Talk:Steve Gaines (pastor)

Untitled
The section on Controversy about the web site and the mishandling of conduct should remain deleted under the guidelines provided in Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons. The burden of proof on keeping these sections is on keeping them not deleting them. As the policy clearly states, "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources here are newspaper articles from a major city's most prominent daily newspaper. A reliable source by any measure.  As far as I can tell, nothing in this article is sourced directly to the website in question.  Please note that stating that the website existed is not the same as referencing material in this article to said website.  The sections you continue to blank are well-sourced.  Please describe why the Commercial Appeal is not a reliable source for the information found in this article. Interwebs (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you have not explained why you continue to delete the "Handling of minister misconduct" subsection, when it does not reference the website at all. That makes it difficult to assume good faith on your part. Interwebs (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am deleting the section because the policy on the Biographies of Living Persons encourages deletion on contentious material that is poorly sourced. A newspaper article is not necessarily a good source regarding contentious material on a living person. Wikipedia requires a higher standard on sources and favors the reputation of the person. Again, from the policy, " The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." I'm not sure what you mean by your difficulty in assuming good faith on my part. I am simply trying to enforce the policy. These newspaper articles are about contentious opinions about a person. They cannot be accessed online and verified. It simply seems to me that Wikipedia intends to require a higher standard for sources than this especially when it is contentious material about a living person. I recommend that we follow the policy and delete the material while we request an editing dispute resolution. Is that fair enough? Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Another relevant section from Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons: "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And again on why it should remain deleted until our dispute is resolved, "Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic." Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source appears to be a legit online source, based in Memphis, complete with weather and sports. Your reason for removing sourced material however are questionable, and as such can be seen to be vandalism. You have already rolled through 3RR, I suggest you re-consider reverting again until you can explain your motives. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What does weather and sports have to do with the reliability of a source? My motives are simply to uphold the policy on Living Persons. With all due respect and humility (really, maybe we are not reading the same policy or I am seriously misunderstanding its intent), I don't understand the questioning of my motives. This is very contentious material concerning the reputation of a living person. These links are dead so the articles about this very serious subject matter regarding several pastors and a family cannot be easily verified. I cannot find these articles online. It seems to me that Wikipedia's articles encourages erring on the side of removing this type of material. My edits are in no way able to be considered vandalism. One more time. . . the burden of proof is on including contentious material, not removing it. Again from Wikipedia's policy, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Please help me understand how my reasons are questionable? Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that there is nothing wrong with the sourced section as it was before you rolled through 3RR, and the exact same source is used in the church article. Regardless, you rolled though five reverts in an hour and ignored a 3RR warning, so I have reported you to the 3RR board, the standard is 24hours block for a first offence. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The section on minister conduct
I notice that there are some very serious claim and accusation as regards a living person in this section, all the comments are cited to one small paper, the Commercial appeal, is this the only source of these accusations? Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest, back in September I was fighting a fire on this, trying to keep some of the content on the page while some SPAs were trying to blank legit concerns. If the are no further sources and the claim is still fairly contentious (though I remember the paper being small but legit) then I have no problem with it being removed. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will remove it and bring it here and wait for discussion, thanks Darren. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. The Commercial Appeal is Memphis' largest circulation newspaper, and the only large circulation newspaper of note in probably a hundred miles or more of the city of Memphis. It meets any reasonable definition of a reliable source. In addition, Gaines' handling of the minister in question was widely reported at the time, with citations in multiple other reliable sources. A simple google news search for the time frame confirms as much. There is no question as to the veracity of the sources used, their reliability, or the notability of the incident given the coverage. I am adding the information back into the article. Interwebs (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A little bit of discussion would be better than simply stuffing it back in is not going to resolve peoples issues with the content, I think the details about the other person are not needed, this is not about him at all and no charges were ever brought, were they? Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea. I somewhat understand the concern about naming the minister, but given that he was named in multiple reliable sources in this matter, removal of his name seems over cautious.  Nonetheless, I am not opposed to your rewording of the subsection and am satisfied by the result. Interwebs (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, I would have held a different position if there was any charges, I can't even find a report to the police and any details of a police investigation, perhaps you know of one, but no matter anyway, I am also satisfied that it is better, I realize the name is in the citations but as there were not charges then we don't need to repeat it, so.. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Handling of minister misconduct
I have moved this here as it is very controversial content about a living person and is all cited to the one local paper, also there are some excessive allegations and yet there appears to have been no charges at all.please discuss here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On December 18, 2006, the church announced that Paul Williams, a minister and staffer at the church for thirty-four years, had been placed on leave with an investigation pending regarding a "moral failure," identified by Gaines and others as alleged child molestation in the 1980s. The next day, December 19, Gaines released a statement that acknowledged that he had been aware of the allegation since June 2006 but that he did not address it for several months because Williams had been attending professional counseling and also because of confidentiality concerns and compassion for the staffer. The same day, Michael Spradlin, who is president of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary (located across the street from Bellevue's campus), told the Commercial Appeal that "[i]f a minister has first hand knowledge of child molesting and does nothing about it then that minister should resign." On December 20, 2006, Gaines addressed several hundred members of his congregation, saying he would like to remain pastor at Bellevue.

On January 28, 2007, a church committee released a report on its investigation of Williams' conduct and the staff's handling of Williams. The report alleged that Williams had sexually molested his son in the 1980s, that Williams and his wife had informed Jamie Fish, the church's minister of biblical guidance, of Williams'past actions in May 2006, that Steve Gaines met with Mr. and Mrs. Williams in June 2006 to discuss the issue, a meeting that was kept confidential, and that Williams was retained on staff thereafter. In early December 2006, Williams' son, the target of the alleged abuse, met with Gaines to discuss why Williams was allowed to remain on staff. The report found that no other children were molested by Williams. The report criticized both Gaines and Fish for not immediately coming forward with the information related to the abuse, either to the church or to authorities as possibly required by Tennessee law.