Talk:First Family Church/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about First Family Church. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

To JKing72 - You need to read up on Wiki editing. Not all facts need to be mentioned to make the point - unless the intention is to tell a narrative instead of post an encyclopedic entry. Not every article, allegation, and linkable post are needed. Suffice to say that the church has seen controversial issues, but not every one with the subjective adjectives you chose.

For starters, the church is a church, not a "controversial church". It does indeed serve a community/population, so it is a church. It has seen controversy, and its pastor has been involved, the building itself is a church institution, not a controversial church. Had the church been built with some offensive or bizarre design, it would indeed be a controversial church.

The edits I used told of controversy and left the references - as you want it seen, it is a ledger of every act the journalist sees fit to write about.

Not placing the part about Johnston's advocacy against gay marriage - hence the beginnings of the consistent "controversial" articles - in the wiki article, is also not telling the full story of this "controversy" or the "controversial pastor" involved.

BigMommaHome (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First, who are you to tell me that I need to read up on Wiki editing? You've done as much posting as I have, unless you are hiding behind a false name. An encyclopedia is a collection of information, if the information is factual it is worthy of being on the page. Why are you seeking to hide factual information? The intention is for ALL the information to be available so that people can make their own informed decisions. The information I posted, and you are trying to have deleted violates non of wikipedia's policies. It is encyclopedic content, factual, cited and presented in a neutral manner. Your deletion of said information DOES violate policies and if you continue to delete information it could be considered vandalism.

You are VERY wrong. First Family is a VERY controversial church. It has sparked controversy over various issues. I call it a controversial church NOT because of the financial allegations, but because of the controversial activities it has participated in; that the CHURCH, it's members, and not just Jerry Johnston have participated in. The financial alegations are a controversy about the church, but not what makes it controversial. The building is but a building, the church is the body of believers led by a pastor. If the pastor leads it's body in controversial acitivites, which Jerry has, then it is a controversial church.

The articles that the Kansas City Star published, and that others reported online had nothing to do with any past activity that Jerry Johnston participated in. To state or imply otherwise is mere conjecture and certainly has no place in wikipedia. Why don't you investigate the issue personally before blindly defending this person? Perhaps you should speak to one of his previous lawyers, or auditors, or any number of persons he's left in his wake and find out for yourself what kind of person you're defending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKing72 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your continuous deleting of factual and cited information, and your addition of personal bias into the article is unwelcome in this open community. I'm beginning to think you must be a paid PR person, as a normal person would not out of the blue fight like you are the listing of factual information. The information I listed is presented in a neutral way, and unlike your edits leave the decision up to the end reader to make the determination as to the why behind the articles. I have NOT deleted any good or favorable beneficial information, only added additional controversial items and re-worded some items to reflect more accurately the information presented.

I am not asking you to stop updating the wiki, only to stop deleting the factual information that is being added. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKing72 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like someone with the initials PD. Lets just stop this Wiki nonsense please or it will go to the administrator level. BigMommaHome (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So now you resort to personal accusations on top of biased informations. I think we'll need to escalate this to the administrator level, due to YOUR nonsense. STOP re-writing in a biased manner. Wikipedia frowns on paid PR companies modifying their customers pages almost as much as they frown on the company itself modifying it's own page. The data is supposed to be neutral, your data is not, the data and updates I'm making are presented in a neutral manner and are all cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKing72 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Equally as much as it frowns upon people with personal involvement airing grievances. A contractor? How transparent is that? BigMommaHome (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal involvement in airing any grievances. Your continued personal attack will only serve to get you blocked, baned or worse, ignored. I am not who think I am, I am not a contractor and have never been a contractor for First Family Church. I am a concerned citizen of the body of Christ wanting to make sure all information is available to the body as a whole so that they can make their own decision. What is your motivation? Would you be concerned with First Family, heck would you even know about First Family were you not being paid? I can tell from your IP that you aren't even located in Kansas or Missouri so what are you doing being so adamant about First Family? What's your motive? JKing72 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

IP address? You're a funny one. Laptops travel my friend. I am a too a concerned parishioner who shares concerns where they ought to lie, but knows the difference between neutrality and bias. As I added nothing, merely edited some of what you believe to be the most important (egregious) information, I did not make this piece. I am only helping the article stay on point. Your persistence in making sure that every single article written by the KCS is added, in particular, those penned by the one reporter. BigMommaHome (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Laptops certianly travel, we'll just keep a watch on that. What's so funny about IP addresses? You do know that every IP address is logged at wikipedia don't you? I won't delve into personal matters, just mention it, but I seriously doubt you've ever joined a service in person at First Family Church. You didn't create the piece, but you did completely re-write the piece though, that's actually what got my attention, was the complete re-write. I'll also point out that I didn't ADD a single article, only used what you posted as references. I merely clarified the subjects of the articles to correct the inaccurate titles you listed. YOU listed the articles not I.

Keep in mind, that were it not for the controversial nature of First Family Church, it wouldn't meet the notability requirement to be included in Wikipedia. The church has done nothing of note that has not been controversial. Keep that in mind when you are editing the page. The point of the Wikipedia page is to detail the history and activities of First Family Church, neither to paint it in a positive or negative light. That is up to the readers to determine based off the factual, neutral evidence presented in the article.JKing72 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

JKing72 - So we agree. The piece is supposed to be neutral, so that readers can make their own decisions. The fact that it has been involved in controversy makes it notable. The fact that little has been raised to felonious charges or broader investigative matters, indicates that a lot of what is in here is just leading. Take the Texas polygamist compound matter - all of the hubbub and controversy and a court just sent all the kids back and very little no wrong has been proved - so, what merits being said? Keep the news out there so people can believe what they read regardless of actual proven facts? That's what an editorial is for, not Wikipedia. You and I may agree (I don't really know) on our thoughts about the Texas people, but that in it of itself does not merit consistent mention of unproven, un-prosecuted and perhaps, leading (misleading) information. Thanks for the dialogue. Also, being in the building, hearing services, talking to fellow church goers and actually paying attention to sermons or classes are two different things. I have to say that I am not good at the latter, never have been. BigMommaHome (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

BigMommaHome - Yes, we agree that the piece should be neutral, including both negative and positive factual information on the church as a whole. You know as well as I do that no legal institution can comment on an ongoing investigation. That doesn't change the fact that two investigations are on going, one by the KS Attorney General and one by the IRS, that makes it fact NOT leading information. It is notable that they are under investigation and that fact should be included. Comments are included on the investigation occurring, not on any possible charges, that would be conjecture, the investigation is not conjecture.

On the flip side, it's also notable that the church just sent 20+ people to Africa on a missions trip, and if I had more detail I would post that on the site, but I just know that they left Monday, I don't have any details. Perhaps the addition of a section titled "Outreach" to include the ways the church reaches out would be worthwhile. I am not here to lynch or persecute anyone, I know some good comes from First Family, but people also need to be aware of the negative information as well so that they can make an informed decision.JKing72 (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a POV template because several sections are written with a Christian POV, and from the POV of a parishioner of the church. Please use a neutral point of view when editing Wikipedia. -- Skylights76 (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture of Christian, Jeremy and Trey is NOT about the church, it's about personalities. This page is about the church. Feel free to post pictures of CHURCH activities, not "show off" pictures of certain people on staff at the church. The picture of the three men has nothing to do with First Family Church, it's activities or it's missions. If you have pictures of CHURCH events, please post them or even post a picture of the church building. Please refrain from posting pictures of individuals on a page dedicated to a body of Christ. Pictures should relate to the body as a whole, not individuals, especially famous individuals.

Allow me to make a recomendation of CHURCH activities, say the VBS that's going on now, or the welcome home events of the people coming back from Africa, ie anything that involves the BODY of believers, not individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.21.215.250 (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys must be running out of email addresses changing your names. We all know you work for 5WPR and that you are the hired lap dogs of First Family Church. If you are going to spew propaganda and unsubstantiated information why hide behind an anonymous screen name?

Anyway, please remember that THIS article is about First Family Church and NOT about Jerry Johnston. Information pertinent to First Family Church can be placed on this page, information that is ONLY about Jerry Johnston needs to go elsewhere. I suggest you start a page about Jerry Johnston if you feel he is notable enough to warrant an article.PandaBe (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos added are of the church, not the pastor. BigMommaHome (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

JKing72 (JKing72's edit) is using the argument, "I was there, trust me" as his reference. Maybe I don't understand Wikipedia rules, but can anyone just say, I was there? What if someone writes that he was there when Richard Nixon shot Kennedy, "trust me, I was right next to him...," do we trust it? No! Wiki is about documented proof, not trust and not whatever motivation an editor may have. BigMommaHome (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

BigMommaHome And by the same argument, can you say it's NOT from the crusade? Since you work for FFC, document where the picture came from. Why such a fuss over a single caption? Are you trying to present information in a biased (positive) fashion? I'm presenting accurate information. That shot is one taken by John Jordan during one of the Discover Life Kansas City Crusades. Why don't you just ask your employers, I know you are with 5WPR and they can confirm that it was taken during the crusade. Why are you fighting to incorrectly caption the picture? Wiki is about ACCURATE information and it is accurate saying it's a photo from the Crusade, it's inaccurate to simply say it's a "Worship Service" when we know what it actually is.JKing72 (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing. In your answer you reveal so much, including a seeming clairvoyance. You think you know me, but that's unimportant. Saying it's a prayer service is NPOV, saying its a crusade or whatever, is irrelevant. During a crusade you pray, you worship, you think of God. Why is it so important to you to make the point you wish? It's as if you have an agenda. You claim I want to whitewash, while all of your suggestions indicate that you want to paint a picture. What's with that? You think I'm with a firm, and I think you're someone who feels jaded by the church. So, who is right? Maybe we both are, maybe none. As long as edits are neutral point of view, it matters not who you are or me for that matter. When agendas fly, the truth comes out. BigMommaHome (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If I was jaded with the church, don't you think I would be deleting any positive information or adding negative information? All of my edits have been to add additional information to the article. All have been neutral. I haven't tried to delete or remove any of your other additions so what's your point? One thing though, you might want to look up on the net what Wikipedia thinks of PR firms posting on their clients pages. Oh, and where did I claim you want to whitewash?

The point I'm trying to make is a factual caption to a picture, ADDING information to the wiki page. That's what this wiki is all about, adding information. It would be like you posted a picture of a car and I corrected it to say it was a 1980 Mustang. It's additional pertinent information.

Though part of what you say is true, as long as edits are neutral point of view, they shouldn't be deleted, so why are you deleting my neutral POV edit? I came up with a compromise on the caption, let's see if for some reason you think it's not neutral. If you do, please detail why you think it's not a neutral edit.JKing72 (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful edit. BigMommaHome (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the report filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman, several accounts that have edited this article recently have been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Since such disruptive editing makes it difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate current consensus, editors in good standing should carefully check recent edits to insure this article complies with the polices of Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have tagged the article as requiring attention, and said tag should be removed after the article has been reviewed and, if necessary, corrected. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)