Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:49, 17 May 2006

Please use this area for discussions concerning this Misplaced Pages entry on First Baptist Church of Hammond.

History

a section about its history should be added. I may add one. Others should contribute.

Ministries

A section listing ministries and a brief description of each should be added. I may add one. Others should contribute

I contributed to the Ministries and Outreach section. It also needs expansion and linkages, since I know this is not the full extent of the ministries of this church.

Controversies

I have added the "totallydisputed" tag to this wiki. If the anti-Hyles people edit all these Hyles-related entries so much so that 75 percent of the information presented is concerning their anti-Hyles "controvery information", something is wrong and additional sections need to be added to balance out this kind of one-sidedness. --68.73.80.116 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Improve it then. Arbustoo 01:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A note on sources

A editor just added a totally disputed tag to the page. For interested parties on the sources visit www.Chicagotribune.com search archives for Jack Hyles and you will find the sources in the article. To read the articles you must register.Arbusto 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC) The search that comes up is:

1. BY: Capsules were compiled by Nathan Baird, Henry Del Valle,Chicago Tribune; Nov 18, 2002; 14;
2. REV. JACK HYLES LED BUS MINISTRY James Janega, Tribune Staff Writer; Chicago Tribune; Feb 9, 2001; 11;
3. No investigation of church in abuse cases, police say Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 24, 1993; 3;
4. Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case Chicago Tribune wires.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Oct 16, 1991; 3;
5. Newspaper feud adds fuel to preacher's fire Eric Zorn.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Jun 30, 1989; 1;
6. Charges all lies, Hammond pastor says Michael Hirsley, Religion writer.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 28, 1989; 3;
7. Charges All Lies, Hammond Pastor Says Hisley, Michael; Chicago Tribune; May 28, 1989; 2C3;
8. Pastor denies adultery, 2 other charges Michael Hirsley, Religion writer.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 25, 1989; 1;
9. Pastor Denies Adultery, 2 Other Charges Hirsley, Michael; Chicago Tribune; May 25, 1989; 11;

Disputed tag

Since there is no evidence on this talk page of what facts are supposedly in dispute, and since verifiable citations have been provided for them, I suggest the tag is removed. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Disputed" tag should remain because Arbustoo has added an enourmous amount of negative data to this wiki, and other wikis relating to Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College and First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana and other editors are disputing it, including me. The explaination for adding the "Disputed" tag is in the discussion area of the Jack Hyles Wiki, which I list here:

As a reply / response to your questioning of this tag, please note that the "manner of presentation" of the controvery is an issue and is not written in a NPV, also, the sheer quantity of "controvery" data as presented in relation to other Hyles information on this wiki gives readers a distict feeling that the page has been hijacked by those with a grudge against this man. Also, you are in effect trying to get readers to come to a conclusion that Hyles is guilty of all these charges, simply because someone accused him and those accusations were published in the press. Yes, I'd say a lot of people who supported Jack Hyles have a problem with your efforts to discredit him and his ministry and a lot of people dispute the facts as you present them here, hence, the disputed tag. Try writing your controvery sections in a NPV, adjust the sheer amount of data downward to reflect a more reasoned presentation when compared to the other data here (or increase the other data here to compensate for the large amount of controvery data, and don't try to lead readers into false conclusions based upon such juvanile reasoning as "the press quoted the accusations, therefore it must be true". --Teeja 01:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he's guilty or the color purple. It offers facts that Jack was accused of this, Ballenger connected to Jack raped a 7 year old, and Jack was sued for various things. Whether he's innocent or not, it comes from a credible source and will be included. Also don't edit/add to my posts or titles. Arbustoo 02:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course you didn't say he's guilty, but that is obviously what you are trying to get readers to believe, and you are having an aweful struggle to write anywhere near a NPV style here. Your edits have proven that you indeed want readers to draw this faulty conclusion, but your conclusion is not a valid nor logical fact. Guilt by accusation is not the way things work in the United States and many civilized countries. The whole point is that all these things are in dispute, not the existance of the press reports you cited. --Teeja 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, the tag should not be removed, and doing so would constitute vandalism. --Teeja 18:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The tag you add claims "factual accuracy of this article are disputed." How is the accuracy disputed? You are claiming the "amount" of criticism is POV. That is not factual dispution. The tag will be removed if you cannot prove that the Chicago Tribune is a disputed source. Arbusto 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Much of the information you have currently in the controversy section is not from a reliable or neutral source and is therefore not a valid factual source for a Misplaced Pages entry. As examples, the paragraph concerning Bob Ross and the associated backup documentation is not from a reliable news source, rather, it's from a completely biased and dubious web site (www.kjvonly.org); also, the quotes supported by The Biblical Evangelist are not a reliable source, since it was this paper's editor (Robert Sumner) who first launched the public attack upon Jack Hyles in 1989 - hardly an unbiased and pristine source - Mr. Sumner has a deep personal axe to grind here; also, all the information supported by the Way of Life Ministries footnotes are unreliable and highly opinionated, but yet you have it listed here like it's a legitimate news source; also, the section on Joe Combs should not even be here, this is like suggesting that because Joe Combs used to be member of First Baptist Church many years ago, the church is now somehow responsible for Mr. Combs' actions. That's very poor logic and does nothing but try to lead readers into a false conclusion. All these things together add up to a GREAT dispute of the facts as you have presented them here. The "Dispute" tag will remain; this is a dispute of the facts, not just a NPV concern. --Teeja 20:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You are too busy removing stuff and not reading it. For example, you are claiming the Combs piece has not business in the article. If you take the time to read it, the connection is: one babysitter testified "that they suspected Esther was mistreated but didn't want to contradict Combs, who had been their Bible professor at Hyles Anderson College." Furthermore, the other babysitter testified she "reported her suspicions to the college president, but apparently nothing was done, she said." Considering Hammond Baptist controls the school and this was reported in a court of law, it is very relevant to the article. Arbusto 08:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, please don't ask me to "prove that these things didn't happen". You are the one using this Wiki entry as a list of grievances - the burden of proving these wild accusations using valid sources is upon you. --Teeja 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Teeja, the article on Adolf Hitler also contains mainly critical data. OK, this church is not the Nazi party, but the data is verifiable and appears to be stated in neutral terms. Which data do you think should be excluded as trivial, or alternatively what additional data do you think should be included? And what grievance does Arbustoo have here? Other than a general tendency to look for (and find) data to balance hagiographic articles I don't see he has any particular agenda here. Just zis Guy you know? 21:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, you guys win. Congratulations, Arbustoo, your steadfast efforts have paid off for you. This is a big waste of time and effort. Arbustoo has too many editor friends and admins who are willing to defend his warped view of what constitutes "facts" and valid sources. He also has so much time on his hands that nothing can be done to stop him from using the Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church and Hyles-Anderson College and related wikis as a forum for his grievances. I'm done editing this wiki. It's all yours. In the long run, reasonable readers will see right through this kind of one-sided article, anyway. Nice try at keeping the "community spirit" and "cooperative efforts" of Misplaced Pages. That's nothing but a joke, it seems, at least on these entries. Good luck and happy editing. --Teeja 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a competition. This not about being "anti-Jack Hyles." This is about sources. If you want to add a tag that questions the sources, you must give a reason. You were given the chance, you did not. You were asked to give an example, you did not. You were given a chance to remove the tags yourself, you did not. Your bias is very clear. You are personally involved with this church and another editor as you admitted on your talk page. Arbusto 02:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like he did give a reason for questioning your sources, with examples (try reading the above paragraphs). --68.78.120.207 13:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Where? I asked Teeja to specify which facts should be omitted, which are provably false, which are missing. No answer, just a lot of arm-waving. I'm serious about wanting this article to be neutral, right now it looks as if FBC is a business run for the benefit of high-rolling pastors, if that's not the case then we need real verifiable facts to balance it out. It's not going to be fixed if those who support the place are just going to shout abuse from the sidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You guys are not all interested in verifiable anything. We have corrected Arbustoo's junk with a more balanced view, only to have his junk reinstated again and again, supported by his admin friends, who state that we are "valdalizing" the wiki. This seems to be nothing more than a hatchet job against this church and it's ministries, simply because it's fundamentalist Christian beliefs don't fit into your world view. All anyone needs to do is check out Arbustoo's editing history to confirm that. Of course, he'll reply with a lot of arm waving himself, I'm sure. Arbustoo posts a bunch of unverified, unsourced, or poorly-sourced data against the church and college and gets a few of his editor and admin buddies to back him up, who now say that it's somehow the church supporters who must constantly be on guard against his 24/7 misinformation spree and if they don't spend hours and hours and hours correcting Arbustoo's junk, (which only gets reinstated anyway), they deserve what they get. That sir, is not fair. --68.21.178.199 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you start with something specific? Speaking in broad general terms will get this discussion nowhere. Pick a single point - just one, and dispute it. Argue against the source, it's factuality; provide a counter-source, whatever. Maybe you don't have "hours and hours", but with a little effort over time you can improve the quality of the article. --Awcga 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I really enjoy the personal attacks. First this anon. editor claims there is a conspiracy behind "unsource" attacks, then I source the article and provide independent sources and I become part of the conspiracy. Anon. IP, attacking me does nothing for your case. This is about facts. If you can't dispute them you don't have a case.

User:68.21.178.199, how have you "corrected Arbusto's junk with a more balanced view"? Please support assertion with a citation. The only thing you have done is removed cited information from newspapers. You have not "corrected" anything.

For those interested, I finally listened to the "preying from the pulpit." There are some very disgusting quotes by Hyles and his son-in-law who is defending the convicted child molester (AV Ballenger). Arbusto 01:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again: what, specifically, is the issue? I've seen a whitewash, and that was clearly unacceptable, but I haven't seen any credible refutation of the content Arbustoo has added. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Consideing the amount of cited documentation for the "disputed" sections, I'm removing the disputed tag. If citations are available that amplify or conflict with the information already provided, those citations should be added to the "Controversy and criticism" section. Justin Eiler 05:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete Article

I attended First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, as a young sailor during the Fall of 1984. For years, I had heard of Jack Hyles (I remember my pastor giving high school graduates from his school a copy of Hyles' "Blue Denim and Lace."). I was quite willing to make the 100-mile bus ride from Great Lakes, Illinois to First Baptist Church every Saturday so that I could attend church services there on Sunday.

There are many things about First Baptist Church of Hammond that have not been mentioned in this article, but the article is lop-sided with controversial negative statements regarding the church--criticism identical to that found on the page regarding Jack Hyles. Considering the all these controversies regard the career of Jack Hyles, it is odd that little else is said about a church that is more than 100 years old. It is all the more odd, considering that I never heard of any of these allegations until 1988. All those years that I heard of Jack Hyles, and heard his detractors, but no one brought these kind of charges into the public until then. They sound so out of character for him.

The statements made by the news media would have more weight with me if I had not witnessed their attacks on Jack Hyles for several years prior to these allegations. They always were looking for something to bring him down. Remember the time that FBCH gave out chicks (that is, baby chickens) to the Sunday School students? A newspaper editor called Hyles directly and accused him of cruelty to animals. Pastor Hyles replied that he had done even worse. The editor asked what he had done. Hyles replied, "I ate their mother!" Something similar happened when the Sunday School gave away guppies (small fish) to the Sunday School students. The newspaper was up in arms about the little fishes flopping around in the dwindling puddles in the parking lot.

When my sister was an aide to Pastor Hyles, about the same time that these allegations began to surface, I asked her about the allegations of sexual misconduct. She said they were untrue. She still attends FBCH, along with her husband (who she met at Hyles-Anderson Christian College) and her 4 children. Her two oldest children are now students in the day school run by FBCH.

I think that it is appropriate to be highly skeptical of such scandalous accusations against someone of Jack Hyles' stature. For the reason I mentioned, newspaper reports aren't very useful. Hyles attracted a lot of enemies, so it is natural there would be people who would try to destroy his reputation. Of more weight is the word of Robert Sumner, a man with whom I have had direct, though brief, communication. I have never attended Pastor Sumner's church, or sat under his preaching, but I have corresponded with him via mail and a Web forum. From what I know of him, he is an honest man, but I simply don't know either him or Hyles well enough to decide who is more reputable. The article mentions court cases brought against Hyles, but it does not state the deposition of those cases. As far as I know, no one was able to convince a jury that Jack Hyles was responsible for all these things of which he is accused.

This issue is highly controversial, even within Christian fundamentalism. I know of several leaders within fundamentalism who never spared Jack Hyles from criticism. Several of his fellow preachers around the world simply did not like him, and easily accepted these reports when they came out. But, there are many other people who are fiercely defensive of Jack Hyles. It is not easy to tell who is fighting for the truth.

Yes, there is a lot of controversy surrounding Jack Hyles, but all this encyclopedic article has done is repeat a lot of rumors and reports; there is very little fact-finding. For example, I am told that the controversy over the seeing-eye dog was instigated by the dog relieving himself in the church aisle. And, in a group with 20,000 people, there probably are going to be a few bad apples, so naming some doesn't mean much.

There should be some mention in the article of the number of buildings and ministries operated by the church, and of the range the bus routes cover. It would be nice to add some history, such as the fact that the neighborhood surrounding FBCH used to be a red-light district, which the church under Jack Hyles bought and converted to church buildings. Indeed, the Sailor Ministry building, which I have visited, used to have such a sordid history.

It would also be good to mention that if the Spanish Ministry at First Baptist Church of Hammond were to form their own church, it would be one of the largest congregations in the nation.

Pooua 07:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add positive information. Just make sure they are sourced. Arbusto 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW: The whole thing about "the seeing-eye dog was instigated by the dog relieving himself in the church aisle" I don't buy. Even if it did happen why ban a person from church because of the dog's mistake- a dog he needs. Then why not even take the time to explain your position with something other than a "no comment." If you have a uncitation it should be included, but without a concrete source to back it up from a paper it seems like something told to justify it after the act. Arbusto 19:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Buglary Story

Yes, that story is true, but this isn't even the Hyles-Anderson Wiki, and they were former students (according to the text). This is only remotely related to the church. Are you going to include every story about a person associated with FBC Hammond? I doubt it. It would make this Wiki extremely large and off topic. You seem to be trying to post anything negative that you can find - however remotely related.] Stay on topic.

You seem to be trying to post anything negative that you can find - however remotely related. Stay on topic.

Wiki users can go here to see how you obsess over these FBC related topics.

Kalmia 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do stay on topic. The article states "former students" and it deals with the church, its leaders, and its attorney. It stays. I'd add positive news articles, but haven't found any. If you do please add them. Stop removing cited sources. Arbusto 02:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• First off, DON'T EDIT MY COMMENTS ON THE TALK PAGE. If you want to respond, do so. But your editing of my comments shows that you are trying to hide your real motives.
• Secondly, you reverted the section I had on ministries. It shows that you are bent on making this nothing but an attack page. Your large sections obout people with weak allegations have stayed but that isn't enough for you. If you you won't let others add non-negative information, then there is no reason to let your phony scandle section stay.
• I'll start adding some info about remotely related events. See how full of clutter this becomes. Why don't you just state your true motivations. You say you can't find other stories? I assume you are unable to use the search engines.
• It isn't about positive or negative. It's about relevancy. But according to you, anything negative is relative. Kalmia 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Kalmia, anyone who wants to see Arbusto's edit history can see it trivially easy without using Interiot's tool, just click "user contributions" (or type Special:Contributions/Arbustoo). I would suggest that Arbusto's edits display a good grip of policy, and who cares if he has decided to fight whitewashing of Southern Fundamentalist articles? Is that beter or worse than Talk edits saying that Dick Mountjoy has a funny name? You will find that several admins are watching these articles fairly closely. Just zis Guy you know? 10:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to whitewash anything. Maybe some others here have, but not me. Arbustoo deletes almost anything that isn't scandal related. I post relevant information about FBC and he deletes it.

Should every college/university student that commits a crime have his story posted to his schools Misplaced Pages article? It would make every article cluttered and useless. And this Wiki isn't even for the school.

BTW, Lake County, Indiana isn't in the South. Kalmia 11:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Individually? No. A "crime spree" by a group all of whom are alumni? Of an institution which prides itself on inculcating a strong moral code? Absolutely. Just zis Guy you know? 13:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. It is not notable when 2 out of 100,000 members of a church have committed burglarly. I believe every college would say they try instill a strong moral code in their students. I know lots of public and private universities that are not bible colleges that state just as much in their course catalogs and on their web pages. Vivaldi (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Links and Related issues

Please explain why we need links to every single one of their little ministry pieces and why we need things like who the 5th grade principal is? JoshuaZ 03:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's info related to the church. It's more relevant than some of the other things that Arbustoo insists on including. I deleted his scandal section because he keeps deleting my edits. Go ahead and leave the scandal section, but quit removing my edits.

I agree that the ministries section needs to be cleaned up, but quit removing it.

The Links at the bottom are relevant. Some of you insist on making this Wiki nothing but a scandal page.

Kalmia 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Add substance then. Adding a list of links is what WP:ISNOT. Arbusto 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• An "External Links" section at the bottom of a page is in keeping with the format of most Wiki pages. Kalmia 09:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• As long as it contains a few links to relevant sites. But when they are all links to the organisation's own programs and are available from the official website, it's unnecessary. Just zis Guy you know? 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing eye dog

If you are going to add "details" please cite them. Your edit contains claims that are not in the article you listed as a reference. Also I was not aware that the Disablities Act allows people with disablities (including their assistance animals) access to everywhere able-bodied people can go with the exception of the Hammond church. A reference on such a claim is needed. Arbusto 08:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• There you go again with your statist POV, defending unconstitutional laws like the Americans_with_Disabilities_Act. And if you say that it is constitutional, you obviously haven't read the Constitution or have no ability to understand it (like most American idiots).

First of all, NO, They are allowed to exclude dogs. Those buildings were built well before the Americans_with_Disabilities_Act and they are church buildings. Secondly, you show your stupidity when you cite the "Disablities Act" to claim that FBC should have been forced to allow dogs into their buildings in 1984. Kalmia 09:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong on the ADA date. Care to reference a 1984 or pre-1984 citation for the claim you added? Arbusto 09:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dogs are banned from most public buildings and almost all establishments selling food in the UK. Except for guide dogs, which are (in as far as I can tell) always excepted from any no dogs rule. Do you not think that standing on the letter of the law in order to exclude guide dogs reflects poorly on a church? A church banning guide dogs? I have never come across that from the humblest chapel to the great Cathedrals of England. Do you think St Peter has a "no dogs" sign at the pearly gates? I'm guessing not. Just zis Guy you know? 09:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know, and I don't really care. It is their property to use or misuse how they want. Is this still a rule at FBC? I don't know. I personaly don't want strange dogs around me. If I were there, it would probably have bothered me.

This was obviously an overblown story.Kalmia 09:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So you say, but I find it significant. I can't think of any comparable example of a church essentially barring a disabled person in this way. Since it is sourced and several editors think it is pertinent, it has a place in the article. Just zis Guy you know? 10:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• So leave the section, but my edit to it should stay too. I guess what you and Arbustoo find relevant stays, but what I find relevant gets reverted. Kalmia 11:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that there is a policy against dogs is implied, though. Why else make a fuss? Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there is a policy against dogs is implied, though. Why else make a fuss? Because that is what sells newspapers! Perhaps the guy had a history of all sorts of bad behaviour in the Church. There is nothing that was said by anyone at FCH that indicates that seeing eye dogs are in general banned from the church. Vivaldi (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps" is your uncited personal conspiracy theory. A church banning a blind man is notable enough for a article Arbusto 00:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Preying from the Pulpit on AFD

Since it's mentioned in this article, some may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Preying from the Pulpit. --Rob 08:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Preying from the Pulpit

• Merge I suggest that we merge the content of Preying_from_the_Pulpit to this article. In the AfD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Preying_from_the_Pulpit eight out of ten editors that commented on the article suggested that it be merged with this articule or deleted outright. Preying from the Pulpit is not notable enough to warrant its own article. The person who created the article cannot even tell us what channel, date, or time this show appeared on the air. Vivaldi (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You originally sought to delete the article, but now that is it still around you want it to disappear by merging it. User:Vivaldi's edits are strictly POV. For example, Vivaldi wrote at the Preying from the Pulpit AfD nomination: "It was a nightly news series from an unknown station, on an unknown date, at an unknown time." However, when the station name and other changes were added to tighten up the Hyles article, Vivaldi reverted these additions and again. Clearly, this user either didn't really believe not having the station's name was important or has failed to pay attention to what is being added. If its the former, this action demonstrates a user trying to white wash DOCUMENTED criticism or if it's the latter it demonstrates a user with a strong POV who cares little for the quality content. Vivaldi's merge vote is in bad faith either way. Arbusto 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You were advised to assume good faith by another admin. Please do so. 8 out 10 people said that we should get rid of this article. That seems like a clear consensus to me, but I am willing to let all the interested parties discuss the issue here. Perhaps you think that you and one other guy makes a consensus Arbustoo, but I'm not sure too many others feel the same way. Vivaldi (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I added references from four cities around the United States showing it mentioned outside of the Detroit broadcast and the Hammond community. Researchers outside of the Hammond church might find the article of use. Arbusto 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Eight out of ten editors have voted that we either merge the article or delete it outright. Two out of ten thought we should keep it. Clearly the consensus of editors is against keeping it as-is. A single nightly news broadcast is not a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Vivaldi (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

More bad faith by Vivaldi. This user is contacting users who voted delete. Note Vivaldi's comments are "you suggested that we delete the article ... can you please comment on the proposed merger of the article at..." Arbusto 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am one of those contacted by Vivaldi. Please, Arbustoo, remember to always assume good faith. Seeing Vivaldi's previous contributions, I don't think he is acting with bad faith. He is just checking if the article should be merged here by discussing in the talk page. He is bringing the different options that have appeared in the AFD under others' considerations.

My opinion is that, if the article was not deleted, it should stay and be cleaned up. Thus, I don't support Vivaldi in merging that article here, not because he is working behind the curtains, but because I don't really think it should be merged here. However, I repeat: assume good faith! -- ReyBrujo 02:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a little hard to assume faith when this user has constantly deleted my changes without giving reasons and has made personal attacks to me. Arbusto 02:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have written hours and hours of reasons explaining to you on talk pages why your deliberate efforts to use biased language in an article about Jack Hyles is innappropriate. I have removed numerous edits where you even mischaracterized the words of the sources cited so that the claims against Hyles seemed even worse than they were. Not a single reputable or reliable and verifiable source has accused Jack Hyles of any crimes EVER, but you have tried to make his article 90% about unproven allegations of a couple of malcontents, one of whom was fired by Hyles. Your edits show a clear bias and I'm confident than anyone who takes a gander at your edits will come to the same conclusion. Vivaldi (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's your personal bias on who is "reputable" and what you mean by "source." 1) Voyle Glover an attorney who worked for a prosecutors office was quoted by newsappears and appeared on TV interviews with his allegations. 2) Victor Nischik who worked for Hyles as an accountant claimed Hyles had a long time affair with Nischik's wife and Hyles' was doing financial misdeeds, as reported in newspapers and several years later Nischik's book. 3) Robert Sumner a former Hyles follower made allegetions published in newspapers. If you choose to believe or not believe these people I DON'T CARE. They are documented are part of the Hyles history and go in the article. Arbusto 03:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. No newspaper has ever accused Hyles of any misdeeds. Glover has never been published by anyone but himself! Nischik has never been published by anyone but himself. They are not professional researchers and they are not professional journalists. Not one single reputable or reliable source has ever accused Hyles of any misdeeds. Just because the paper documented that a unproven allegation was made, doesn't mean that it should appear in an encyclopedia article. And I DON'T CARE what you think about it either. All I care about is that the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages are followed and that the articles are consistently made better through the application of guidelines and policies. You have demonstrated that when left to yourself, you would have the Hyles article be 80% criticism of Hyles or more based on the comments of a couple of malcontents, when the man ran a 50 year ministry and he was loved by tens of thousands of followers. I am willing to leave in edits describing the "controversy" around Hyles, but they must be in proportion to the amount of credibility that they deserve. Since not a single professional researcher or journalist has ever accused Hyles of any misdeeds, let alone any crimes, it is inappropriate for an article about Hyles to be entirely consumed with these tabloid claims. Vivaldi (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

These claims are cited in reliable newspapers. Such as you attacking Glover, "The pamphlet, "Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case," written by Glover, delves into Texas-based evangelist Robert Sumner's allegations of moral laxity, doctrinal heresy and financial impropriety by Hyles.) Again in 1991 Glover's Fundamental Seduction is mentioned in the Times: "Glover wrote the book Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case, which was critical of Hyles' financial dealings with church funds". Cited criticism is included. Arbusto 03:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note my comments were made at 02:33 and Vivaldi's edits to recruit the delete votes was made at 02:22, 7 May 2006. Since my comments of 02:33 Vivaldi began contacting the rest of the voters at 02:37, 7 May 2006. Arbusto 02:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Likewise I corrected your statements as well when you claimed "people" hadn't attended the college, when really it was Hyles' BELIEF that one "person" hadn't. Later on there was a police investigation. You misatttibuted the quotes of the obituary making it seem like they cam from separate sources instead of the one, and among many other examples you removed the mention that a BLIND MAN WAS BANNED FROM THE CHURCH in this article. Arbusto

The police say otherwise. The Chicago Tribune writes "NO INVESTIGATION OF CHURCH IN ABUSE CASES, POLICE SAY" May 24, 1993. Even though Jack Hyles said he welcomed such an investigation, the police chief Capt. Bill Conner confirmed "There is no investigation of the First Baptist Church of Hammond or Jack Hyles". Vivaldi (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

However, while the FBI concluded "there is insufficient evidence to probe allegations," Sgt. Charles Hedinger, a Hammond police detective, described the investigation as "open-ended." Arbusto 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

But Sgt. Hedinger was corrected by his boss a few days later, when Capt. Bill Conner, chief of detectives, said "There is no investigation of the First Baptist Church of Hammond or Jack Hyles". Vivaldi (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The quotes came from seperate individuals. Vivaldi (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, but you got them from one source and should be presented that way. Arbusto 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

They all had the same source listed. Vivaldi (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Articles from different cities on the Preying article:
  • "Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union San Diego, Calif.: May 17, 1993. p. A.7
  • "Springs drive-by baptisms immersed in controversy." Bruce Finley, Denver Post Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Aug 22, 1993. pg. 7.C
  • "7 accused of abuse linked to preacher." The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Mich.: May 17, 1993. pg. B.2
  • "Hyles rally takes aim at accusers." Northwest Indiana Times. June 2, 1993 12:00 AM CDT
  • "Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," 'Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5" Arbusto 02:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Who cares? Hyles was never charged with a crime. The police said that neither he or his church were under investigation. And now you want to put it in an encyclopedia as fact. Your bias is showing through clearly Arbustoo.Vivaldi (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The sources show that this grabbed the attention outside the Hammond community, and also don't break apart my sentences and paragraphs. Arbusto 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• OK!!! Alright, looks like things are going a little back-and-forth up there. Anyway, after looking at the Preying from the Pulpit article, it seems to me that pretty much all the content from that article could easily be merged into the controversies section in this article. Is there any reason why we shouldn't do this? --Deville (Talk) 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The actual program refers to seven different churches around the country. While this particular church is mentioned as the common thread, as shown with various articles, it has significance outside this one church and individual. Some researchers might be interested in the program for those particular churches, such as the San Diego one, which is outside the scope of this article. And perhaps letting the article exist it will lead to others expanding it. It can always be merged down the road. Arbusto 08:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It can always be gotten rid of immediately as well. 8 out of 10 editors voted to get rid of the Preying from the Pulpit article. Vivaldi (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You just want to get rid of this article so bad. Arbusto 03:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to get rid of any article that doesn't rightly belong in an encyclopedia. This article does not belong here. Only one other person on Misplaced Pages agreed with you that this article should stay here. It is patently ridiculous to include such nonsense in an encyclopedia. Are we going to start making articles for every expose that appears on Extra! and 60 Minutes? It is just plain dumb. This article is dumb. This is no reason it should exist in an encyclodia. Vivaldi (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Two other girls allegedly molested at First Baptist Church of Hammond

The following was summarized and added to the article:

"Another state witness was a former security officer at the church, who testified he saw Ballenger fondle a young girl in 1978 or 1979 in a Sunday school room after being called to the room by a female teacher. He said he confronted Ballenger, who was in a "trancelike state" with his hand under the girl's dress."

"Three women said Thursday they were fondled by a Hammond church deacon who was convicted in March of molesting a 7-year-old girl in 1991 in a Sunday school class."

"The third victim, a 20-year-old woman from the Columbia Center public housing project in Hammond, told how she would ride a bus Sunday mornings to the First Baptist Sunday school, and that A.V. Ballenger was her driver. She described the church as "a good church" she enjoyed attending, and said she liked Ballenger. But she said there were several times when both were on the bus alone that he would run his hand inside her dress and fondle her private areas."

The testimony from two girls relating to Hammond is a part of the past. Arbusto 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Ballenger ever charged with molesting the "two other girls"? How can you say the other two "were molested". Did you witness it happening yourself? Vivaldi (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the source you would know that four girls (including the 7 year old), a church worker, and a former security guard testified at the trial. Arbusto 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you answer the question? Was Ballenger ever charged with molesting the "two other girls"? You are also now stating an outright lie. The other 3 girls did not testify at Ballenger's trial. Not only that but the word "trial" didn't even appear at all in the source you gave. Do you know why Ballenger was not ever charged with molesting the other girls? Vivaldi (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

1) No one said he was charged, but three girls including his niece testified they were molested by him (plus the church worker and security guard). 2) The words "testimony," "testified," "court," "hearing," "prosecution," "prosecutors," "witnesses," etc. all give the impression it has to do with a trial. 3) Do you know why the girls who testified were never charged with perjury? Arbusto 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)