Talk:Ed Young (Fellowship Church)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Evangelical Christianity Low‑importance

	Evangelical Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Evangelical Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Evangelical ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityEvangelical Christianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Shepdawggz (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
76.224.104.159 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
WebstaffFC (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight.
Kyleysnow89 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Theandyboyd (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
70.239.43.254 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
ABoydFC (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
CaseyDMcCann (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Caseydawnmcccann (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

5dondons (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN.

“Controversy” Section[edit]

After reviewing the “Controversy” section, I have concerns about its adherence to Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources and due weight. The section primarily relies on an investigative article, with a second source that merely references the first. This raises questions about the independence and verification of the information presented.

In light of these concerns, I propose the following:

1. Attempt to Find Additional Sources: We should make a concerted effort to find additional reliable, independent sources that provide a more comprehensive view of the controversy. If such sources are available, they should be used to revise and balance the section. 2. Consider Removal: If no additional independent sources can be found to substantiate the claims, I suggest we consider removing the “Controversy” section altogether. This is in line with Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability, which states that “any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.” 3. Seek Consensus: I believe this is a significant decision that should be made collectively. I invite other editors to share their thoughts and perspectives on whether the section should be revised or removed based on the availability and quality of sources.

By addressing this issue, we can ensure that the article maintains a high standard of accuracy and neutrality, in accordance with Wikipedia’s core policies. 5dondons (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the assessment of the "Controversy" section's reliance on limited sourcing, primarily from one investigative article. To address this, we should actively seek additional credible and independent sources to provide a more balanced view. If we can't find such sources to support the claims, considering removal of the section aligns with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. This decision should involve collaboration with other editors to uphold accuracy and neutrality in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. Clarky65 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. These allegations have not been substantiated by any verifiable sources or official findings.

On the contrary, these baseless accusations have been debunked by multiple sources with actual knowledge of the facts as reported by the Christian Post. The Christian post also reported on Pastor Young openly speaking about how neither he or Fellowship Church has ever owned or purchased a plane and he travels by commercial and chartered aircraft.

Reference: https://www.christianpost.com/news/megachurch-to-kick-off-event-amid-scathing-allegations.html SharkBait24 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the new sources, I think it makes more sense to just delete the section. _signed,Willondon (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback and agree that removing the controversy section seems to be the most appropriate course of action given the lack of substantiated sources. I'm glad we could reach a consensus on this matter. 5dondons (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are reliable and independent, the content probably should stay in some form. At a glance, the WFAA and Dallas News refs appear to be fine, while the Christian Post relies entirely on Ed Young's statements made without knowledge of what is in the reports on him, so that's the only source that doesn't appear independent. --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, the Dallas News article is actually a biographical piece on Ed Young, which references the WFAA report for information related to the controversy. This means that the controversy section is primarily based on a single source, the WFAA report, rather than multiple independent sources.

Given this, and in line with Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and the importance of multiple independent sources for contentious material, I believe we should reevaluate the inclusion of the controversy section. It's worth noting that there has been a consensus among editors on the talk page in favor of removing the section due to the lack of independent verification.

In light of this consensus and Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and accuracy, I propose that we proceed with the removal of the controversy section. I invite any further discussion or final comments on this matter before making the change. 5dondons (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This means that No. It means that an independent source reported on the issue, using the WFAA article as a major reference. That creates a stronger case the information is DUE. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your perspective. I understand your point that the Dallas News article, being an independent source, can lend additional weight to the information derived from the WFAA report. However, for the sake of maintaining a balanced and neutral article, it's important to have multiple independent sources that provide a comprehensive view of the situation.

Given the significance of the controversy section, I think it's crucial that we continue to seek further independent verification to ensure that the information presented is not only due but also well-rounded and reflective of a broader perspective. 5dondons (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it's important to note that the Dallas News article does not provide or add new information beyond what is presented in the WFAA report.

In the context of Wikipedia's "due weight" guideline, it's crucial to have sources that not only are independent but also contribute additional verification or context to the information. Since the Dallas News article primarily relies on the original WFAA report without adding new information, it doesn't necessarily strengthen the case for the information's inclusion based on the "due weight" principle. 5dondons (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WFAA article does not cite any actual concrete evidence but more just anonymous testimonials. The credibility is suspect at best. The fact that they aren't any other sources online backing these claims it seems likely this is a slander piece with someone with an axe to grind.

If there were more sources backing these claims up then I would agree with keeping, but without that it does seems like cutting makes the most sense. Also look at the author from WFAA. Brett Shipp. He has been riddled with multiple lawsuits for slander and false allegations. Just do a quick search on his name and you will see he does not have a great track record for reporting truth. 32.140.33.42 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insights. I share your concerns about the lack of concrete evidence and the reliance on anonymous testimonials in the WFAA article. The absence of corroborating sources online does raise questions about the credibility of the claims.

Regarding Brett Shipp, the author of the WFAA article, I've come across an article by D Magazine, where concerns about his reporting practices are raised, and another by Dallas Observer, which provides additional context.

Given this information, I agree that reevaluating the content of the controversy section or considering its removal might be the most appropriate course of action. 5dondons (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are reliable and independent. I'm not seeing any policy-based reasons for removal.

but also well-rounded and reflective of a broader perspective. Sorry, but that's not how POV works, and could lead to POV violations. --Hipal (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the importance of relying on reliable and independent sources. However, I'd like to emphasize that Wikipedia's verifiability policy states that "all material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable." It further specifies that "all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material."

In the case of the Lifestyle section, the primary concern is that the Dallas News article, which is used as a source, relies solely on the WFAA article without providing additional independent verification. This reliance on a single source for contentious material about a living person could be problematic, as it may not meet the standard of having multiple reliable sources that directly support the material, as required by Wikipedia's policies on BLOP and verifiability.

Furthermore, the policy also states that "any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed" and that we should "immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." Given that the Dallas News article does not provide new, independent verification of the claims made in the WFAA article, it raises concerns about whether the material in the Lifestyle section is sufficiently supported to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.

Additionally, concerns have been raised about the reporting practices of Brett Shipp, the journalist behind the WFAA article. Articles from D Magazine (https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2013/november/brett-shipp-wfaa-is-a-bully/) and the Dallas Observer (https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/fake-scandalgate-grinds-on-at-dallas-isd-thanks-to-brett-shipp-and-the-news-7182347) suggest that there may be issues with his reporting accuracy and style. Given the potential concerns about the reliability of the journalist and the reliance on a single source for the Lifestyle section, I believe this further supports the need to reevaluate the inclusion of this material in the article.

Based on these guidelines, I believe it is worth reconsidering the inclusion of the Lifestyle section, or at least reevaluating the sources to ensure that they meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability and independence. 5dondons (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In view of Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources, it's crucial to assess the sources used in the Lifestyle section critically. Wikipedia requires that articles be based on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The guideline also highlights that "context matters" and "the reliability of a source depends on context."

The Dallas News article's reliance on the WFAA article as its sole source for the information included in the lifestyle section raises concerns about the independence and context of the information presented. This reliance on a single source for contentious material about a living person could be problematic, as it may not meet the standard of having multiple reliable sources that directly support the material, as required by Wikipedia's policies on BLOP and verifiability.

Moreover, Wikipedia's guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons (BLOP) stress the importance of caution and sensitivity when writing about living individuals. The policy mandates that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Based on the concerns raised regarding the reliability and independence of the sources used in the Lifestyle section, I have decided to remove this section from the article. 5dondons (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that there is a precedent for questioning the reliability and weight given to the source in question. Back in 2010, User:Hipal, who is currently involved in our discussion, reverted an edit that relied heavily on this single source, citing concerns about giving too much weight to it in accordance with the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. The edit summary stated: "per BLP - far too much weight to a single source - see talk."

This historical context reinforces the argument that relying on this source for contentious material about a living person may not align with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. It also highlights the importance of consistently applying these standards to ensure the integrity of the article. I believe this further supports the case for removing the inclusion of the content based on this source. 5dondons (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to dig through the article history to find other references used or alluded.

The previous content that I deleted [1] seemed UNDUE.

We now have two sources, the content is shorter, and I have a great deal more experience handling situations like this, both WP:CONPOL and WP:CONDUCT. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of two sources does not necessarily resolve the issue if both are derived from a single perspective or if one primarily sources the other without adding substantial new information or verification. 5dondons (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy-based concern, and it actually conflicts with NPOV.

This article has been dominated by COI editing from Fellowship Church. That needs to change. Who knows how much damage they've done. --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about the reliance on two sources that may not be independent is indeed policy-based, grounded in Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and reliable sourcing. Ensuring that information, especially in biographies of living persons, is backed by multiple, truly independent sources is critical for maintaining neutrality. This practice helps prevent the dissemination of information that might be biased or not fully verified, thus aligning with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It's important to distinguish between the quantity of sources and their quality or independence; the latter being crucial for upholding the standards of objectivity and reliability.

How you can claim that the Dallas News article constitutes a secondary source when it only referenced the WFAA article's content and even said that the WFAA article had 'unnamed sources' is mind boggling. I encourage you to read it again. 5dondons (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've nothing to add. Your filling up this page with repetitious comments doesn't help. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My aim here is not to fill the discussion with repetitive comments but to ensure that our edits reflect the best possible standards of reliability and neutrality.

I strongly disagree that the Lifestyle section with the sources of WFAA and Dallas news meet the standards of reliability. 5dondons (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my reasoning for getting rid of the section entirely (With the new sources, I think it makes more sense to just delete the section.): both WFAA and Dallas News seem like reliable sources, and Christian Post probably is, too. Putting it together: one RS reported allegations from anonymous sources (fair enough), another reported that among the congregation there was widespread support that the allegations were wrong (fair enough). At one point I reverted "These allegations have not been substantiated by any verifiable sources or official findings." [2] as being unsourced, because we don't know that without one. But if there aren't any further sources reporting continued discontent or official inquiries into something, it seems the reporting of they said vs they said isn't an informative addition. _signed,Willondon (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

both WFAA and Dallas News seem like reliable sources "seem"? It appears we have consensus that they are reliable.

As they're reliable, deletion is a POV violation. Finding a proper presentation is the solution forward. --Hipal (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Concerns_Over_Source_Reliability_and_Verification_in_the_'Lifestyle'_Section_of_Ed_Young's_Article started by 5dondons without any notifications. --Hipal (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

I've gone ahead and reverted the content changes, adding the new AP reference.

I agree that we should work to improve the presentation. Finding more references would be a good first step. --Hipal (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]