Talk:Keys for Kids Ministries

Untitled
this page smells strongly to the odor of biased... the refernce to the capitalized Gospel of Jesus Christ seems to refer to an ambiguous non-existant book of the bible? i think this page should be partially redone. (i got here looking for uncle charlie... of helter skelter noteriety, and ened up with this?) ==== antip8ri8 i use wikipedia from a phone and dont have a tilde so bear with me. and maybe i jumped to soon to say this article's fishy (although let me point out im not the first to do so), but the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be clarified because this is an encyclopedia. at least link it to something. isnt there a Gospel of Jesus Christ article? however, i motion:
 * To allow the advertiers (*cough* wikipedians) who put this here to bring the article to wikipedia standards.

====antip8ri8

Where do you see "Gospels of Jesus Christ" in the article?

This is only the first version of the article. I'm the writer. If you reference the original stub, it was just that, a stub with outdated links. I wrote the editor and asked if they would like assistance, and she granted me enthusiastic permission to use info from their website... I don't know about biased, most of it's just objective history of the organization with a little bit of candor. I understand your unhappiness that you came expecting to find juicy gossip on Charlie Manson (as if you're really going to find that in a title "Children's Bible Hour" but I digress. I'm new at this.  Take it easy on me.  In the meantime, care to help guide me how to get rid of the warnings?

23:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)uncleflo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleflo (talk • contribs)


 * I have placed the warnings, but have, until now, had no part in what was written on this talk page. Re: improving the article: if I'm correct in thinking that much of the recent addition was copied directly from elsewhere, it needs to be reverted and rewritten, so as not to be a copyright violation. Parenthetically, yet importantly, content taken directly from an organization's material will tend toward the promotional--notability and credibility must be established through independent reliable sources, per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE. JNW (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I appreciate it. First off, nothing was copied directly from the source. I rewrote and rearranged pre-existing material off the CBH timeline at the direct request of the organization's editor, who is an assistant to the founder. I am not an employee of CBH, but she gave me direct permission to use any information off of the site freely, either word-for-word or rephrased. I've scanned the articles on notability, verification and citing sources, and just don't have the experience needed to be able to make this look correct. Should I list secondary sources that contain the same exact info so that it's not just the company's website? And if so, how many are sufficient? And why am I doing this if I already listed the source accessed?

Also, another question, I removed a paragraph on donations (as it may have been what led to the flag as an "advertisement"). Do I have the ability to remove the flags myself, or do I have to wait for someone else to "approve" the changes?

Uncleflo (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)uncleflo


 * I'd advise that you not remove the templates, since you're not up to speed yet on procedure. I'd also strongly advise reading WP:RELIABLE again. The recitation of the organization's history is superfluous until its notability has been established through multiple objective sources. The most recent site you linked to doesn't provide information, and would not appear to be a very strong source. Also, please don't remove previous conversation from the talk page--doing so, and the removal of maintenance templates, may be viewed as vandalism. JNW (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add that I rewrote and rearranged pre-existing material off the CBH timeline at the direct request of the organization's editor, who is an assistant to the founder is a bit dicey, and does suggest a violation of WP:COI. You will no doubt understand that while Wikipedia means to get its facts straight, it also prefers to do so with minimal involvement from vested interests. Notability first.... JNW (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so what classifies as a website that classifies as an objective source on the history of a company... sorry about the delete to the talk page, should I undelete them? And is the reference to Charlie Manson, and the validity of capitalizing the word "Gospel" relevant to the issues at hand?

I spent an hour writing this article, making sure to get my facts pristine from the source, it was not any attempt to "advertise" but rather chronicle history and let their own websites take care of advertising.

The Ministrywatch website has much of the same information as I'm trying to prove notable, are you saying that I have to find sources that confirm the data yet original? I don't know how much press there is on CBH. Uncleflo (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)uncleflo


 * Bingo. If there's not much press, then notability is an issue. Reliable independent sources are necessary to establish notability. I swear I didn't make the rules. And unless previous entries to the talk page are out and out vandalism, leave them alone. I appreciate the time you've spent writing the page, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional venue. Some of the language, like It proved to be a blessing to many soldiers and their families during the difficult years of World War II, is no doubt true, but reads like a press release. I'm taking a break. Please read the guidelines at WP:PG prior to making major edits. JNW (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That said, I have not nominated the article for deletion because the organization does have a history, and an involvement in broadcasting which certainly suggests the likelihood of notability. One expects that articles about CBH have been published in newspapers or magazines.... JNW (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)