User talk:Tedw2

February 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jesse Lee Peterson has been reverted. Your edit here to Jesse Lee Peterson was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wqweFz28xs) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jesse Lee Peterson have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Jesse Lee Peterson was changed by Tedw2 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.932514 on 2022-02-22T16:15:28+00:00

April 2022
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jesse Lee Peterson have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Jesse Lee Peterson was changed by Tedw2 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.917676 on 2022-04-04T17:58:02+00:00

June 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Jesse Lee Peterson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not unsourced or poorly sourced content. The link is to a credible documentary by a credible organization. It actually should be on the site to prevent a predator from taking advantage of people which you would see if you watched the documentary. Tedw2 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There are public safety websites with the goal of alerting the public to potential predators, but this is far beyond the scope of an encyclopedia.


 * Church Militant isn't a reliable source. See discussions where WP editors have tried to gain consensus one way or the other, like this one; it's not even close. If the allegations prove notable enough, this will undoubtedly get picked up by an RS, like a major newspaper. In the meantime, we don't include mention of it. See WP:BLP for more information on our approach to editing pages involving living people.


 * You may find WP:RSP helpful as well. It's a list of sources that get discussed frequently as either reliable or unreliable. Church Militant isn't on there because people don't try to defend its reliability too often, but if you come up with other sources, you might take a look here for the general consensus about those sources on WP. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "I say the same about this that I do about LSN. It should not be used to report on facts, especially when those facts are controversial, but claims made by people through Church Militant should not be excluded. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 * I agree with Display name 99 wholeheartedly on this point. gnu57 04:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)" There are several editors on the link you provided which disagree with you. Note one says "claims made by people through Church Militant should not be excluded" and they are claims by 5 people of homosexual conduct by alleged minister Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.
 * There are public safety websites with the goal of alerting the public to potential predators, but this is far beyond the scope of an encyclopedia.--- It does not apply in this case.The documentary is not alleging crimes merely conduct inappropriate for a minister. If you read the Jimmy Swaggart wikipedia entry there is this:
 * Prostitution scandals[edit source]
 * In 1988, Swaggart was accused of a sex scandal involving a prostitute, initially resulting in his suspension, and ultimately defrocking, by the Assemblies of God. Three years later Swaggart was implicated in another scandal involving prostitution. As a result, Swaggart's ministry became nonaffiliated, nondenominational, and significantly smaller than it was in the ministry's pre-scandal years.
 * The question here is whether Church Militant is a credible source or not. Some editors are not in agreement with you and claims made by people through Church Militant should not be excluded and that is exactly what the documentary does. Readers should be allowed to make their own determination and not be short-stopped by you. Tedw2 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's getting a bit difficult to follow your thought process, as you seem to be interspersing quotes from me into passages written by others. I haven't read the Swaggart article in its current form (it has no bearing on whether the Peterson article is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines), so I would never suggest that it follows Wikipedia policy. If it doesn't, we should fix it. I'm a bit floored that someone could watch the CM video and think this (with its use of non-neutral descriptors like "homo predators" multiple times) represents reliable sourcing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard for victims of sexual explotation to use non-neutral descriptors, perhaps you can understand that. The wikipedia article on Catholic Church sexual abuse cases uses the same term. Tedw2 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are under the impression that it is the victims using this terminology, you should watch the video again. If any Wikipedia article uses the word "homo" in that context outside of maybe a direct quote, we should clean it up. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are such things as homo predators. I don't think wikipedia should be in the business of covering up for them. 5 eyewitness testimonies is not something wikipedia should cover up. Let the reader decide. Tedw2 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We really shouldn't use that term to describe people on Wikipedia, nor should any reliable source use it in their reporting. We aren't covering anything up; it is more about asking for reliable sources. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Headline to New York Times Article dated 4/25/2022. "When Predators Are Priests". So you are saying the New York Times is not a reliable source because they used the term? They may not be a reliable source due to their liberal bias but not because they used that term. Tedw2 (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And at any rate, I did not use the term predator in the wikipedia link, but merely referenced the documentary as the source when posting.
 * "On 6/16/2022 The Church Militant aired a documentary detailing the allegations of homosexual misconduct by the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson." Tedw2 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I'm objecting to the use of "homo". I think we may have exhausted the discussion on this. I have certainly exhausted my assumption of good faith here. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I think homosexual misconduct is an accurate representation but am quite willing to change it to:"On 6/16/2022 The Church Militant aired a documentary detailing the allegations of misconduct by the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson."
 * Is that a suitable compromise to you? Tedw2 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we need a reliable source to include any contentious allegations against a living person. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "In May 2022, a Business Insider article alleged that Musk engaged in sexual misconduct with a SpaceX flight attendant in a private jet in 2016. According to the article, citing an anonymous friend of a flight attendant, in November 2018, Musk, SpaceX and the former flight attendant entered into a severance agreement granting the attendant a $250,000 payment in exchange for a promise not to sue over the claims"
 * So wikipedia published this although the source is merely an anonymous friend of a flight attendant. By contrast, there are 5 former associates of Jesse Lee Peterson who are willing to go on camera and risk everything to make this known. Which do you think has more credibility? 172.223.213.234 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't compare CM to Business Insider to determine its reliability. I can't speak to the allegations in the Musk article. The person who included those allegations may have violated policy, but I haven't looked at the matter. That would need to be taken up on the talk page of that article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 09:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. As was previously noted "I think we need a reliable source to include any contentious allegations against a living person. Larry Hockett ". That has been provided. Reliable sources are being used. I have no intent to further post on the matter unless some major reliable source publishes additional news related to this that wikipedia users should be aware of. Tedw2 (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 09:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)