the Pulpit" for the Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News program [14]. In this documentary they reported on the "repressive" manner in which women were treated at Hyles-Anderson college, and they focused part of their report on the story of AV Ballenger.[12][14]'' (Footnote 12 was the Lehmann article and 14 is the personal self-published website of someone that doesn't meet the requirements of RP:RS)

Lehmann didn't write anything about "five different fundamentalist churches of children molested by church workers", nor did Lehmann write that anyone "traced each alleged perpetrator back to Hyles-Anderson college". Nor did Lehmann write that, "In this documentary they reported on the "repressive" manner in which women were treated at Hyles-Anderson college, and they focused part of their report on the story of AV Ballenger." Nor did Lehmann suggest that the newschannel he was referring to was actually in Detroit, nor did he suggest that the newschannel was WJBK. Lehman didn't mention anything about the "repressive manner in which women were treated" and Lehman didn't discuss Ballenger. Each of these claims appears to be original research that contradicts the claims that are actually provided by Lehmann. Vivaldi (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of it is from the transcript posted on the archived talk page from lexusnexus. Arbusto 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The "archived talk page" is not a proper location for a verifiable source. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.  Provide all the information necessary so that the original source can be verified and checked.  Include that information in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You should not add material to the article that comes from unsourced and Wikipedia policy: Verifiability sources. That is official policy. In order to verify this source, we must be given the name, date, station, and time of broadcast so that we can obtain an original copy of it and perform verification of the source. Vivaldi (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sumner is quoted by the sources as criticizing. He is a verifiable source for his opinion on Hyles. Arbusto 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * His own personal website cannot be used to comment on Hyles. If he has been quoted by other people in the mainstream press, then those comments can be used, but his own self-published works should not be used in the article according to the guidelines of Wikipedia at WP:RS and the official policy of Wikipedia at WP:V (see the sections on self-published sources and personal websites). Vivaldi (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dubious sources that are self-published can only be used to discuss themselves and only in articles about themselves. So Sumner's website can be used to source comments about Sumner himself, and only in an article about Sumner. Vivaldi (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there should be a Jack Hyles article and perhaps there should be criticism of Hyles included, but such criticism needs to be more in line with the correct balance. Even the critical articles about Jack mentioned that the criticisms of Hyles and his church were only "occasional", but by the looks of this article it looks like the criticisms of Hyle are what he is most notable for, when that is clearly not the case. Hyle is most noted for being a leader of one of the largest if not the largest single church in the US. There was one man 15 years ago that was convicted of molestation, and it wasn't Hyles. He was just one of the many deacons that served his congregation of 100,000 people. A rate of conviction of one person out of 100,000 memmbers over a 15 year time frame is not notable or important. Vivaldi (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Improve it then. Arbusto 17:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You refuse to allow the article to be impartial, unbiased or reflective of actual news accounts. You have spent the last several months, at least, fighting off all attempts by several editors to improve this page, going through several reversions, re-inserting deleted material. You tried to slander me as a cult-defender, simply for pointing out the obvious shortcomings in your sourcing. You refused to consider my complaints about your bias. And, I don't believe that Vivaldi is the first person here to have accused you of weeding out all the positive news comments in preference for all the negative; in fact, you even created a mocking headline in my honor, "Where are the positive aspects of Hyle?," putting words in my mouth for an argument I was making at that time. So, your command to Vivaldi, that he improve the article is just more snide comment from you, because you have never allowed this page to be improved. You and your editor friends have fought tooth and nail for months to make this page as spiteful to Jack Hyles and anyone associated with him as you could. If Jeri Massi isn't personally involved in this, I would be amazed. Pooua 19:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbusto writes, "Improve it then".  My response: I have started this process already.  You may want to read (or reread) Wikipedia's policy at WP:NPOV because you have consistently and frequently ignored its advice to present both sides of a controversial issue in a neutral tone.  In fact, you managed to wipe out almost every positive statement that was written in the sources about Hyles (and also his church and his college).  Vivaldi (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I merged the stuff from a POV fork because it was repeatedly deleted. I have attempted to add sources to these claims and have fought (with other editors) to keep the criticism on the page (if you note there has been several attempts to white wash). See Pooua's and David's discourse, which Pooua refuses to contribute to the article. Arbusto 01:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I will be getting the rest of the articles used as sources in this article and I will expect that they will also be presented in a neutral manner in this article. Vivaldi (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to know where you are getting your sources such as the legal case above. Arbusto 01:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know someone with access to the court docket information. I'm not trying to quote my source, or change the article based on my knowledge.  And I don't think my source's identity is important or relevant, since neither they nor I can be used as sources for a article about Hyles anyway.  However, once I have access to the relevant court documents and have a chance to read through them, I will provide the citations, so that anybody can find the information themselves.  If you don't know someone with access to the Indiana court information, you may want to go ahead and call up the Lake County, Indiana Courthouse and ask to speak to the Clerk of the Court.  I'm sure they will explain the necessary steps for you to complete to get the court records.  It is a pretty straightforward process.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken also vigorously asserted their innocence. Both spent some time as guests of Her Majesty despite this protestation.  Denial is a normal response to allegations, the fact of the allegations remains.  As does the fact that a former friend described this as "the saddest story I've ever had to tell".  We tell that story well enough, we do not (IMO) really paint a picture of why it should be considered so sad.  But to portray Hyles as a plaster saint would be very wrong, since he clearly was not one.  Just zis Guy you know? 09:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * #1) There isn't even an issue of INNOCENCE or GUILT. Hyles was NEVER CHARGED WITH A CRIME.  Even this one lawsuit just alleged that Hyles was in some manner responsible for something that he did not take part in and something that he has specifically said goes against every single fibre of his being.
 * "Against every single fibre of his being"? The fact that Hyles told the parents of little girl who was molested that the accused (and later convicted) molestor "just liked little girls,' and, 'you don't have a case.'" demonstrates something very wrong with Hyles. According to another article, that molestor was still allowed by Hyles to around children AFTER HE WAS ACCUSED OF MOLESTING A LITTLE GIRL DURING A HAMMOND SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASS! Arbusto 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Prove that A.V. Ballenger had contact with children after he was convicted of child molesting. Pooua 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Adultery is not a crime, but is considered a Real Big Deal among Christians. Allegations of various kinds were made in public, in books and in the media, and to fail to cover those would be a failure of WP:NPOV. Just zis Guy you know? 08:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Gossip is also considered a bad thing in Christian circles. When you say, we should cover the allegations, all you do is repeat sensational, unsubstantiated claims. Substantiate does not mean, as you have argued, that we can show that people have made these allegations; substantiate means that reliable sources have investigated the factual basis for the claims, and we can report on that investigation from reliable sources. You have never produced any investigation into the reliability of the allegations; you simply repeat allegations. That is mere gossip. Pooua 15:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * #2) Whether or not Hyles was actually a "plaster saint" or Satan incarnate is irrelevant to Wikipedia. As odd as it may seem to you, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "Truth", but rather Verifiability.   You may include some relevant and notable criticism of Hyles if you have sources that meet the requirements of WP:V.  If you do not have sources that meet those requirements, then you cannot include them.  It doesn't matter if you personally witnessed Hyles commiting misdeeds, or whether you personally interviewed thousands of people that proved to you that Hyles is Satan.  Truth is not the standard for inclusion -- verifiability is. Vivaldi (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely - the criticisms are unquestionably verifiable, whether true or not. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 08:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is verifiable that accusations were made by a couple of people, but it is not appropriate to make it seem like those accusations hold any weight when its clear that not a single verifiable source has repeated those same accusations. Not a single professional researcher or journalist has given any creedence to the accusations.  The police and prosecutors offices have said that Hyles was never under investigation because there was not enough evidence to even start an investigation.  Hyles was never even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.  So devoting 50% of an article about Hyles to the unproven, unrepeated accusations of a couple of do-nothing malcontents is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Vivaldi (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are using the word, "verifiable" in two different ways. You tell me that it is a verifiable fact that people are making claims, but what you neglect is that just because people are making claims and we can prove they are making claims does not mean the claims are verifiable. Wikipedia says that we may only use reliable sources; it is not asking for verifiable claims outright, because the only way a claim can be verifiable for Wikipedia use is for the claim to come from a reliable source. You want to claim that you have verifiable claims, which you support from unacceptable sources. Pooua 15:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Between Vivaldi's recruitment and uncommented deletions as well as Pooua's concerns over copyrights its very clear who has the "Strong bias" and perhaps has been making "deception." Arbusto


 * You were already told by an admin to assume good faith on this issue. I did no such "recruiting".  I pointed out that 8 out of 10 editors thought we should not keep the article at Preying from the Pulpit and I believe those editors that voted to remove or merge the article might be interested in having their views on the matter heard again since the AfD was removed and changed to a proposal to merge. Vivaldi (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Copied from the page you are recruiting people to go to:


 * More bad faith by Vivaldi. This user is contacting users who voted delete. Note Vivaldi's comments are "you suggested that we delete the article ... can you please comment on the proposed merger of the article at..." Arbusto 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note my comments were made at 02:33 and Vivaldi's edits to recruit the delete votes was made at 02:22, 7 May 2006. Since my comments of 02:33 Vivaldi began contacting the rest of the voters at 02:37, 7 May 2006. Arbusto 02:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As for assuming good faith, don't throw stones in a glass house. Arbusto 03:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So, now concerns about copyright are dismissed by you as possible deception? Why aren't you so critical of those articles you keep sourcing? Oh, right; it is because you can make them say what you want, by ignoring the parts you don't like. Whereas, I am on this forum, in your face, no thanks to your persistent efforts to have me removed from the conversation. That sneak attack you made over in A/NI sure did you a lot of good, didn't it? That wasn't your first attempt, or your last, but you profess indignation when Vivaldi contacts people about deleting your article. Pooua 03:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, I am asserting you didn't really care about copyright laws, but you wanted that stuff removed. And using the Adminstrator's notice board to bring such a claim to the adminstrators attention is hardly an "attack." You are trying so hard to make this personal... Arbusto 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We could argue without end what my motivations might be, but the fact remains that, regardless of my motivations, copyright infringement is occurring, and Wikipedia is linked to obviously improperly referenced material.


 * I could also point out that you don't care about copyright laws; all you care about is getting defaming statements put in this article, without regard for reliability, verifiability, credibility, source or law. That is the sum of my complaint against this article on Jack Hyles; it is nothing but a cheap smear, not a carefully considered investigation. You make a mockery of every person who has legitimate questions about Jack Hyles by defending such a page. Pooua 06:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Sumner
If the Hammond website can be quoted for information in the article why can't, Sumner, an ex-church member's website be quoted? Sumner's website contains information on Sumner's experiences at the church. His statements are verifiable according to wikipedia policy that "these may be acceptable as sources, |so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Arbusto 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) If you read Vivaldi's comments, he often mentions that certain sources are able to comment on their own internal affairs, but not on the affairs of others. I take that to mean that material published by First Baptist Church of Hammond about itself is citable material in Wikipedia, but not citable for anything else. Likewise, Sumner's material could be cited for an article about Sumner (etc.), but not about anyone else.


 * Note Vivaldi's comment under the heading "Incomplete Article": "The accusations by individuals on their own websites about the alleged misdeeds of Jack Hyles are not appropriate to be used in an article about Jack Hyles. Rev. Cloud's website can be used to discuss himself, in his own article, but they shouldn't be used as a source about Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)"


 * Note: My quote from wikipedia policy, "these may be acceptable as sources, |so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Arbusto 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to have the idea that the fact that a newspaper summarized Robert Sumner's complaint makes Sumner a reliable source. But, the newspaper never certified or implied certification that Sumner's work was at all reliable; the newspapers only reported that Sumner had complaints. You are trying to include everything Sumner wrote in his book, simply because a newspaper made reference to his book, but those references do not establish the book as a reliable source. Pooua 04:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed an important part. The exception requires that one be a "professional researcher" or a "professional journalist".  Sumner is neither a professional researcher of Hyles, nor is he a professional journalist.  His only works are self-published and they do not meet the requirements of inclusion. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 2) The Wikipedia article requires that material such as Sumner's have been published by a credible, 3rd party. That means in its entirety, not just a sentence here or there. Even if a newspaper were to quote a page from Sumner's material, only that material that the newspaper quoted could be used; nothing else.
 * "Entirety" or complete was not mentioned in the quote. If it was completely published by another source it is hardly "self-published" which is the section I quoted that under. Arbusto 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When has a credible 3rd party ever published anything that Robert Sumner wrote? RS states that, in rare cases, we may consider the self-published material reliable, if previous work by the author has been published by a reliable 3rd party. And, no, having a newspaper quote, reference, or cite Sumner's complaint on the current topic does not qualify, as it was not a previously published work by the newspaper, nor was the entire work reproduced by the newspaper. Pooua 04:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can use the comments that are published in reputable and reliable sources. You cannot use the comments that are self-published by Sumner.  Sumner is not a professional researcher or a professional journalist.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 3) The material from the FBCH Website is used for routine statistical information. The material from Sumner is used for sensationalized stories.
 * That is your POV. Arbusto 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not even going to ask you if you don't find claims that the pastor of a major church is engaged in adultery and child molesting are sensational. Most people already know what the answer to that question should be. You, apparently, won't admit it.Pooua 04:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hyles was never charged with a crime. Claims by enemies and opponents of Hyles -- that suggest that he committed crimes -- are sensational stories.  It is tabloid journalism.  Sumner spreads gossip.  Hyles was not found guilty of any crimes. PERIOD.  Any statements by Sumner that indicate that he did are silly, because the police and prosecutors didn't charge Hyles with a crime.  So apparently whatever "evidence" Sumner had, wasn't enough to amount to a hill of beans.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 4) The material from the FBCH Website is verifiable from 3rd parties. Sumner's accounts of his experiences at the church are not. Pooua 03:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So then quote it from the "independent" third parties, as Vivaldi, expects of the criticism. Arbusto 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an article about Jack Hyles; he gets to tell his own story. I said that much when I pointed out a month ago that an encyclopedia biography of Jack Hyles must be written from the perspective of Jack Hyles. That is simply how a biography is written. Criticisms are outside material, and so much be from reliable sources, which your inclusions are not. Pooua 04:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbustoo- Please read WP:V: Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. Self-published sources can be used in articles about themselves if they are talking about themselves.  Now we couldn't use Hyles's self-published books in an article about Sumner, but certainly Hyles's comments are relevent to what he thinks about himself and things he was involved in, and thus Wikipedia states that such sources may be used. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbusto writes, If the Hammond website can be quoted for information in the article why can't, Sumner, an ex-church member's website be quoted? Sumner's website contains information on Sumner's experiences at the church. His statements are verifiable according to wikipedia policy that "these may be acceptable as sources, My response:  Sumner's website can be used in an article about Sumner.  Sumner's personal website cannot be used as a source in an article about other topics.  Sumner is not a reliable source for information in this regard.  He is clearly biased against Hyles and has religious views that oppose Hyles and according to the policy of WP:V and the guidelines of WP:RS we shouldn't be using these sources of dubious reliability.  The Hammond website should only be used to provide information only about itself and only in articles about itself.  It is one of the exceptions allowed by WP:V. Vivaldi (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:V: Sources of dubious reliability: In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.  Sumner is self-published on his own website.  He doesn't have fact checkers or any editorial oversight.  He is a source of dubious reliability that cannot be used to write about Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also from WP:V, because you left out some key points: Self-published sources Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material.  In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.  Sumner is not a "well-known professional researcher" nor is he a "professional journalist".  Even if he were either of those, it says that they "may" be acceptable, but we need to exercise caution, because if the information was worth reporting some other reputable and reliable source would have reported it.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You may publish relevant and notable claims that were made in the newspaper, where the paper quotes the words of Sumner, but you may not use Sumner's own self-published documents. I would encourage you to place the full context of such quotes in the article and do not make it appear as though the newspaper itself has made any claims regarding Hyles, if in fact the claims were only made by Sumner. Vivaldi (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also from WP:V: "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. This means Sumner is acceptable as a source of information about only himself and only in an article about Sumner. Vivaldi (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:V below the section you quoted from: His statements are verifiable according to wikipedia policy that "these may be acceptable as sources, |so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Arbusto 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If the comments have been mentioned in other sources, it is valid to source them from Sumner's website as the best authority for the comments themselves, especially if the text of the comments is not readily available fomr the newspaper's website. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 09:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a very interesting reading of the policy. I'm pretty sure you cannot justify your interpretation whilst simultaneously using the actual sentences that are available in the policy at WP:V.  It is pretty clear what the requirements are for such sources to be used and Sumner doesn't meet any of them.  He isn't a professional journalist nor is is a professional researcher, so the policy  -- that explains how, in some situations, self-published sources from professional researchers and journalists may be used -- is not relevant to Sumner.  Sumner's self-published information cannot ever be used in an article about anyone other than Sumner and even in the article about Sumner, we can only use the comments where he is discussing himself.  Vivaldi (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If a comment has been reported, and we can cite where, then the source text can be linked if it is available from a reasonably good quality source - this is more useful to readers than an unlinked citation or a link to a newspaper archive which goes 404 or requires a subscription. If the text is available verbatim from the newspaper then go with that.  If Sumner's site is tendentious in general, we should not link it without good reason.  I don't see any of this as inconsistent with WP:V. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * JzG: that isn't what is happening. Arbustoo is trying to use the claims in Sumners self-published works as a SOURCE, which he is not allowed to do because the policy of WP:V specifically says he cannot do so.  You can't make claims in the article based on what is said in the Sumner self-published documents, you can only make claims based on what reliable third-parties have stated.   If you want to provide a link to the Sumner article in the External Links section, then you may do so, but you cannot use it as a SOURCE.   And really the fact that a couple of men had disagreements with Hyles of the course of a 50 year career is not even notable in an encyclopedia article.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to know why it is relevant or notable for an encyclopedia that Sumner, a single individual with an axe to grind, had disagreements with Hyles? I would also argue that much undue weight is placed upon this nearly single-minded view of Hyles, considering especially that apparently over 100,000 people followed the man and his church, and thousands upon thousands showed up when he gave lectures. Criticism has its place, but it should be put in the proper perspective. Have any reputable or reliable sources made these criticisms themselves? How many folks have a negative perception of Hyles compared to a positive view of him? Why should criticism of Hyles take up so much space? Vivaldi (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly, Sumner was an "insider" and once a follow of Hyles. His criciticisms were published by newspapers from the Chicago Tribune to the Richmond Times. The other critic has a book published available at many seminaries. Now you are talking about "space," numbers of supporters, etc.


 * You have frequently put emphasis on this notion that Robert Sumner was closely acquanted with Jack Hyles. However, Sumner himself disputes your claim:


 * "I think it would be right to say that Dr. Hyles and I were friends, probably because of our mutual friendship with Dr. John R. Rice, although never close. I preached at Miller Road during his pastorate there and at First Baptist in Hammond (as well as his radio broadcast when in meetings in the area), although he never preached in any of the evangelism conferences I sponsored or in a church I briefly pastored in those days." Preface to the Jack Hyles Story


 * Nowhere does Sumner say that he was an insider of Jack Hyles' ministry a follower of Hyles. At best, they met a few times. Sumner himself states that much. Pooua 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly, Sumner was an "insider" and once a follow of Hyles I still don't see why this "insider" and "follow of Hyles" is notable at all.  Why is he any more notable than the hundreds of thousands of people that loved Hyles and followed him to the end?  In order to prevent Sumner's comments from having undue weight (which is prohibited by policy at WP:NPOV) we will either need to delete them or provide hundreds of examples of people that loved and admired Hyles until the end.  Vivaldi (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:V, his statements are verifiable according to wikipedia policy that "these may be acceptable as sources, |so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Arbusto 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again you left out the part of the policy that specifically excludes Sumner from being included. It is clear what the requirements are for such sources to be used and Sumner doesn't meet them. Exceptions to the policy can only be made for a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist.   Sumner isn't a professional journalist nor is is a professional researcher, so the policy  -- that explains how, in some situations, self-published sources from professional researchers and journalists may be used -- is not relevant to Sumner.  Sumner's self-published information cannot ever be used in an article about anyone other than Sumner and even in the article about Sumner, we can only use the comments where he is discussing himself. Vivaldi (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbustoo writes, Now you are talking about "space," numbers of supporters, etc. My response: I am discussing, space, number of supporters because those issues are important. See: Wikipedia policy at WP:NPOV.  Please give it a gander.  Especially read the section about undue weight, where it says, "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all...We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."  I am asserting that the critical views of Hyles are held by only a tiny minority of people, which means that according to policy we may not need to give these views as much of a detailed description as the majority views.  Also, we may decide to "not include tiny-minority views at all".  Vivaldi (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV does not mean you exclude critics. It's that both side get represented so I have no clue why you mention a personal belief that criticism is "held by only a tiny minority of people." Also wikipeia does not work the way you wish in that "we may decide to not include tiny-minority views at all", rather criticism is voiced. You do not remove criticism just because you believe it is a minority view.


 * ACTUALLY I QUOTED FROM POLICY. Go ahead and read it. It's at WP:NPOV.  I don't care how you perceive Wikipedia to be, because your perception is clearly against policy.   It is a policy of Wikipedia that we may decide to "not include tiny-minority views at all"  The whole thing again: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all...We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

THIS IS A POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA.


 * Also Sumner is a researcher in a relevant field (as quoted from the WP:V) to be quoted by national verifable sources and publish a book. Arbusto 01:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What?! Robert Sumner is an evangelist, not a detective. Pooua 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No one said he was a "detective." However relating to Hyles's ministry, the information Sumner compiled was good enough and valid enough for inclusion in various newspapers around the US and for a published book. Hence, a researcher quoted by reputable sources relating to the subject Hyles. Arbusto 04:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sumner is not a professional researcher nor a professional journalist, and thus according to WP:V, his self-published works cannot ever be used. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In what field of research do you imagine that Robert Sumner is well-known? The "Compiling Nasty Letters" field? He is an evangelist; his research is the Bible, not the personal lives of preachers on the other side of the country. And, having a newspaper quote him has nothing to do with the quality of his work; he was simply a noisy voice, and so quoted. That does not mean he is a reliable source, and no reputable newspaper made that implication. Pooua 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, his expertise is in the Bible, churches, and he has a published book on Hyles. He has been cited by at least a few newspapers (from what is available on internet databases) on this matter. So he is a knowledgable and referenced person on Hyles and church doctrine. Thus, his work pertains to the body of the article. Arbusto 05:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Read WP:V and WP:RS -- the fact that he self-published a book on Hyles cannot make him an expert on Hyles. That is patently ridiculous.  Read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because a person is quoted in a newspaper twice as an opponent of Hyles does not make them an expert of Hyles's life or Hyles's teachings. You really are grasping at straws. Vivaldi (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Who published his book on Jack Hyles?


 * Per RS, self-published works are admissible only in rare cases, and then only if 1) the author is a well-known professional in that field (Sumner is no more notable than any other fundamentalist evangelist) AND 2) has been previously published by credible 3rd party publications (what has Sumner ever published?).


 * No, Sumner is not such an authority that his word on Jack Hyles is any more reliable than anyone else's word. Pooua 14:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hyles personally sent a letter to Sumner in response to the work, which is reprinted and rebutted by Sumner in the work. Hyles wrote among other things "and YES, DR. SUMNER – AND YOU MAY USE THIS AS YOU WILL." So clearly Sumner's research was important enough for Hyles to respond to. If Hyles thinks so then so should wikipedia. Arbusto 18:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if Hyles chose to respond the outrageous unproven claims or not.  You cannot use Sumner's self-published works here.  He isn't a professional researcher, nor is he a professional journalist.  He is not recognized as an expert in Hyles's life by any third party reliable sources. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you know that Jack Hyles sent a letter to Robert Sumner? Pooua 04:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who cares if he did? It isn't notable in an article about Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the fact that Hyles wrote a letter refuting Sumner's statements does not make Sumner a reliable source (!). Arbusto has quite an imagination to work that around that way. However, if Arbusto were to answer my question, he probably would have to admit that he has no reliable sources showing its existence. And, Arbusto is fond of demanding that his opponents prove every detail of their statements, whether important or not; he should be held to that standard. Pooua 15:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, important and reliable are not the same thing. You are trying to do two things at one time, while pretending you are only doing one; you are trying both to accumulate evidence to condemn Jack Hyles while pretending that you are merely documenting the fact that accusations existed. You cannot prove that Jack Hyles was ever found guilty in a court of law, so you are reduced to petty gossip. Pooua 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that Hyles told the parents of little girl who was molested that the accused (and later convicted) molestor "just liked little girls,' and, 'you don't have a case.'" demonstrates something very wrong with Hyles. It is not suprising you don't want Sumner's work documented on the article because you have tried every way to get the criticism removed. Arbusto 01:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not suprising you don't want Sumner's work documented on the article because you have tried every way to get the criticism removed. You were happy enough to throw Wikipedia guidelines at me when you felt they worked in your favor. Now, you want to violate those same guidelines, but paint me as in the wrong simply because you cannot come up with a reliable source that supports your own personal bias. As I pointed out elsewhere, you are determined to make this page an attack on Jack Hyles, and you don't care what dregs of reporting you have to dig up to do that. Pooua 05:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pooua here. I find it contemptible that you erased everything that Pooua wrote and justified yourself using the very same Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you are now unwilling to live with.  You should be ashamed of your hypocrisy. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are taking Hyle's comments out of context and phrasing them in such a way as to make them sound as terrible as possible.  Hyles did not believe that the girl was molested.  Hyle's believed that his pastor liked all children, including little girls.   So it is not surprising that a man that believes his associate is innocent to defend him.  Hyle's has said that he deplores sexual abuse and he preached about it and wrote about it frequently.  Your phrasing of the comments suggests that Hyles thinks child molestation is okay -- which is clearly not true. Vivaldi (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * His words were not taken out of context, according to the Chicago Tribune and the child's parents. In fact, as the Northwest Times wrote "Regrettably, Hyles does not seem to think that Ballenger's conviction is something that should require the former deacon to be removed from any contact with church children." Arbusto 03:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * His words were not taken out of context, according to the Chicago Tribune and the child's parents. LOL.  Where did the Chicago Tribune say that was the full context of his comments?  Those were the only words spoken by Hyles?  Hyles has specifically stated he deplores sexual abuse on more than occasion.  He preached about the sins of sexual indulgence frequently.   He did not believe that his deacon committed any crimes.  He never believed that he did anything wrong.  He thought that the verdict was wrong.  So why would he stop supporting him?  If he honestly believed that the verdict was wrong and he honestly believed that Ballenger did nothing wrong, then why should he be chastised for his view?   Lots of people are wrongly convicted for crimes.  (And I'm not suggesting that we retry Ballenger here, but it is not unreasonable for a person to think that someone they know and trust to be completely innocent even if they are found guilty by a jury.  It is also not unreasonable to think that a jury has made a mistake.  There is a history of that happening too, even in murder cases, but in sexual assualt cases it happens very frequently).Vivaldi (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So if his words were taken out of context where is your source for the context? As demonstrated with a different source from the same year referring to the child molestor clearly Hyles paid little attention to the conviction to allow "Ballenger's conviction" from "remov[ing from any contact with church children." Arbusto 04:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is a full context. The paper didn't provide the full context.  Perhaps the comments weren't even made to begin with.    But the way it is phrased in the article makes it appear as if Hyles condoned the molestation of children, when you know that he did not.  The article clearly states that Hyles did not think that Ballenger had committed the crime.   Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So if your not "sure" on the context maybe guessing is the wrong way to go about it. The other article I posted clearly shows that despite the conviction of a man molesting a girl in a Hyles' operated Sunday school class he still let Ballenger work with children. Arbusto 07:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, someone is claiming in the article that Robert Sumner was a "Hyles follower." The culprit this time is someone calling himself C56C. Of course, he has not bothered to make a user page for himself. He also has not bothered to substantiate his claim. The fact is, Robert Sumner was always independent of Jack Hyles. The two occassionally occupied the same room, such as for a meeting at the Sword of the LORD newspaper or during a week-long church meeting, but Sumner was never under Hyles' ministry. Sumner himself states that he did not have a close association with Jack Hyles.

I suspect that C56C is Arbusto (aka Arbustoo). Pooua 03:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Elmer L. Towns
I like the expansion Vivaldi did for Elmer L. Towns. I had merely noted that he was a dean at the school and had the title of "Dr." I knew he had more credentials than that, but I was too brief in my statement.

I am only recently learning about Dr. Towns, but what I have found impressed me enough to red-link him. Someone needs to create a Wikipedia page for him, for he is a highly accomplished man.

BTW, if you had to choose between the statements of Dr. Towns and the statements of Robert Sumner, which would you choose? I ask, because Dr. Towns is pro-Hyles; Robert Sumner, of course, is not. Pooua 05:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Vivaldi forgot to mention that Elmer Towns' "book" is really a 106 page e-book (incluces illsutrations, and blankpage separates for the 10 "chapter" work) availble for free at www.elmertowns.com and it is self-published. Arbusto 10:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is amusing that you are so hung up on Elmer Towns' book.


 * Dr. Towns' book, The Ten Largest Sunday Schools and What Makes Them Grow, was published by Baker Book House, a well-known book publisher that is independent of Dr. Towns. Of course, the fact that Dr. Towns is himself a widely recognized professional in the field means that his book would be one of the exceptions specifically allowed by Wikipedia even if his book were self-published. However, his book is not self-published, because Baker Book House published it, in 1969. Safe to say, his book was not offered as an e-book on the Web in 1969, when it was published by Baker Book House! The fact that Dr. Towns has decided to make part of his book available on the Web now, at no charge, does not make his book self-published; his book had to pass the editorial review process of a legitimate publishing company.


 * You should pay particular attention to the last sentence of my previous paragraph, because you seem completely ignorant of the vetting process that seperates less reliable documentation from more reliable documentation. You have frequently advocated material taken from sources that are not reliable. Pooua 06:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Voyle Glover's self-published book
Voyle Glover's self-published books are not acceptable to be used as sources in an article about Hyles. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Vivaldi (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Source that the book is "self-published"? I did a library search and it is accessible in various US libraries, including seminary libraries. You also removed Nischik's book without commentary. Arbusto 03:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 *  "Source that the book is "self-published"?" Because the publisher is Glover himself.  Who do you claim is the publisher?  Perhaps you can tell everybody here the name of the publisher?  Being in a library or seminary library doesn't give it the right to be used on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia requires that sources not be self-published.  Please read the policies and guidelines.  Vivaldi (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked for proof. The footnotes are Victor Nischik. The wizard of God: My life with Jack Hyles. Buchanan, Mi.: Sychar Pub. Co., 1990. and  Voyle A Glover. Fundamental seduction: The Jack Hyles case. Schrerville, In. : Brevia Pub., 1990. Arbusto 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Brevia is Voyle Glover. He owns the publishing company and thus, he is self-published.  Vivaldi (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The area of RS you want to use about self-published material is referring to internet sources. Not books available in libraries. Arbusto 03:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the policy on verifiability it says "self-published books...are not acceptable as sources". Vivaldi (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the amazon link. Arbusto 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Amazon is not the publisher of his book. Brevia is the publisher.  Brevia is Glover.  Thus he is self-published.  Thus, he is not acceptable per WP:V and WP:RS. Vivaldi (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And what you talking about "Voyle Glover's personal web page"? I didn't see a webpage linked? Does he even have a webpage? Arbusto 03:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes he does. But I'll take the comment out for now. 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Link? -Please post it to demonstrate you are correct. Arbusto 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL. I retracted my comment about his webpage, so it shouldn't be an issue anymore, but since you insist (and to prove that I am right, yet again): http://brevia.com is owned by Voyle Glover. Brevia is his personal webpage and Brevia Publishing Company is the name of his publishing company. Vivaldi (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not provided a source that Fundamental Seduction was published by Glover. You gave me a link to a personal site from 2006 using that name of the book publisher from 1990. Arbusto 03:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Brevia Publishing owns Brevia.com.  Brevia Publishing Company is owned by Voyle Glover.  Are you really trying to argue that in 1990, Brevia Publishing Company was owned by someone other than Glover, but he just happened to purchase the company?  I thought I was argueing with someone with at least a little common sense.  Vivaldi (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In this section you posted something about WP:RS. Please provide a RS that makes the connection. You are demanding WP:OR, which as you know is not allowed. Even if you do make the connection, the section you of RS that forbids self-published material is about internet sources not books available in libraries. Arbusto 04:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbusto, are you high on drugs right now? Vivaldi (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are demanding WP:OR, which as you know is not allowed. Even if you do make the connection, the section you of RS that forbids self-published material is about internet sources not books available in libraries. Arbusto 04:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A self-published book in a library is still a self-published book. Pooua 06:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From the POLICY about verifiability, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" Vivaldi (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are demanding WP:OR WTF? I have demonstrated that Glover owns Brevia.  If you claim that he doesn't (or didn't) own it, then you need to provide some evidence of that.  Until then...the book is coming out of the article. Vivaldi (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You said Fundamentalist Seduction was self-published, but you have shown that Glover currently operates the Brevia website. Arbusto 04:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Glover's book was published by Brevia Publishing. Glover owns Brevia Publishing (and Brevia Publishing owns Brevia.com).   Glover is currently available to be reached at vag@brevia.com   You really are being ridiculously obtuse.  I suggest you go to bed and wake up with a clear head before you embarrass yourself anymore tonight.  Vivaldi (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you stop removing material on a whim that is in dispute. As for Nischik his claims were published in reputable papers, which is allowable. Arbusto 08:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you follow the policy of Wikipedia which specifically prohibits you from adding this material. What do you think is in dispute?  Are you asserting that Glover is not self-published?  I'm not removing anything "on a whim".  I'm removing spurious claims from dubious sources because I feel it is my duty as editor to do so.  It is a policy of Wikipedia and all editors are bound to follow that policy. Vivaldi (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact of its being self-published is not relevant if it contains well-sourced material or supports / is supported by other publications. I have a copy of a self-published book by Robert Gunther which is one of the primary authorities on Robert Hooke, my copy was used by Margaret 'Espinasse in compiling her biography of Hooke.  There seems to be a good deal of evidence to support the adultery claims, and this appears on the face of it to be one of several credible sources for that.  It looks at present as if the aim is to discount the sources for the allegation one by one, until we reach the point where it is removed as uncited; I trust that is not the case since that would very clearly fail WP:NPOV. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 08:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact of its being self-published is not relevant if it contains well-sourced material or supports / is supported by other publications It is very relevant, because WIKIPEDIA POLICY SAYS SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCES CAN'T BE USED.  READ WP:V.   Just because a person gets a couple of quotes in a newspaper doesn't make that person a reliable and reputable source of information.  It just means a newspaper reprinted a few spurious claims of a malcontent.  Vivaldi (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I trust that is not the case since that would very clearly fail WP:NPOV. And if you read WP:NPOV, you'll notice that it says, "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". There are only a couple of malcontent, do-nothings, that have occasionally criticize Hyles over the course of a 50 year career of preaching.  He had 100,000 members of his church and 20,000 that came to see him EVERY WEEK.  The fact that a couple of people over the course of his entire life made unproven accusations against him is not a notable thing.  It certainly doesn't warrant the amount of space that it has in this article.  Vivaldi (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... "Robert T. Gunther (23 August 1869 – 9 March 1940), historian of science and founder of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford." Wow, sounds like the guy is good. Maybe a professional. Maybe even an authority on his subject. Whereas Glover ... well, he is an attorney of no particular note. Voyle Glover is no Robert Gunther. Pooua 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Nischik is cited by newspapers about the claims against Hyles. Wow, sounds like those newspapers consider Nischik's research and knowledge of his wife to be credible (after all those newspapers wouldn't want to be sued for libel). Mentioning that Nischik also wrote a book about Hyles is relevant. Arbusto 22:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, are you going to keep promoting Voyle Glover's work as if it were as reliable as Robert Gunther's? Is that what you are telling us? Or, will you admit that there is no real comparison of the two?


 * The news media probably was not terribly concerned that Jack Hyles or his ministries would sue them, considering that Jack Hyles stated more than once that he disapproves of taking people to court, and prefered ignoring opponents to suing them. But, besides that, no, the fact that a newspaper quotes some nut does not mean the newspaper endorses that nut's statements, too bad for you. Pooua 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pooua, consider the possibility that widely supported admins may be fully aware of policy. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure; just explain why you and Arbusto are doing such a poor job of following it. Pooua 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pooua said Glover is no person of note. A quick transcript search in the last 5 years shows Glover has appeared on "Fox News In The Morning May 16, 2001, Wednesday AM" and "Fox 32 News May 15, 2001, Tuesday PM (CT)."


 * More importantly Glover was interviewed about Hyles on "The Channel 2 News at Ten" May 24, 2001, Thursday 10:00" PROGRAM-ID: wbbm22000524


 * Interview - Voyle Glover, former First Baptist member, discusses the pastor.
 * Interview - Pastor Jack Hyles, pastor in question, discusses incident involving his church in 1993.
 * Interview - Holly Clayton, Hyles-Anderson student, discusses matter.
 * Interview - Jerry Kaifetz, former Liberty Baptist member, discusses Hyle's influence on Beith and church where Beith was school principal, Liberty Baptist Church.


 * Clearly, the media considers Glover's research solid enough to air. Arbusto 22:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The media is only documenting that accusations were made. Not one single reliable media source has ever accused Hyles of any misdeeds or crimes.  If Glover's claims held any weight, then they would have been investigated and reported by a reputable source.  Not a single reputable or reliable source has ever accused Hyles of any misdeeds. Vivaldi (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are stepping up the argument here. So you are calling into question the integrity of the Chicago Tribune, Northwest Indiana Times, etc. by claiming they do not take into account the source for their news. I mean this is the Tribune and the Times serving their community not the National Inquirer. But I'll hear you out on this. Please post links to news stories from the newspapers in question that show their stories have poor, wrong, sources or whatever else you intend to show.


 * The integrity of the Northwest Indiana Times has been called into question by many people, not just myself. The very fact that the devoted so much time to reporting on the unproven allegations of a man that was fired by Hyles was enough to make many people accuse them of wrecklessness, tabloidism, yellow-journalism, etc...  The tremendous outrage and disgust over the printing of the accusations in the NWI became a story itself.  Vivaldi (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at any of the stories you have cited. Not a single reporter in any of them has accused Jack Hyles of any misdeeds.  If the claims by Glover, et al, had any merit to them at all, then they would have also been made by a reputable and reliable source such as a professional researcher or journalist.  If the Chicago Tribune felt the accusations deserved any merit they would have said "Hyles found to have had adulterous sex" or "Hyles caught mismanaging the church's money", but in no instance has ANY reputable or reliable source made the claim that Hyles has committed any misdeeds.  The Tribune merely documents that a former follower makes accusations that are denied by Hyles.  The Tribune does not ever make the claim that Hyles actually was involved in any improprieties. Vivaldi (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can find a headline like "Man claims JFK lives on the Moon" from the Chicago Tribune that would demonstrate that the newspapers in question fail to take into the origins of the claim. Once again, you have left the argument of Hyles by claiming "The media is only documenting that accusations were made." You are asserting these newspapers have little regard for accountibility.


 * Lastly, as for the investigation surrounding "allegations minors were taken from Michigan to Northwest Indiana by employees or officials of North Sharon Baptist Church near Ann Arbor for events sponsored by Hammond First Baptist Church" I'll leave you with "Sgt. Charles Hedinger, a Hammond police detective, [who] described the investigation as open-ended." Arbusto 04:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody was charged with a crime. Hyles was never charged with a crime. Vivaldi (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading through a few pages from Regret The Error, some people might not consider *any* newspaper a reliable source of information. Pooua 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you ever wondered, just for fun, how authoritative researchers regard various sources of information? Of course not; you are on Wikipedia, right? But, I will provide you an example, anyway. I found a Website titled, Pearson’s Research Navigator™, which describes degrees of document reliability:


 * The list below shows a progression from excellent to less reliable sources:


 * * Scholarly book
 * * Biography
 * * Scholarly article
 * * Sponsored Web site
 * * Interview
 * * Experiment, Test, Observation
 * * Trade book
 * * Encyclopedia
 * * Popular magazine
 * * Newspaper
 * * Listserv posting
 * * Individual Web site
 * * Usenet news group posting
 * * Internet chat conversation


 * Wow! Newspapers rated near the bottom, edged out by popular magazines. How do they explain this?


 * "In the main, newspapers have reporters writing under the pressure of deadlines, so they do not have time for careful research and documentation. On occasion, however, a newspaper will assign reporters to a series of articles on a complex topic, and these in-depth analyses have merit." Pearson’s Research Navigator™: Understanding and Finding "Source" Material


 * Would you care to guess why TV news programs are not even mentioned? Pooua 06:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is funny, too, how in the upside-down world of Wikipedia, newspapers are considered a more reliable source than the online encyclopedia.


 * "The problem with a site like Wikipedia, of course, is that there is no responsible vetting process, no professional editors or fact-checkers on staff to verify accuracy. Wikipedia relies on you, the general public (or Wikipedians, in their argot), to fulfill that role and -- generally speaking and meaning no disrespect -- you're not qualified to do it. But you come at the right price (free), which keeps costs down. And Wikipedia argues, with some justification, that a factual error can be caught and fixed just as easily by an interested professor or a knowledgeable amateur as it can by an editor."


 * Thanks to Wired News: "Your Right to Be an Idiot" for that left-handed defense of Wikipedia. But, he failed to mention that after that professor or amateur fixes the mistake, the much greater population of fools on the Internet could easily revert the article. Pooua 06:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While I am on the subject of news media reliability, let me share something interesting that I found about WJBK, the television station that aired, "Preying from the Pulpit":


 * "But it may be Detroit’s WJBK-2 that holds the dubious distinction of having the longest documented history of VNR usage. We found WJBK airing two VNRs in early 2006 — one promoting Cadillac cars and the other touting a 'porn-free' search engine. Back in October 2000, the station aired a VNR from Dephi Automotive Systems that 'detailed developments in automotive electronics,' according to a PR firm’s website.


 * "Nearly a decade earlier, in 1991, WJBK aired portions of a VNR that promoted Upjohn’s anti-anxiety drug, Xanax. As Steven Taylor and Morton Mintz reported in The Nation, a WJBK anchor claimed, 'Doctors say there seem to be few side effects to the drug.' 'Actually,' wrote Taylor and Mintz, 'in some cases Xanax does have serious adverse effects, such as blurred vision, sexual dysfunction, confusion, dizziness, impaired attention and addiction.'


 * "What WJBK lacks in journalistic scruples, it might make up for in bluntness. In response to our inquiries about the station’s disclosure policies, WJBK’s Al Johnson emailed, 'Yes we use SMT’s [satellite media tours, which are sponsored, canned 'interviews'] and to a lesser degree VNR’s. No, we never disclose sources.' Detroit viewers — you’ve been warned." freepress: "Television Stations Respond to 'Fake News' Report ... And It’s Worse Than You Think" Pooua 07:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can find a headline like "Man claims JFK lives on the Moon" from the Chicago Tribune that would demonstrate that the newspapers in question fail to take into the origins of the claim. How about, Dewey Defeats Truman? Pooua 06:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good example. I could be wrong, but the paper "Dewey Defeats Truman" paper was printed but not sold. Anyway, papers make mistakes all the time, which is why there is a section for RETRACTIONS. The particular articles you acuse of being wrong... where are retractions to those? Arbusto 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you imagine that Harry Truman got his hands on a copy of the "Dewey Defeats Truman" newspaper if none were sold? It would not have been an historic mistake if Truman held aloft a cutting room floor reject; the whole point of the photo is that the Chicago Tribune actually shipped out that edition. But, despite the magnitude of the Tribune's error, I don't recall seeing the Tribune publish a retraction.
 * Some papers were copies of the paper were released to Northern Il. and some were not. You don't think the paper wrote a retraction? A search of the archives at Chicagotribune.com shows numerous retractions. These include "A LOT OF 'IFs,' BUT DEWEY LOST BY 35,300 VOTES" Chicago Daily Tribune; Nov 20, 1948; 3; and "Truman Poll Had Ear to Barnyards"

Chicago Daily Tribune (1872-1963); Nov 10, 1948; 1; and "HOW WE OUTSMARTED OURSELVES" Chicago Daily Tribune (1872-1963); Nov 6, 1948; 12; and "DEWEY DEFEAT IS ANALYZED BY COL.McCORMICK" Chicago Daily Tribune (1872-1963); Nov 5, 1948; 3; and "NEVER AGAIN" Chicago Daily Tribune (1872-1963); Nov 4, 1948; 22; and "TRUMAN WINS BY PLURALITY OF 2 MILLION" ARTHUR SEARS HENNING; Chicago Daily Tribune (1872-1963); Nov 4, 1948; 1 and "UPSET PROVES INADEQUACY OF OPINION POLLS" FRANK STURDY; Chicago Daily Tribune (1872-1963); Nov 4, 1948; 18; and there are many others.
 * This paper example from 1948 shows problems with public polling. Arbusto 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some papers were copies of the paper were released to Northern Il. and some were not. What is that line of gibberish supposed to mean?


 * This paper example from 1948 shows problems with public polling. It shows a problem with polling, among other things; it also shows that the Chicago Tribune has used unreliable information, right on their banner headline. You did challenge us to provide you with an example of them using a questionable source. Now, you want to move the goalposts to include no retractions. Pooua 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite the existence of a retractions column, many newspaper errors are never retracted. According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE),


 * "When they see errors, 19 percent of the public 'always' sees a correction, and 40 percent 'sometimes' see one (Table 5) A higher percentage of journalists notice corrections than the public (58 percent 'always' see them), perhaps because journalists are paid not only to write, but also to read the paper more thoroughly." ASNE: "Accuracy Matters"


 * Even so, it is not at all difficult to find newspapers that have made printed errors but don't issue a retraction:


 * JSOnline: "Newspaper squirms over malapropism"
 * Nashua Advocate: "No Retraction From Miami Herald"


 * I am not accusing the newspaper articles quoted by Wikipedia of being wrong; you are again putting arguments in my mouth, one of many of your logical errors. What I have pointed out, though, is that newspaper articles in general are not very reliable or in-depth. Newspaper publishers simply do not have time to investigate deeply most of the stories they publish. The problem with the newspaper accounts referenced in the Jack Hyles articles is that they do not examine the reliability of the accusations, nor do they publish a conclusion to the allegations. One of your errors is that you have only concerned yourself with the fact that allegations have been made by someone; responsible editing would have meant that you only publish specific allegations that were substantiated by a reliable source.


 * articles in general are not very reliable or in-depth... I fail to understand what what a Florida blog has to do with comments published about Hyles. Your generalizations of the media don't interest me. Your generalizations of the press aren;t going to get negative citations removed.Arbusto 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You fail to understand a great many things, such as the fact that the American Society of Newspaper Editors is not my generalization of the media; it is a professional society that has published criticism of its own industry. Of course you ignore it; you ignore material that contradicts your own biases. And who do you think you are, telling me what material is not going to be removed from this article? Pooua 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If the news media had consider Glover's or Nischik's research to have a strong basis, the news media would have produced their own coverage of Jack Hyles. What you fail to grasp is that all these interviews with Glover and Nischik are *about* Glover and Nischik's public challenge of Hyles. And, no, newspapers do not interview or quote only people who are reliable sources; many, many newspapers will print articles about "colorful characters" (aka, nut cases), just for something interesting.


 * Voyle Glover is not a person of note. The only thing for which he has achieved any significant news coverage is his public attack on Jack Hyles. He is never cited in any other significant case by any public, reliable source for his research. His work does not rise above that of his peers. He has no more credibility in writing a book about Jack Hyles than would you or I. That means that your attempts to portray him as a reliable source are ill-founded. You are grasping at imaginary straws. Your problem is, you have absolutely no comprehension of what constitutes a reliable source, or an authoritative source. Pooua 07:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Glover was cited in various articles about his claims against Hyles. Glover's book was mentioned and he was quoted by the Northwest Times ("The pamphlet, "Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case," written by Glover, delves into Texas-based evangelist Robert Sumner's allegations of moral laxity, doctrinal heresy and financial impropriety by Hyles.) Again in 1991 Glover's Fundamental Seduction is mentioned in the Times here("Glover wrote the book "Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case," which was critical of Hyles' financial dealings with church funds". That article also mentions Glover "works for the Lake County Prosecutor's office on misdemeanor cases." In 2001, Glover was even included in Hyles' local obituary ("Voyle Glover, a former member of the church, said Tuesday was a sad day for him because Hyles "did do a lot of good reaching out to all the neighborhoods and ghettos to bring the gospel to as many people as possible." . Arbusto 17:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That means he is outspoken; it does not mean he is a reliable source. Pooua 21:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So in the last five years Glover was interviewed about Hyles on "The Channel 2 News at Ten" May 24, 2001, Thursday 10:00" PROGRAM-ID: wbbm22000524
 * In the press we know of at least three where Glover was cited by the papers, two mention Glover's book:
 * The Rev. Jack Hyles dead at 74 Northwest Indiana Times. February 7, 2001
 * Deacon defends worker accused of molestation Northwest Indiana Times. December 15, 1991 (Article mentions his book by name)
 * Church's alleged acts questioned. Local lawyer charges Northwest Indiana Times. October 22, 1991 (Article mentions his book by name)
 * Arbusto 01:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You neglected to mention what you think your statements prove, if anything. Pooua 03:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Times and the channel two news, Glover's work is criticism of Hyles. The wikipedia article is about Hyles. Thus, Glover's work is included in the article with a citation of one of the Times articles. Arbusto 03:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out to you several times nows, Glover's work does not qualify as a source of a Wikipedia article, because 1) Glover is not a professional in the field of study and 2) Glover's book is self-published. The fact that a news organization interviews him does not make him a reliable source on the subject. Pooua 05:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy you are referring to is about USING self-published work to MENTION allegations. In the article, Glover's book is mentioned BY THE NORTHWEST INDIANA TIMES. Arbusto 18:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That in NO WAY JUSTIFIES using Glover's self-published book as a source. Glover is not a "well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field." WP:RS You cannot justify using him as a reference for this article. Pooua 02:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The policy you are referring to is about USING self-published work to as a SOURCE of allegations. In the article, Glover's book is mentioned BY THE NORTHWEST INDIANA TIMES. Arbusto 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly, you believe the Northwest Indiana Times is a trusted source in that you believe they are fair. Please read this article written by Voyle A. Glover from June 10, 1993 printed by the Northwest Indiana Times: Jack Hyles: Above the law. Arbusto 01:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As a newspaper, NWI Times has acknowledged that many of the attacks on Jack Hyles and associated ministries have been unfair; they have attempted to publish both sides of the story, within the limits of newspaper parameters. However, they are still just a newspaper, meaning that what they print usually must be superficial and lacking in-depth analysis.


 * I believe that Voyle Glover has the right to express his opinion in whatever newspaper agrees to carry it. I have seen 100 of my own submissions to the 3 largest newspapers in New Mexico published. I have easily been published in the newspaper many more times than has Voyle Glover. But, that does not mean that someone should base an encyclopedia article on what either of us published.


 * A month ago, I wrote in this forum that real encyclopedias are not comprised of newspaper clippings. I want you to understand that fact, to help you understand the reason that you should not attempt to base an encyclopedic biographical article mostly on newspaper articles. Newspapers simply do not have enough time to investigate stories carefully and completely enough for the needs of encyclopedias. I would say that less than 10% of any biographical article of a modern figure should be based on newspaper accounts. That means, of course, that your extensive digging into newspaper archives is misguided from the start; you should spend your time looking at reliable sources, for example, court records, as Vivaldi and I are doing. Pooua 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly, you believe the Northwest Indiana Times is a trusted source. Please read this article written by Voyle A. Glover from June 10, 1993 printed by the Northwest Indiana Times: Jack Hyles: Above the law. Arbusto 21:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You said that already. I replied. You failed to address the points I raised, but chose to repeat yourself. What kind of game are you playing? Pooua 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Reason for unaccredition
The reason for unaccredition of Hyles college was that it never applied for accredition. Arbusto claims (from his own original research) that the college was not eligible for accredition, however that has not ever been shown. What has been shown is that the college did not want accredition, because it didn't want to have its curriculum dictated to it by outside sources, which is not completely uncommon in Bible colleges, especially fundamentalist colleges. Vivaldi (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) Accreditation about the college should go on the college page. (2) Accreditation doesn't "dictate"  what is taught. Many fundamentalist colleges have accreditation from conservative christian accreditors. The whole "we don't want to be accredited by choice" is something diploma mills claim. Arbusto 04:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) Accreditation about the college should go on the college page. Fine with me.  Let's remove all the discussion about accredition from this article.    (2) Accreditation doesn't "dictate"  what is taught.  LOL.  In order to get accreditation many schools have to change their faculty, curriculum, methods of teaching, or evaluating their students.  Are you suggesting that accreditation is given to everyone that applies?  Many fundamentalist colleges have accreditation from conservative christian accreditors.  Who cares?  Many fundamentalist colleges choose not to be accredited for doctrinal reasons.  They are a Bible College that gives out diplomas in the ministries and religious music, it is not like you need the approval of some other church group to tell you if you are doing it right.  Vivaldi (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, many "colleges" claim to "choose not to be accredited for doctrinal reasons." However, accreditation needs to be presented correctly. Hyles-Anderson's misconceptions on accreditation should not be presented as fact. Kenneth Hemphill, then president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, told the Associated Press, "We are a conservative, confessional institution, and we have not found that our accreditation has caused us to compromise our biblical convictions. We have found accreditation valuable in that it provides accountability for the institution and credibility for those looking for graduate theological work. It is important to have standards of quality." Arbusto 04:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course churches that have undergone the accreditation procedure are going to flout it and suggest that it is a wonderful thing, but really who cares? Hyles' college doesn't claim that has received any accreditation.   Hyles's college doesn't have veterinary school either, but we don't mention that in the article.   If we were to fill up the article with all the things that Hyles's college IS NOT, then it would take up the entire encyclopedia (nearly).  Hyle's College is not a state university; it is not a pink one-room schoolhouse; it is not a research institution; it is not 20 stories tall; it is not run by Oral Roberts, and on and on and on.  If the school asserted that it was accredited or that its credits transferred to regular non-bible schools, then the accreditation issue would be important.   Since they don't say they are accredited, it is a non-issue. Hyles-Anderson's misconceptions on accreditation should not be presented as fact.  I think Hyles-Anderson is well qualified to speak on what its own reasons are for choosing to not seek accreditation.  Whether or not they are wise for choosing to remain unaccredited is beyond the scope of this article.  It seems like they are doing fine without it to me. Vivaldi (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep their reasoning is beyond the "scope of the article." Say what it is (unaccredited) and have that be it. Arbusto 08:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That isn't correct either. If you are going to say they are unaccredited then you must allow them to say why they are not accredited, which is because they have never applied for accredition.  There are many things that Hyles is not.  They are not a military college either, but since they have never tried to become a military college, nor have they claimed to be a military college, it is irrelevant.  So it makes just as much sense to say "Jack Hyles founded Hyles-Anderson College (which is not a military college)".  The significant thing about Hyles College is that its a bible college and seminary, many of these across the nation are unaccredited.  There is no law requiring the college to get accreditation.  They specifically have decided not to apply for it.  Vivaldi (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How you phrase it right in the 1st sentence makes it seem like Hyles has either lost their accredition or that they applied for accreditation and did not get it. Because it really isn't that notable that a bible college and seminary have chosen not to undergo the accreditation process.  Many groups feel that such things are the work of the devil.  Vivaldi (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have spent a lot of time around the articles on unaccredited colleges - they all have some kind of special-pleading reason for not being accredited, and in each case there are comparable institutions which are accredited, having found the claimed problems not to be an issue. Why would any serious college not go for accreditation, when there are bodies like TRACS who will accredit religious schools without interfering in any way with their doctrinal statements and operations?  Lack of accreditation means that degrees are not necessarily acceptable to employers or other institutions, undermines the credibility of the college and opens it to allegations of being a degree mill.  But actually I think all that belongs in the HAC article, not here. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 10:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have spent a lot of time around the articles on unaccredited colleges - they all have some kind of special-pleading reason for not being accredited, That would only make sense to expect that colleges that choose not be accredited would have a reason for their decision.  The fact that they have a specific reason or doctrinal objection to the accreditation process cannot be used to dismiss their claims entirely.  And while I agree with you that many colleges probably do not seek accreditation because they could never pass muster -- diploma mills for instance -- there are many that could potentially pass muster if they made changes to their faculty, curriculum, or method of evaluating student performance.  It is beyond the scope of this article to specify the details of everything that Hyles-Anderson College is not.  If you want to go into details about the college, then go to that article.  If you want to argue about accreditation in general, there are also articles for that.    Vivaldi (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not the way it works. A school simply does not "choose to be accredited." There are standards they must meet to even apply. We have no indication Hyles-Anderson meets the basic requirements. Thus, "choosing" is an improper phrase. Arbusto 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they don't meet the "basic requirements" -- whatever those might be for whatever accrediting agency is doing the job. But certainly, assuming they don't meet the requirements now, they could make changes to their faculty and curriculum to meet the requirements in the future.  You don't get a lifetime ban or anything once your accreditation is denied or taken away.  So Hyles-Anderson doesn't want to make whatever changes are necessary to gain accreditation.  That is their right.  They don't need government money and specifically rebuke government interference with their religious teachings.  Vivaldi (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbustoo is about right. Accreditation is so basic to academic credibility that any school which can get it is likely to do so.  Seriously, every degree mill in the worl;d has some kind of bogus rationale for lack of accreditation - it's not our job to get into that debate.  Either they are accredited or they aren't. The details are a matter for the detailed article. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 22:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbustoo is about right. Accreditation is so basic to academic credibility that any school which can get it is likely to do so.  LOL.  The college says they don't want accreditation.  If you are going to use the fact that they aren't accredited to discredit them, then you must allow the position of the school to be heard.  You are clearly on a mission to do whatever you can to smear the reputation of Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Many fundamentalist and religious schools are not accredited. Bob Jones University spent its first 78 years as an unaccredited school, and even now, it only has national accreditation (regional accreditation is much better than national accreditation). Bob Jones attains national accreditation I attended a tiny, unaccredited Bible college in Virginia Beach, using my Veteran's Education bill for financial support. Neither of these schools were degree mills; the military doesn't allow its funds to be used for degree mills, but students can use those funds in unaccredited colleges, such as Hyles-Anderson Christian College.


 * This is just another attempt by Arbusto to broadbrush all things Hyles with tar. Pooua 06:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you take part in the argument instead of entering the section to make a personal attack and offer no point? You main contributions are to this page and to get criticism removed. Arbusto 18:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My statements about non-accredited schools, such as Bob Jones University, has several points, including the ultimate point that you and JzG are desperately arguing any wild idea you can to justify your obsession in defaming Jack Hyles. Pooua 21:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) BJU is accredited. Clearly their religious doctorine isn't changed by accreditation. 2) Your personal time at unaccredited schools has little bearing on the academic communities' opinion. 3) The argument is about how to mention it lacks accreditation 4) You closed with another personal attack. Arbusto 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) As usual, you ignored everything written that contradicts what you want to believe. In this case, the fact that BJU was not accredited for its first 78 years of existence passed by you without any recognition on your part. Does the fact that BJU cranked out thousands of students for most of a century without accreditation not tell you anything? It should tell you that academically-rigorous schools may not be accredited. But, if you admitted that to yourself, you would have to admit that you are wrong for attacking Hyles-Anderson Christian College for not being accredited. So, you pretend I never even mentioned it.


 * 2) The fact that the military allows veterans to use veteran's educational benefits at unaccredited schools, but not at diploma mills, demonstrates that the U.S. government does not agree with your analysis of unaccredited schools. Again, admitting that fact would require you to admit that you are wrong to portray Hyles-Anderson Christian College as academically questionable, for no more reason than the fact that they never sought accreditation.


 * 3) It is simple and explanatory to state that Hyles-Anderson Christian College has never sought accreditation. But, that is not good enough for you, because you have an agenda. You feel compelled to defame everything associated with Jack Hyles.


 * 4) I regret that you refuse to acknowledge that you and JzG have twisted several Wikipedia policies, some of them until they mean the opposite of what they are supposed to mean. That is not a personal attack; it is simply the bare facts of the matter. Instead of crying that I insulted you, you should try re-examining what you have written and try to understand why it is unacceptable. Oh, but that would require you to be self-critical while considering the fairness of your statements against Jack Hyles. Pooua 03:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) All schools at one point were unaccredited (ie they have to apply and earn it), so what? BJU has accreditation now. 2) Vague claims without any documentation don't interest me. 3) Every school diploma mill or not has a reason for lacking accreditation. Special pleading does not go in parantheses, it belongs on the article page. 4) Vague claims without any documentation don't interest me. Arbusto 03:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 3) Hyles is not a diploma mill. They are a bible college that states that they don't want accreditation because they believe that the curriculum changes that would be required by such agencies are unacceptable to them as a point of doctrine.  It is important that they have a reason for not seeking accreditation.  It is biased to only present the fact that they are unaccredited without explaining the churches reason for not seeking it.  Vivaldi (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 3) Every school diploma mill or not has a reason for lacking accreditation. Arbusto 18:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not go to the source to find out? For an explaination of why Accreditation was not sought out by the college founder, please read his sermon on the subject: Accreditation by Jack Hyles.
 * I must express some concern about the appropriateness of that sermon as a Reliable Source appropriate for the encyclopedia. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? The paragraph deals with "why did Jack Hyles choose not to have his schools accredited?"  Why would going to the actual source (Jack Hyles' own words) not be an appropriate source?  You lost me on that one, friend.--68.73.92.247 18:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It has every bit as much relevance as any other excuse for doing something which comparable institutions find perfectly acceptable and which is generally recognised as a minimum for any academic credibility. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 10:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of quotes
Vivaldi removed Hyles "has given 'hundreds of thousands' of dollars to needy friends over many years but has kept no records of the transactions." Why was this removed? It seems that a direct quote from the subject of the article referring to not accounting for funds is very relevant and is an indictator of other motivations in the above discussions. Arbusto 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Phrase it so that it sounds less like innuendo. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to remove cited quotes...
If you are going to remove cited quotes from newspapers give specific reasons for it on the talk page. Your general cries of "bias" are not adequate to remove someone else's hard work. Provide a detailed analysis of why you believe they should not be included.

I don't think you have even bothered looking at the revisions since they include fixing sources and grammar. Arbusto 00:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Vivaldi's recent removals are absurd and are strictly POV. For example, Vivaldi wrote at the Preying from the Pulpit AfD nomination: "It was a nightly news series from an unknown station, on an unknown date, at an unknown time." However, when the station name and other changes were added to tighten up this article, Vivaldi revert these additions and again. Clearly, this user either didn't really believe not having the station's name was important or has failed to pay attention to what is being added. If its the former, this action demonstrates a user trying to white wash DOCUMENTED criticism or if it's the latter it demonstrates a user with a strong POV who cares little for the quality content. Arbusto 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You lack credibility when you complain about POV issues. Virtually everything you have written about Jack Hyles has been extreme POV, which Vivaldi has pointed out to you repeatedly in clear terms. He has told you why your references are not reliable. You simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious. You are determined to make this page a hate page against Jack Hyles. True to form, you try to use Wikipedia rules as twisted by your own interpretations to dictate who can say what on the article pages.
 * Actually, I have "added" very little. However, I have sourced the allegations and reworded the criticism to reflect the available newspapers of which that criticism was being removed by Hyles' supporters from the POV fork. Arbusto 03:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You should have asked yourself, as you were looking up your sources, why the Wikipedia article makes every reference look like a rebuttal against Jack Hyles, even when the articles are generally supportive of him and his ministries. I mean, that would be among the basics of what you should have done. As it is, you spent your time proving that certain words appeared in print somewhere, without showing any contradicting statements. Pooua 03:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I compacted Pooua's above statement to "You, yourself, you, your. I you, you, your." Stop trying to make this personal. Arbusto 03:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the one operating your keyboard, are you not? These are your actions and your words, right or wrong. Of course, I say they are wrong, and Vivaldi has written several pages explaining in detail why your words are wrong. Pooua 03:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We are talking about your edits and why they are against the policies, guidelines, and conventions of Wikipedia. Sorry if you find this to be personal, but your edits are yours, and there isn't any easy way to make it about someone other than you.  Originally I tried to discuss your edits as the work of some "editors", but now I am convinced that you alone are on a single-minded mission to sully the reputation of Hyles based on the unproven allegations of a couple of do-nothing malcontents.  So I will work to improve Wikipedia and I will work to improve this article by removing or changing your damaging and ill-advised edits when they clearly violate policy.  Vivaldi (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are the only making the charge that I have done wrong. Speaking of violating policy, this section is ASKING WHY YOU REMOVED CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE ARTICLE. Explain each point of the revert. Arbusto 06:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit should contain something along the lines of... "this link," "the argument," "correct," "wrong," "this is why," and include evidence to support the claims, etc. Arbusto 04:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Guy... he did that! I mean, pages and pages of telling you, and you never got it. You still don't show any comprehension why Voyle Glover's book is not a reliable source of information per Wikipedia rules, or even the fact that Voyle Glover is not noteable for anything except his public campaign against Jack Hyles. Pooua 04:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice . We've done this before many times. Eventually when you are shown to be wrong and against policy you just quit responding. For example, your argument that seemed to suggest that just because Glover currently owns the publishing company that published his book 13 years ago, doesn't mean that Glover owned the publishing company back then. Would you like to finish your argument there? Will you admit that Glover is self-published? Or will you deny it again even after seeing that he owns the publishing company and his e-mail is directed there? http://www.brevia.com Vivaldi (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have said before, I am not surprised by any of this. I knew from Day 0 that I would be facing people with an agenda, who would not listen to reason and with whom negotiations would be futile. Most of the Wikipedia editors who have commented on this situation have demonstrated incompetence, if not dishonesty. The fact that Wikipedia editors are incapable of producing a reasonable, NPOV article on Jack Hyles--or even recognize that the article is severely biased--calls into question your ability to produce articles about any subject beyond highly-trafficked, well-monitored topics. Pooua 02:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pooua, I don't think its quite as bad as you think. Many editors have disagreed with Arbustoo's blatently biased edits and have commented about them in the talk pages throughout Wikipedia.  Most people just don't have the unending amount of free-time as Arbustoo and eventually people get disillusioned with Wikipedia and quit fighting his biased edits.  I don't think that this article is highly-trafficked or well-monitored.  I believe if more editors had a chance to see it that we could improve its quality greatly.  I believe this article should contain a mention of the small amount of controversy that surrounded Jack Hyles over the course of his 50 year leadership.  I just feel that the controversy should be in proportion to the reliability and reputability and verifiability of the people making the claims.  I also know that WP:NPOV requires that viewpoints held by a significant minority be presented so that they are not given undue weight.  Arbustoo, as he has demonstrated recently, when left to his own means, would take this article to a state where 80% or more of the article contains words that are meant to sully or stain the reputation of Hyles.  Since no reputable or reliable source has ever validated the unproven accusations of Glover or the other guy that Hyles fired -- these accusations do not deserve to be given the great amount of space they are given in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pooua, I hope that you do not give up in your efforts to improve Wikipedia, but I would certainly understand if you did. Vivaldi (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the encouragement, Vivaldi, and I appreciate your more experienced guidance and opinions on these issues.


 * My perspective on the article is that I deserve better than the product that Wikipedia is producing. I want to know what can be known reliably about Jack Hyles. A cheap hatchet job outrages me. I want facts, not someone making unsubstantiated allegations that are never followed to their conclusions. I mean, Jack Hyles has been dead for 5 years; what happened to all those investigations and court cases? I DESERVE TO KNOW! I don't appreciate being led on a goose-chase by people who only write this article to un-"whitewash" Jack Hyles.


 * I don't intend to give up on this page, until I have a few more answers. What I don't understand is, if Arbusto is generally recognized as being so biased (which, BTW, contradicts someone's statement made on this page a month ago), why is he permitted free reign? Pooua 04:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah keep searching for reasons, copyrights, etc to get criticism removed. Considered "biased" by Vivaldi and yourself doesn't count as a wide segment of the population. Arbusto 06:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Far be it from you to let trivial matters as reliablity and objectivity get in the way of your Hyles-bashing. Pooua 06:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Considered "biased" by Vivaldi and yourself doesn't count as a wide segment of the population. You have been labeled biased by numerous people besides myself and Pooua.  Your unrelenting desire to have the Jack Hyles article be nothing but a smear job has been noted by many.  Considering that not one single reputable and reliable source has ever even accused Hyles of a misdeed, let alone a crime, it is patently ridiculous that an article about Hyles be filled with such unproven allegations.  Hyles was never even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one, but Arbustoo's edits here make it seem like Hyles was in favor of child molestation himself, when he knows that is clearly defamation. Vivaldi (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Many? Name three people (besides Pooua and Vivaldi) who think me keeping criticism in the article is a "smear job." Arbusto 18:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At least 4 people have commented directly in talk pages that you are a biased editor that is intentionally leaving out information from the article when it contradicts your goal of defaming Hyles. If you count the edit summaries of people then there are even more people that have opposed your biased edits. Vivaldi (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Name three people (besides Pooua and Vivaldi) who think me keeping criticism in the article is a "smear job." Arbusto 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting what you did in this article Arbustoo. It isn't about "keeping criticism in the article".  I believe that there should be criticism in the article.  The point is that you want the entire article to be nothing but criticism.  When left to your own devices, you turn all the Hyles related articles into 90% criticism, which is absurd considering that hundreds of thousands of people followed Hyles and only a couple of do-nothing malcontents made some unproven allegations about him.  Criticism should get the amount of space it deserves in an encyclopedia article.   You have misrepresented the amount of criticism to make it seem like that the critical viewpoint is more important and held by more people than it actually is.  It is inappropriate according to WP:NPOV for you to do this.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As for naming people that disagree with your biased edits, I believe that nearly all editors here would disagree with your biased edits if they had an opportunity to see them. Included among the people that have specifically criticized your biased edits to Hyles related articles are 1) myself, 2) Pooua, 3) Terryeo, 4)  68.252.176.158 (or really 68.252.*.*), 5) Thatcher131, 6) Teeja, 7) Kalmia, 8) 66.72.98.180, 9) 69.214.212.201 10) Daycd 11) Ta bu shi da yu, 12) Superm401, 13) A.J.A. and 14) Katefan0 Vivaldi (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Victor Nischik's book on Hyles
Since "someone" removed reference to Victor Nischik's book "The Wizard of God" claiming it is "self-published" that "someone" should provide a source that supports the assertation, not by innuendo, that it is self-published. Arbusto 18:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can tell us some of the other books "the publisher" of Victor Nischik's book has published? Vivaldi (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You made a claim, now back it up. Arbusto 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, in a proper citation, the book publisher would be listed in the "Works Cited" page (for MLA style), or the "References" page (for APA style).


 * Heh, maybe we should start calling spurious citation the "Wikipedia style." Pooua 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You see, Arbusto, in legitimate research, whether for an encyclopedia, a scientific experiment or a high school essay, the author must provide enough information for the reader to be able to recreate the results of the research. That means that legitimate research does not have room for playing guessing games, and it is inappropriate for authors to defy readers with challenges of "Prove I am wrong." Rather, the burden of proof is on the author, to prove he is correct. That is a responsibility that you have shunned throughout this process.


 * Do you know who the publisher of "The Wizard of God" is? Pooua 05:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A common citation method for MLA and APA is to use footnotes in the body of the work. Had you taken the time to view footnote 18, where The Wizard of God is mentioned, you would have seen this citation: "Victor Nischik. The wizard of God: My life with Jack Hyles. Buchanan, Mi.: Sychar Pub. Co., 1990." Arbusto 00:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any other books that are published by Sychar publishing company, or is this the only book they ever published?  Vivaldi (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know any books published by the company also I am no expert on Christian publications. But more importantly, back up your claim. Also did you post this? Arbusto 01:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already backed up my claim. Sychar is a not a reputable publishing house.  They are not listed in any reference sources as a reputable publisher of books.  They are not listed anywere as such.  If Sychar was a reputable publisher, then one would expect them to have published numerous books by various authors.  They have not.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your "idle speculation" doesn't interest me. As I asked on May 7th, provide a source that it is self-published. Arbusto 02:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know any books published by the company also I am no expert on Christian publications. -- And yet, you are the only person I have found anywhere on the Web who has any information on the publisher of Nischik's book. You don't know anything about Baker Book House--an old and large Christian book publisher--but you can find this tiny, virtually-unknown company. How very odd.


 * Also did you post this? -- No, he did not post it; I posted it. Do you have a problem with that?


 * I can't even find a record that the company existed. But, I haven't exhausted all the places that I could look. Pooua 23:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly, it existed to be available and referenced in library catalogs. It has "company" in the name and might have been merged, bought out, sold, or closed in the last 16 years. Arbusto 01:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Which library catalog? The word, "company" in the name means nothing. Pooua 06:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I failed to see what this has to anything, but: You can do what I did at any public library. Library databases in the US are all interconnected so books can be borrowed from other libraries. In the case of Nischik, several libraries. For example, Multnomah Bible College . Type in the authors name in that school's catalog and the result is: "Main Author: Nischik, Victor./Title: The wizard of god : my life with Jack Hyles / Primary Material: Book/ Publisher: Buchanan, MI : Sychar Pub. Co., c1990./Location: Multnomah Bible College - Stacks/ Call Number: BX6495.H95 N57 1990." Just one of the many places interested parties can read this book. On a side note, a US search for books put out by Hyles is suprisingly low compared to the way the article reads; I get the impression that people outside of his circle weren't interested in his work. Arbusto 08:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are only two books published by Sychar Publishing. This book by Nischik is therefore a self-published or vanity book.  Sychar is a vanity publisher and not a reputable publisher.  If Sychar Publishing was a reputable publishing house they would have a staff, editors, lawyers, etc...  It does not.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your "idle speculation" doesn't interest me. As I asked on May 7th, provide a source that it is self-published. Arbusto 02:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbustoo says Your "idle speculation" doesn't interest me. As I asked on May 7th, provide a source that it is self-published. My response: If the book was published by a reputable publishing house then it would have published many books besides this one.  Sychar only appears to have published two books and both appear to advertise each other.  If Sychar is indeed a publishing house with editors, fact-checkers, lawyers, etc... then you should be able to provide information that shows it is a reputable publisher.  Anyone can publish anything and claim to be from a publishing company.  When such publishing companies only publish one or two authors and only publish two books -- then they are not appropriate to be used as sources on wikipedia. It is called self-publishing or vanity printing of books.  Vivaldi (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about you prove that it wasn't self-published before we allow you to use it? Pooua 05:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on the few clues that I have been able to find, it seems likely to me that Sychar Publishing Company was essentially an account set up by Voyle Glover for Victor Nischik, modeled after Glover's own self-publishing press. Glover may have done this simply to provide a way for Nischik to publish his own book attacking Jack Hyles. Pooua 05:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hyle's link to Ballenger
I added in that the case between Hyles vs the parents of the girl molested by Ballenger was settled out of court. It also appears according to the article that the lawsuit was due in part to a TWO MONTH wait. According to that article, rather than going directly to the police the parents of the 7 year old went to Hyles who promised to investigate. After waiting for two months with nothing done they then went to the police. Ballenger also molested two other girls at First Baptist in Hammond. Arbusto 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ballenger also molested two other girls Unless a court has made that determination, you can't make that claim in the encyclopedia. What you can say is that two other women testified in court that they had been molested; however, that is not the same as a court finding Ballenger guilty of those counts. Pooua 05:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is also important to note that the other girls did not testify during a trial, but only at a sentencing hearing, so there was never any determination made at all about the truth of their statements. If anything, it appears as though the judge dismissed those claims by only sentencing Ballenger to four years (which is on the low side if he was a serial molester).  Also it appears as though the judge allowed Ballenger to continue his work around children while he appealed the conviction.  Vivaldi (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a direct quote that they testified... you know under oath including Ballenger's own niece. If you want to take the side of a convicted child molestor to defend Hyles so be it. Its in there though because its cited and important to know that despite three young women, a church worker, and a Hyles security guard witnessing or being abused (including one girl who was molested on Hyles bus), Hyles still LET THIS MAN BE AROUND CHILDREN! That's just what I've found so far... there maybe more witnesses.


 * Why wasn't Ballenger charged in the molestations of the other girls? It's pretty clear why Hyles thought it was okay to let Ballenger be around children.  Primarly he believed that Ballenger was falsely accused and wrongly convicted. Vivaldi (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess its what the prosecutor said "that the church has maintained 'a conspiracy of silence' by closing ranks behind Ballenger." Arbusto 05:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, in light of all those accusations, why did the judge allow Ballenger near children? Pooua 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This article isn't about the judge, its about Hyles, the person, who let a man who was convicted of molesting a 7 year old girl in a Hammond Sunday school class continue to work with children at the Hammond church including passing out candy to children. Arbusto 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Who convicted him? Jack Hyles or the court? If it was the court, then let the court decide where and what Ballenger may or may not do. The court allowed Ballenger to continue working at the church, despite its conviction. Hyles always maintained that Ballenger was innocent. Pooua 05:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hyles stated that he didn't believe that Ballenger committed any crimes and that he felt he was wrongly convicted. Since the judge allowed Ballenger to continue working at the church and Hyles thought he was completely innocent, there wasn't much reason for Hyles to stop Ballenger from working at the church.  If anything, it just goes to show how Hyles is a man that stands behinds his convictions. Vivaldi (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Proof that this judge could prevent Ballenger from going back to a job he was welcomed at? Arbusto 08:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Proof that this judge could prevent Ballenger from going back to a job he was welcomed at? This comment barely deserves a response. It just completely demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the function of judges and the justice system.  The judge in every state has the authority to keep people that they think are dangerous in jail without even providing bail at all if the evidence warrants it.  For people that judges consider low threats to society, judges will set a low bail.  Judges almost always set conditions for release when people are bonded out on violent crimes, such as specifying who the accused may associate with, or where they may go.  In some cases judges even order electronic monitoring of such people.  A judge could easily issue an order specifying that an accused child molester not go within 1000 yards of a school or other location where children are likely to be.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Proof that this judge could prevent Ballenger from going back to a job he was welcomed at? How about the fact that the judge put Ballenger in prison for 5 years? Pooua 05:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If the judge did not have the power to prevent Ballenger from returning to FBCH, then who are you to impose a harsher sentence on him than the judge did? Society has the filthy habit of taking personal vengence on people simply for violating the rules of the state. Let the state take care of itself! This is a particularly Baptist notion; the state has imprisoned, tortured and executed many people for the state crime of being Baptist, and Baptists believe in submission to government authorities as much as possible. So, it is not surprising that Baptists might be indifferent to the findings of a court trial while still submitting to the penalties the state places on them. Pooua 05:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack David Hyles killed by Brenda L. Hyles in 1999
Jack Hyles' son David named his son Jack David Hyles after the patriarch. In 1999, Jack F. Hyles' daughter in law "accidently" ran over five year old Jack David Hyles as the child "somehow" fell out of the car.(Somehow, he fell out... St. Petersburg Times. Mar 26, 1999). Not to be confused with David and Brenda's other deceased son Brent Stevens who died as infant in the care of the parents. Arbusto 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm, Arbustoo, you seem to be working real hard on this page to create a rather small effect, centering around one or two single incidents which were on the periphery of a man who brought a lot of positive change into a lot of people's lives. The talk page here has numerous examples of that.  What is your motivation? Do you know something that everyone else doesn't know, or something?  Terryeo 00:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you brought up my interest in keeping criticism on the page, my motivation is edits such as this. The slighest mention of scandal constantly removed (50+ times since Feb.) from wikipedia. This was a controversial figured and the article should reflect that.


 * As for this section, Hyles' grandson named after him and getting killed by Hyles' daughter-in-law is a rather interesting event. Certainly, not usual. Arbusto 07:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, Wikipedia lends itself to such things.  But there is a bar about these things.  We can't just publish common rumors unless the rumors are published by a newspaper or in a book, perhaps.  Then we can place into these articles, quotetations from that newspaper or book.  You answered my question and you provided a link.  however, that link doesn't say anything about published to the public material.  It contains allegation (accusation) and it contains rumor and it contains statement.  But all of that is rephrased and none of that is an actul nugget of information which can go into an article.  These "interesting tidbits" are perfectly wonderful to put into articles.  But they have to have been published somewhere to be put into articles.  WP:RS (reliable sources) which rests on WP:V (our policy), those define how high the bar is.  The bar is higher than "street rumor" and higher than "newsgroup chatter" and higher than "personal blog" but not as high as "newspaper of 1,000,000 circulation".  Terryeo 16:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All "accusations" are cited by newspaper articles (with the exception of one book). These count for both WP:RS and WP:V. The point of the link above is that Hyles' followers knew he was a controversial figure and THEY decided to remove that(you can read the comments in this talk archive and the former Hyles POV fork). Arbusto 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbusto doesn't actually know why Jack Hyles was considered controversial. He is distracted by the scandals the surfaced in the 1990s, but Jack Hyles was considered controversial long before anyone made these sort of accusations against him. So, Arb is mixing statements, taking them out of context; an article states that Jack Hyles was controversial, another article describes the scandals, and Arbusto ignores the fact that several decades passed between the two. Pooua 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Cleanup
First, full disclosure. I'm a Baptist, but not a Hyles-style Baptist. I doubt his fans would much care for me, since I drink and listen to rock and -- worst of all! -- am Calvinist.

The article reads like what the Talk page confirms it is, a big battleground. It's full of the kind of POV bad writing, and poor structure that tends to result.

I got the impression that both sides were/are trying to "win" by heaping up as much stuff favorable to their side they could.

Both "pro" and "con" should be more like representative samples and less like detailed compendiums, with an emphasis on strictly applying policy. A.J.A. 03:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My attention was called to this article when someone came on the religious forum I was frequenting, and said, "Hey, look what Wikipedia says about Jack Hyles!" Several people were shocked, but others knew that Wikipedia is pretty much an open sandbox, where anyone can say anything about anyone. But, I figured that we should have a reasonable representation of Jack Hyles and what he was about. Note, though, that I have not made very many changes at all to any of the article pages; I am trying to complete a fuller biography on my own, before posting it here. Pooua 05:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article reads like what the Talk page confirms it is, a big battleground -- A.J.A.. My response.  I agree, the article sucks.  This is the problem when one tries to compile every last bit of information that was ever published in a newspaper article into an encyclopedia article.  The entire controversy section (and most of the response to that controversy) should be condensed into a few sentences. e.g.  "Hyles' Church had a pastor that was convicted of molestations in 1993." & "Hyles' believed the man was wrongly convicted."  & "Hyle's had a former employee accuse him of financial improprieties and of commiting adultery with his wife." & "Both of these charges were denied by Hyles".  AJA, I would encourage you to help improve this article.  Be bold. Vivaldi (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * AJA feel free to help, but be aware some users are marking edits as minor and reverting without comment the whole page. Arbusto 20:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Grossly inflated figures
A user has added grossly inflated figures and miscited a Tribune article as the source. I have posted that article in full to show that the article does not claim the figures added for just church services. Rather according to the churches' webpage "They presently average over three thousand in attendance each Sunday" and "In that time it grew from a membership of less than one thousand to well over one hundred thousand." (20,000 is a weekly figure provided by the church) (It should be pointed out that critics disagree with these numbers because the town is 80,000 and the only such figures are provided by the church itself.) Arbusto 23:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be pointed out that critics disagree with these numbers because the town is 80,000 and the only such figures are provided by the church itself. Who are the critics that disagree?  Are there any published critics that disagree? Secondly, the Chicago Tribune reported that 20,000 people attended services each week at the church.  Also, the book Religion in Contemporary Society (3rd Ed.) by Chalfant says that FBCH is the largest U.S. protestent church and lists the attendence at 20,000 people too. Vivaldi (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Full article: *REV. JACK HYLES; LED BUS MINISTRY; [Chicago Sports Final, N Edition]
 * James Janega, Tribune Staff Writer. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Feb 9, 2001. pg. 11
 * Subjects: Clergy, Deaths -- Hyles, Jack
 * People: Hyles, Jack
 * Author(s): James Janega, Tribune Staff Writer
 * Document types: Obituary
 * Section: Obituaries
 * Publication title: Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Feb 9, 2001. pg. 11
 * Source type: Newspaper
 * ISSN/ISBN: 10856706
 * Text Word Count 732

Each week, tens of thousands flocked to First Baptist services led by Rev. [JACK HYLES], the fundamentalist and often controversial Baptist preacher who put his church, and the concept of bus ministry, on the religious map. (Copyright 2001 by the Chicago Tribune)
 * Abstract (Document Summary)
 * Full Text (732  words)
 * Every Sunday morning since the 1960s, the salvation motorcade has issued forth: hundreds of buses scouring the Chicago area as far north as Waukegan to bring the faithful--some of them on-the-spot converts--to the First Baptist Church and Sunday school in Hammond, Ind.

Each week, tens of thousands flocked to First Baptist services led by Rev. Jack Hyles, the fundamentalist and often controversial Baptist preacher who put his church, and the concept of bus ministry, on the religious map.

Rev. Hyles, 74, who used the buses to create the first megachurch in the Chicago area, and in the process led other inner-city churches to do the same in the 1960s and '70s, died Tuesday, Feb. 6, in University of Chicago Hospitals, where he was undergoing open-heart surgery.

"Dr. Hyles will be remembered as a leader in evangelism through the local church," said Rev. Jerry Falwell, televangelist and chancellor of Liberty University. "He inspired me as a young pastor to win others to Christ through Sunday school, the pulpit and personal witnessing. He made a great contribution to the calls of Christ."

With homespun humor and uncompromising religious fervor, Rev. Hyles enunciated a clear and deeply conservative vision of how his church should be run. Smoking and drinking were out, of course, as were dancing and hand-holding for unmarried couples.

But it was his literal interpretation of the Bible that often put him at odds even with other fundamentalist Baptists.

During his career, he split with both the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Convention.

When he first came to Hammond in 1959, the preacher who had packed new converts into his former Texas congregations sent liberal Northern churchgoers fleeing. But he quickly turned things around, first by going door to door for new followers, then by sending the buses when distances got too far.

Some 20,000 people now attend church services and Sunday school each week at First Baptist, which also serves as the parent congregation for the Hammond Baptist Schools, Hyles-Anderson College and the Hyles Publications religious press.

"In many ways, he was larger than life," said Hammond Mayor Duane Dedelow Jr. "He had a tremendous following at his church, but when other people were moving out of downtown Hammond, the reverend decided to stay. Many of his congregation lived in Hammond, so I would say he had a very important impact here."

Raised in a poverty-stricken area of Dallas, Rev. Hyles often described a less-than-ideal childhood with distant parents. Drafted into the Army after high school, he was married during that period to the former Beverly Slaughter.

He graduated from East Texas Baptist College after the war and set out preaching in small Texas congregations, all of which soon got large.

"His churches always grew," said Wendell Evans, president of Hyles- Anderson College. "He was very godly, but very practical. He had tremendous charisma and was a good businessman, and you wanted to work for him. You wanted to work hard for him."

The largest of those 1950s congregations was the Miller Road Baptist Church in Garland, Texas, which grew from a membership of 44 to 4,000. Though his success initially gained him wide admiration among Southern Baptists, Rev. Hyles later split from the group over theological differences, opting instead to run Miller Road as an independent preacher.

Rev. Hyles hated the word "minister," Evans said, finding it too "sissified."

After being invited to head the then-high society First Baptist Church in Hammond, he presided over a mass defection of its tonier membership that diminished its 700-person congregation by a third. Soon afterward, he led the church out of the American Baptist Conference and initiated his extensive bus ministry.

The author of 48 self-published treatises on theology with a circulation of more than 14 million copies, Rev. Hyles founded the Hammond Baptist Schools in 1970 and Hyles-Anderson College in Crown Point, Ind., in 1972.

In addition to his wife, he is survived by daughters Becky Smith, Linda Murphrey and Cindy Schaap; a son, David; a sister, Earlyne Stephens; 11 grandchildren; and four great-grandchildren.

Visitation for Rev. Hyles will be from 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Friday in the First Baptist Church, 523 Sibley St., followed by a 7 p.m. memorial service in the church for non-church members. A funeral service for church members will be at 10 a.m. Saturday in the church.

Moreover, according this ABC News article "The First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana... recently opened a 7,500-seat facility, replacing a blighted city block." The expasion of a 7,500-seat facility (see Hammond's official page for the same figure) makes it a little hard for 20,000 to pack in. And according to Hammond's own figures this new facility (began in 2002) sits more than half empty (7,500-3,000= 4,500 empty seats). Arbusto 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that there are more than 100,000 "members", in the sense that if you had access to the membership roll it would be found to have that many names. Memberships get that way by adding practically anybody and never removing a name. Bloated membership lists are extremely common in Baptist circles.


 * There's a historical irony in that. One of the reasons for believer's baptism was to safeguard a regenerate membership. That is, rather than everybody and his uncle, the Church was supposed to be people who showed signs of being real Christians (showing the fruits in keeping with having been regenerated by the work of the Spirit, in theological terms). A.J.A. 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but what about the other statistics?


 * From a reprint of a book by Hyles: "This church has a membership of over 100,000 and has averaged over 23,000 conversions and 8,000 baptisms per year for the past 6 years."


 * 8,000 baptisms a year for 6 years in a town of 80,000 (not including surrounding areas) seems unlikely. Assuming there are no other churches or religions and a huge birth rate; 48,000 of the 80,000 people in the area after 6 years were baptized by Hyles?


 * A webpage critical of Hyles: "Hyles once claimed to be personally responsible for leading over 750,000 souls to Christ! (Yet, one must ask, where are the Bible-believing churches spawned in the Chicagoland area from the massive number of conversions claimed by Hyles over the last 40-plus years?) Hyles also claimed that Hyles-Anderson College has "over 600 graduates now pastoring churches all over the world, and more than 1,000 graduates serving God full-time." [Ministry statistics source: FBCH "Unofficial" Internet web site (baptist-city.com), 8/01 & 1/03.)" Arbusto 07:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know the actual numbers, but I know that many FBC folks who have moved out of the area or stopped attending are still claimed as members. As for what could be considered "active members", I would guess that it is under 10,000.  Find the article about Schaap being elected.  It was only "active members" that voted in that.  Kalmia 19:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The article currently states Sunday weekly attendence of 20,000 people. What does this mean? 20,000 bodies pass through the door each week or 20,000 different people pass through the door each week? And does weekly imply they go on days other than Sunday? Or are the people all going in Sunday? If the church can seat 7,500, does this mean there are 3 services on each Sunday (assuming there are 20,000 unique people attending each Sunday). Do people typically go to one service or three services on Sunday? Sorry for acting dumb here, but it really is not that clear. David D. (Talk) 04:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just more idiocy by the anti-Hyles crowd, though I suspect that Arbusto is too ignorant of the facts to realize it. He needs to stop getting his info from the people who obviously have been helping him, because they are guiding him to say stupid things.


 * OK, so the City of Hammond has a current population of about 80k people. You think that makes it unlikely that 20k people attend First Baptist Church of Hammand, do you? Did you consider the FBCH bus ministry? I mean, if there were another city somewhere within the range of a church bus, maybe the population of the City of Hammond would be irrelevant? What cities might we include? Let's see, there is Crown Point, Indiana (population 22k); Calumet City (population 38k); Gary, Indiana (population 102k); oh, and that quiet little town of Chicago (population 2.8 MILLION). That's right; First Baptist Church of Hammond is located about a half-mile (2000 feet) from the Chicago city limits. But, you won't hear about that from the people who want to call church attendence figures at FBCH into question. No; they are going to focus on the population of the City of Hammond (which has city limits adjoining Chicago's). Pooua 04:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pooua, I'm assuming that this is not in reply to my request for clarification re; 'Sunday weekly attendence of 20,000 people. "? David D. (Talk) 04:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No; I haven't read your request yet. I was replying to Arbusto's statements. Pooua 04:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The expasion of a 7,500-seat facility (see Hammond's official page for the same figure) makes it a little hard for 20,000 to pack in. -- Hah! As if everyone at the church has to fit into a single room for them to count in the attendance figures!


 * First Baptist Church of Hammond occupies SEVERAL CITY BLOCKS; they use closed-circuit TV to broadcast to neighboring buildings, because it would be impossible for everyone in attendence to fit into the main auditorium. The Spanish Ministry (which would be the 3rd largest church in the state if it met by itself) does not even meet in the main auditorium for their regular services. Pooua 04:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK so there is an average congregation of 20,000 for the Sunday service. Why not just say that? David D. (Talk) 04:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that would be grammatically correct. One congregation meets at First Baptist Church of Hammond; 20 thousand people attend services at FBCH. The words do not mean the same thing.


 * Anyway, what is wrong with saying that 20k people attend services at FBCH? Pooua 04:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that saying "Sunday weekly" does not make sense; I don't know who put that in the article. Pooua 04:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just fiddling with the intro and just saw these comments. The only thing wrong with say 20k attend services is that many people might attend two services a day. This would lead to confusion, is the active congregation 10,000 or 20,000 people?  Do you see what i mean?  How about 20K attend FBCH each sunday? David D. (Talk) 04:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that most of the people who attend church services at FBCH arrive by church bus. Some time ago, I added a link to a 1975 Time article, which said that 14k people arrived by bus at the church on a Sunday morning for services. That is about the number that still arrives at FBCH by bus. Also, as I recall, children generally don't attend church services in the main auditorium, but those thousands of children certainly contribute towards the attendance figures. Pooua 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So there multiple services? I have not followed this article too closely and i am not questioning the attendance but trying to interpret the sentence. Kids that go to Sunday school are obviously part of the congregation whether in the main building or not. I'll edit no more on this so change it to what you think is best. i just thought it needed attention, especially since it is in the introduction. David D. (Talk) 04:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is more than one service on Sunday. Vivaldi (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is a hodge-podge of editing, because several people, primarily Arbusto and Vivaldi, are in something like an edit war. Incidentally, I appreciate Vivaldi's efforts, though I don't make very many changes to the article page. So, I am not surprised that statements in the article page sometimes are disjointed or incoherent. Pooua 04:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 20,000 is a weekly figure provided by the church "...Some 20,000 people now attend church services and Sunday school each week." They currently use that weekly figure and a 3000 total for Sundays. Get a source that says 20,000 in Sunday if you want it in there. Arbusto 07:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess you believe that ELEVEN THOUSAND church bus riders wait out in the parking lot on Sunday without going inside, because I have already documented that 14,000 ride to FBCH every Sunday. Pooua 09:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the Time article it is "... as many as 10,000 persons" (half what "someone" put in the article) and then it is in 1975 (30+ years ago). 10,000 before the 1980s and 1990s controveries, which no doubt conversely affected attendance. Fact is the figure used by the church claims 20,000 weekly and 3,000 on Sundays. Arbusto 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The 1994 book called Religion in Contemporary Society says there are 20,000 attendees. Also the Chicago Tribune says that 20,000 people attend services each week.  Your idle speculation that the claims of of the 80s and 90s affected attendence conversely is without merit.   Vivaldi (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted the full article above. I also posted the churches statistics that still claim 20,000 each WEEK and 3,000 each SUNDAY. Arbusto 02:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Sun Times article Pastor linked to sex abuse lashes out June 2, 1993 also states that Hyles at one point had 20,000 worshippers each Sunday. Vivaldi (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Without looking closely at the article, I am going to guess the figure of 3,000 refers to the number of people meeting in the old main auditorium, and excludes everyone else on the property. The reason for my guess is that actually was the fact, at least prior to the move to the new auditorium. Now, whether that is actually what a newspaper printed or not is another matter. Pooua 05:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hyles' college attendence
Someone wrote "Hyles completed his college education at East Texas Baptist College, which is fully accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools," which falsely gave the impression that he attended the school when it was accredited. The article states further that Hyles moved to Hammond in 1959 after getting "kicked out" of Miller Baptist. He served at Miller for six years after "completing" East Texas.

If Hyles "completed" East Texas then served for six years at Miller moving to Hammond in 1959, this puts his "completion" at 1953. East Texas received accreditation in 1957. Thus, Hyles "completed" the school when it was unaccredited contrary to the article, according to the Chicago Tribune Feb 9, 2001 obituary.

But what needs to be sourced better is his actual education. I find it strange that an obituary would mention the "completion" of college without mentioning 1) The Year and 2) The Degree. Usually these are things people ask and say when talking about college; What year they finished and what the degree is in. If anyone has a citation for this please post it. Arbusto 01:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * East Texas received accreditation in 1957 from SACSCOC in 1957, but that does not mean it did not have other accreditations before that time period. Before you state conclusively that the school was unaccredited you should find a source that agrees with you.  It is also incorrect to call the seminary school unaccredited, because it is accredited by more than one agency, including the SACSCOC and the Association of Theological Schools.  If you are going to claim that either school was unaccredited by no recognized agencies at the time when Hyles attended them, then you will need to provide a source to back up your claims.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't prove a negative. There is no source from ANY accreditator, I searched all of them, that shows it was accredited. The only mention of accreditation for East Texas is AFTER Hyles' attended. You wrote it was accredited by Southern accreditors; I pointed out this was after his attendance.


 * Sour grapes on your part. Arbusto 07:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't prove a negative. Who cares?  You are making a positive claim that the school was not accredited by any recognized agencies that existed at the time.  You must provide a source that is verifiable to back up your claim.  If you can't find a verifiable source to demonstrate that, then it shouldn't be in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no source from ANY accreditator, I searched all of them, that shows it was accredited.  So you have a list of the recognized accrediting agencies for the state of Texas for the 1945-1953 time period?  Can you please post a list of the accrediting agencies that you checked and provide sources that are verifiable that show that each of them stated that East Texas was not accredited during that time frame?  Vivaldi (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sour grapes on your part. What in tarnation are you talking about?  Do you even know what the fable about "sour grapes" is about?Vivaldi (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also since you wrote "Hyles graduated:" what year and what's his unaccredited degree. Arbusto 07:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * what's his unaccredited degree You haven't demonstrated that the school was unaccredited when he graduated, only that one particular agency gave them accreditation in 1957.  I don't know what Hyle's degree is in, nor the year that he completed his degree.  If I find a source that is verifiable I will be certain to add that information to the article. Vivaldi (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a source going through East Baptist's academic history. Accreditation in 1957. Arbusto 08:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That link only points out that the school was first accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in 1957, information that we already knew. It does not mention that the school was unaccredited by all the other recognized accredition agencies before that time period.  SACS was not the only recognized body for accredition in 1957 (or even now).  If you want to add a claim that the school was unaccredited by all the recognized accrediting agencies before 1957 then you need a valid source for that claim. Vivaldi (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) States don't accredit schools of higher learning 2) The USDE, CHEA, and the school have no history of accreditation prior to 1957. 3) "Information we already knew;" if you knew that then you deliberately mislead people.


 * If you want to claim his degree is accredited provide a source. I don't make the positive claim that the school was accredited when he was going there.   It is up to you to provide a verifiable source if you wish to make the positive claim that it was unaccredited.  What you are doing is called ORIGINAL RESEARCH and there is a specific policy on wikipedia that forbids it.  You can read that policy here: No Original Research.   There are currently a list of some 80 seperate recognized accrediting bodies that are accepted by the USDE or CHEA -- in April of 2005.  So you need to find a verifiable source that clearly states that East Texas was not accredited by any of the recognized accrediting agencies AT THE TIME he attended the school.


 * 1) States don't accredit schools of higher learning Some states do.  Here is a quote about the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners: "In 1909 the legislature created the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners (a.k.a. Board of Nurse Examiners for the State of Texas), to ensure the competent practice of nursing in Texas (Senate Bill 111, 31st Legislature, Regular Session, 1909). The board is responsible for licensing, regulating, and monitoring the status of more than 158,000 registered nurses (RNs) currently licensed in Texas, and for accrediting 81 schools of professional nursing.".  So clearly the State of Texas says it is accrediting  a school of higher learning -- and clearly that was the intent of the state when it created the program in 1909.   The State of Texas does provide accredition and has done so for many years.


 * 2) The USDE, CHEA, and the school have no history of accreditation prior to 1957. Please provide a verifiable source for your claims.  Do you have a USDE published database that includes the history of schools accreditation back to the 1940s?  Can you please cite it?  Do you have a published document from the CHEA that says East Texas Baptist was not accredited in the 1940s or early 50s?  If so please provide the verified source. Saying that you cannot find the information about their accredition status in the 1940s is not acceptable as proof of your positive claim that the school was unaccredited.  You need to cite something that says that East Texas was not accredited by ANY recognized accrediting agencies from 1944-1953 time period.  There are currently something like 81 of these agencies besides the 6 regional accredition agencies.  Do you even know when the CHEA was founded?  They certainly weren't around back in the late 40s and 50s -- so the fact that CHEA has "no history" is moot.  CHEA has been around like 10 years now.  Before they existed there were many others like FRACHE, NCA, COPA, and CORPA that performed similar functions.  And who knows how many recognized accrediting agencies existed in Texas back in the 1940s?  Certainly there is a lot more work to do before you can claim that East Texas Baptist was unaccredited by all recognized accrediting agencies in the 1940s.


 * 3) Information we already knew; if you knew that then you deliberately mislead people. I meant that we already knew that because we've seen the link before.  I certainly didn't know that beforehand.  That link doesn't prove that the school was unaccredited by all recognized accrediting agencies that existed in the 1940s and 1950s.  You cannot add that information until you have a verifiable source for your claim. Vivaldi (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't prove Sanata Claus doesn't existence either. If you want to claim his degree is accredited provide a source. If you want to claim he complete seminary; provide a source.Arbusto 23:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't prove Sanata Claus doesn't existence either. If you want to claim his degree is accredited provide a source. If you want to claim he complete seminary; provide a source. I would like to claim his degree is accredited and provide a source, but I don't have one yet.  I would like to claim that he completed seminary, but I don't have a verifiable source.  Thus I will not include that information in the article.  You may not include the claim that East Texas was unaccredited in the 1940s and early 50s without a verifiable source for the claim.  You may not include a claim that Hyles did not finish seminary -- unless you have a verifiable source for your claim.  The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability.  Please read the policy about it at Verifiability.  And also, you cannot put the claim that Santa Claus does not exist into the article about Santa Claus unless you have a verifiable source for the claim.  That is the way Wikipedia works.  And it is specifically a policy of Wikipedia that you must adhere to.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Proving something didn't happen is a logical fallacy; that is not possible. So you want to claim Hyles' degree is accredited then provide a source. So you want to claim he completed seminary provide a source. Arbusto 07:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Proving something didn't happen is a logical fallacy. -- No it isn't. You need to read up on logical fallacies again.  We constantly show that things didn't happen.  It is "proven" in courts of law as often as we prove things "do happen".   If I am sitting on my couch, I can prove to the satisfaction of nearly everyone that a parade of elephants has not walked through my living room.  And in any case it is irrelevant if it is a logical fallacy or not.  It isn't up to you to "prove" anything on Wikipedia.  Every claim that is made in an article must be supported by a verifiable source.  The standard for inclusion is not truth, but verifiability (see WP:V).  So if you want to say that Santa Claus does not exist (assuming that it is a disputed point), then you must cite a source that suggests that he does not exist.   You can only make claims that are supported by verifiable evidence.  If you have a source that says that the school was unaccredited by all recognized accrediting agencies of the time period THEN you can state that it was unaccredited.  Until then, you are only speculating that they were unaccredited. So you want to claim Hyles' degree is accredited then provide a source.  I don't want to claim that Hyles' degree is accredited.  I only want to claim what is VERIFIABLE -- that he has a degree from the college.  You are the one that has added that the school was unaccredited "at the time" and yet you have not provided a source for that claim.  So you want to claim he completed seminary provide a source -- I don't want  to claim that he completed seminary.  I only want to claim that he attended the seminary.  If you claim that "he did not finish" -- you are making a positive claim that needs to be backed up with a verifiable source.  Vivaldi (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does not claim that Hyles' school was accredited or unaccredited at all when he graduated. That is because there is no verifiable source that has been cited that indicates its accreditation status with all the accrediting agencies.  The fact that one specific agency did not accredit them until 1957 doesn't mean they were not accredited by 10 other recognized agencies prior to that time period.  And therefore, the article should not suggest one way or the other that the school was unaccredited until such verifiable information is shown. Vivaldi (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbusto claimed in the article that Hyles "did not finish" at the Seminary, but there is no verifiable source for that claim. He then readded that claim after it was reverted. If indeed Hyles did not finish at the Seminary then we must have a verifiable source that says that.  Until then you are only speculating, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Vivaldi (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything specific to add in reply to the comments made about Jack Hyles' education at ETBU, but I would like to note that I have been to the ETBU campus several times, so I am a bit familiar with its location and layout. I was working for the Longview News-Journal at the time, which included taking an occasional missed paper out to one of the dorms. I currently live about 200 miles from the ETBU campus, though, so it is not so easy for me to visit these days. Pooua 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

June 5th rewrite
I made a number of changes to the article. Among these were many typo corrections, but I also made a number of formatting changes, changes to the wording of some of the content, and I changed the manner in which the sources were named. I believe the current version is still probably too long, but it still leaves in the notable criticisms of Hyles by Nischik, Sumner, and Glover and it discusses the Detroit news story. I also provided room for response to the allegations by Hyles and his congregation. I also changed the labeling of the sources from "a", "b", "c", etc... to more descriptive names so that it is easier to see when you are editing which story is involved. Also the lettering is confusing if later on editors decide to rearrange the sources or remove some of them. I would appreciate editors' comments on my changes. I want to improve this article and while this is a good first step, I still think there is more work that can be done. Vivaldi (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it looks fantastic; good job! I am glad to see many of the articles that I had run across, besides many others. Some of this information obviously took a lot of digging, and then the editing is first rate. I like the way it is all tied together.


 * Minor notes:


 * 1) I think that the word, "Protestant," used in the first paragraph, should be capitalized ("most attended protestant church").


 * 2) It would be nice to know how many deacons (and Sunday School teachers, etc.) served FBCH when Ballenger was accused, to get an idea of context of accusing one man in that operation.


 * 3) My sister informs me that a city (I think it was Hammond) named a street in Jack Hyles' honor. I have not been able to uncover any documentation of that, but my sister says she remembers the ceremony. A check of street maps shows some streets are named Hyles. I think my sister said that no one at the school or church named them. OK, my memory of our conversation on that subject is a bit garbled, but it isn't submittable for the article, anyway. But, maybe I can ferret out something more on it. Pooua 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Enemies of Soul Winning
This sentence is rather ambiguous:
 * Another work, Enemies of Soul Winning tackled many issues considered controversial in fundamentalist and evangelical circles, which include the doctrine of repentance, Lordship salvation, and the role of the church in soul winning.

For instance, does Hyles advocate or deny Lordship salvation in that book? --Flex 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't recall the contents of the book, Enemies of Soul Winning, but I do remember listening to Jack Hyles' sermons in which he denounced Lordship Salvation. He introduced the concept to me. I have also read criticism that complained that Jack Hyles condemns Lordship Salvation. So, I would expect that he would have opposed it in this book as well. Pooua 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hyles-Anderson Pub
Shouldn't this be "Hyles Publications"? --Kalmia 08:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Amazon.com shows both publishers, depending on the book. I would have to investigate to tell you the difference between the two presses. Pooua 08:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A lovely message from our very own 24.127.38.79
Rather Than using your God given time to gossip about people, wether the gossip be true or not; try using that time to reach others for the cause of Christ. In short turn off your computer and go soul winning. That's what I'm going to do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.38.79 (talk • contribs)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)