User talk:That'sthewayitis

Welcome!

Hello That'sthewayitis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! This is a belated welcome to the wikipedia community. Wiki has it's rules, but, bearing that in mind, we have just surpassed 1.5 million articles. You are welcome to add content to articles and talkpages, but it needs to conform to the above mentioned rules and guidelines. Mytwocents 05:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC) --- Could you cite sources for the BBN article then please? Thanks Tawker 06:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Andrew, this article has been written with much candor and as much objectivity as possible. Mytwocents' attempt to censor it without demonstrating its errors stands as proof that he will endeavor to censor any description of BBN that goes beyond the aseptic and highly biased information on BBN's own webpage. If information contained in Wikepedia were to be limited to entries in subjects’ webpages, this innovative and groundbreaking online encyclopedia would become another google with a different layout. It would become one-sided, biased and highly subjective, and therefore, useless tool. Now, let's go to the facts. Here is the article and in capital letters the sources:

BBN does not sell airtime and is one hundred percent listener supported. Every year, Lowell Davey conducts a fund raising campaign called Shareaton (there is also a second Shareaton for special projects). Expenses are budgeted for the coming year, and listeners are encouraged to call and pledge their donations. Most of the funds come from individuals and not churches. The majority of donations are of twenty dollars or less a month, however, there are some large pledges as well [THIS INFORMATION COMES NOT ONLY FROM THE BOOK WRITTEN BY LOWELL DAVEY AND PUBLISHED IN 1996, THE BIBLE'S VOICE, BUT IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE AMONG THOUSANDS OF SUPPORTERS THAT FREQUENTLY LISTEN TO BBN]. There is very little or almost no accountability how funds are spent, [FUNDS EXPEDINTURE HAS NEVER BEEN MADE PUBLIC ONLINE OR THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION'S PAPER, THE VOICE. A RESEARCH ON THE MATTER FROM WEBSITES THAT MONITOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WILL PROVE FRUITLESS] since the board is tightly controlled by the Davey family. Surprisingly enough, in over thirty years that BBN has been in the radio business no financial misconduct has ever been reported. BBN is staffed mostly by evangelicals [YOU HAVE TO BE A CHRISTIAN IN ORDER TO WORK FOR BBN, FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S HANDBOOK]. Most are college graduates [PERSONAL OBSERVATION]. Many of the stations managers have been in ecclesiastical positions before joining BBN (burnout pastors, as Lowell Davey likes to call them). At headquarters, husband and wives work side by side since salaries are not much higher than the minimum per hour national rate. This is counterbalanced by a strong sense of ministry that most employees share [THE PRECEDING INFORMATION HAS COME FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, SINCE I MYSELF WAS EMPLOYED BY THE ORGANIZATION FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS. AS FAR AS SALARIES ARE CONCERNED, MY OLD PAYSTUBS CAN BE PROVIDED TO PROVE THAT EMPLOYEES EARN SALARIES BELLOW THE NATIONAL POVERTY LEVEL. A FAMILY WITH CHILDREN WOULD DEFINETLY BE ELIGIBLE FOR FOOD STAMPS. THIS, OF COURSE, DOESN'T REFER TO MANAGEMENT. THEIR SALARIES AREN'T EXTREMELY HIGH, BUT THEY ARE A NUMBER OF FRINGE BENEFITS]. Since Lowell Davey has zero tolerance towards divorce, no divorcees are employed by BBN [EMPLOYEE'S HANDBOOK]. This is not an advertised policy, since many of the supporters are or have been divorced in the past. BBN also adheres to the belief that leadership is a testosterone fueled trait [THERE ISN'T ONE SINGLE FEMALE MANAGER]. Women are not allowed to assume management and usually perform menial and secretarial tasks at headquarters [EMPLOYEE'S HANDBOOK]. As with many religious organizations that haven been founded by someone with a strong personality, BBN faithfully follows the practice of nepotism. In the past few years better and more talented individuals have been neglected in order that the Davey family might continue in control

_______Named living persons deleted per WP:BLP_________

[THE DAVEYS POSITION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LOCAL CHURCH IS CLEAR NOT ONLY FROM THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF ITS TEACHING ON THE AIR, BUT ALSO BY INTERACTION WITH LOCAL PASTORS. BEFORE THE MINISTRY MOVED TO CHARLOTTE, THE DAVEYS WERE KNOWN IN VIRGINIA BEACH FOR THEIR LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE LOCAL CHURCH. RODNEY BELL, THE PRESIDENT OF A BAPTIST FELLOWSHIP AT THE TIME AND PASTOR OF TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH, MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES ON THE PULPIT HIS CONCERNS ABOUT BBN'S UNWILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH LOCAL CHURCHES] This is demonstrated by word (specially in staff meetings) and by behavior. Church attendance is not monitored nor encouraged at BBN and the Daveys themselves miss services on a frequent basis [CALL THE MINISTRY AND ASK WHAT CHURCH ARE THE DAVEYS MEMBERS OF, AND FOR HOW LONG]. BBN has been extremely successful in taking evangelical radio to other countries. It is doing what no other ministry has ever done. Everywhere it goes, the format is always the same: ultra conservative music and Bible preaching programs. It is one the few ministries in America that hasn't changed since its inception. One must wonder what would be the impact to the ministry when Lowell Davey passes away. Supporters would definitely pray for another 40 years of "spreading the Bible voice to Earth's four corners."


 * Admittidly, published information on BBN is sparse, but citations are required under No original research guidelines. This is the way I understand it. From the wikipage:
 * ''What is original research?
 * Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".


 * Also we need to try to write this as an enclyclopedia article. That's why I moved this section to the talk page back in Dec. The points made in this section need to be backed up by a published, reputable source.''

Mytwocents 21:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
That'sthewayitis, I look at your contribution history and see a theme. You want your personal story with BBN and Lowell Davey to be told on the BBN Wikipedia Article. It's the only article on which you've contibuted to date. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia does not permit original research. All statements in "The Scoop" need to be backed up by a reputable, published source in order to remain in the main article per wikipedia rules. Mytwocents 03:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

20:30, February 20, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (→The Scoop) 20:27, February 20, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (→Webpage) 22:36, February 18, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (→Webpage) 16:54, February 14, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (added BBN webpage) 19:22, February 13, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (corrected spelling) 21:40, February 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (→BBN Today) 15:22, February 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:That'sthewayitis (Andrew, I corrected a few mispellings on the posting. Thanks.) 15:09, February 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:That'sthewayitis 15:05, February 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:That'sthewayitis 21:11, February 10, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (mytwocents, I suppose now   you will be looking for some embassy to burn. We can play this game all year long. The  article is not gossip, but 100% factual.) 08:22, February 10, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (→BBN Today=) 08:21, February 10, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (Where's the citation on the main article? Who has written it? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and unless you prove my  article to contain error, you should leave as it is and where it is.) 17:01, February 9, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (Mytwocents, please advise me where in the article, the information is incorrect or merely subjective. Thanks.) 00:10, February 7, 2006 (hist) (diff) Bible Broadcasting Network (→Around the World)

Mytwocents, there is no story told on the article. It is not even in a narrative format, but rather descriptive (which conforms to college writing standards). It is 100% factual. It may not be politically correct, but describes with clarity the organization today. I have great respect for BBN and for its impact around the world. I must stress, however, that the article is not biased nor slanted, for presents with transparency BBN's integrity as well as the commitment of its employees to the cause of Christ. It seems to me that you in your censorship is the one showing prejudice against the truth. To say that all the articles of Wikipedia are backed up by a reputable, published source is not true. Point in case, the information in the first part of the article DOES NOT come from a reputable, published source, but from their own website. If this is what it takes to have you accept the truth in my article, then I will just create a web site, post the information of my article in it will have the same weight as the main body of the BBN entry. I come often to Wikipedia to get a fresh and out-of-the-box view on a myriad of subjects. Your censorship leads to me to believe that you are putting BBN's interests above Wikipedia's. I have even entertained the idea that you work for the ministry. I have said here, and I will repeat, I am ready to substantiate my article with documentation (Let me know where to fax it to). If the burden of proof belongs to me, I ready and willing to take this to the next step. I will be looking forward to hearing from you.


 * The Bible Broadcasting Network page has been added to the Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-21 Bible Broadcasting Network for mediation. The way I understand it, an independent administrator will look at the dispute and make suggestions and a decision. Mytwocents 06:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually we're mediators, not administrators. -- Cyde Weys  21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bible Broadcasting Network mediation
Greetings, I am the mediator working on the BBN disagreement. Please join us at the talk page where we will get together and talk our way to solution. Thank you. -- Cyde Weys 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
I just wanted to give you a heads-up regarding "The Scoop" etc. Because of libel concerns in 2006, Jimbo Wales has made a very firm policy about any negative information about living persons. This policy covers the entire wikipedia, including talkpages and user pages. We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material  about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.(emphasis added) These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. Under this policy, any negative statements about living persons will be deleted from wikipedia. If you want to tell your story about BBN, I would suggest you start a blog or a personal web page, but Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions about the the Davey's or any other living people. Mytwocents 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)