Talk:Jimmy Swaggart

message: I reverted this page to the last edit before 24.141.218.124 touched it. 24.141.218.124 has dumped extremely POV diatribes on the Wikipedia articles for several religious figures. Auric, you made a good attempt to drag it back towards NPOV, but the information simply isn't relevant and might be entirely incorrect. Brian Kendig 20:18, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Not in any English dictionary I checked.
: Fixed. ZsigE 02:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wraggling? 

message: This article is a bit shapeless, and the tone is not encyclopedic throughout, so I put a cleanup tag.  I'm a recovering wikiholic, so I don't really have time to do it myself, and I'm not very familiar with the subject matter. --Slashme 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: Did the scandals ever end him up in court? There's no mention of any criminal convictions in the article, just scandals, so I'm going to remove the Fraudster and American criminals categories. Jammycakes 20:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal/fraudster? 

message: I had reason to look at this article to try to find out something about Swaggart's actual ministry and the basis of his appeal. There is almost nothing there. Almost the entire article is about sex scandals etc. This may be gratifying in a way, but it really seems disproportionate. Metamagician3000 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, he has completely rebuilt his ministry, and is now broadcasting over TV, radio, and internet. There is no mention of any of this in the article. It does not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Malcolmst 12:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no fan of any public figure who decided he'd betray his wife and followers but not keeping his penis where it belongs, but this article roundly fails NPOV. All it really is is a section on controversies and criticisms; no real background, no history of accomplishments, no biography. Swaggart does have a autobiography, after all. A used copy is 25 cents. CyberAnth 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree. This article, slightly longer than the snail darter entry, is a joke and obviously little more than a battleground for people with axes to grind on both sides. One very reliable and pretty darn balanced source from a disinterested party was the biography "Swaggart" written by Anne Rowe Seaman in 1999. I thought it was, actually, one of the best biographies of a living person I'd read in years. It has nearly 40 pages of sourced notes in the back. I would start drawing from that but I won't waste my time if it's going to be blanked the minute I put it up. If so, the reverters should start cleaning house on every biography on WP, because very, very few have the ironclad, laboratory-tested, signs-and-fires-from-heaven verifiability that these people seem to want. What they really want, of course, is something much more subjective than they'll ever admit. And their notability test is purely subjective, too. At the height of his fame, Swaggart had hundreds of thousands of followers in dozens of countries. Thanks for denying the average web user a few innocuous facts (parents names, location of first pastorate, name of the bible college he started and still runs, etc.) to make your point. Make it somewhere else so others can actually make use of this article, okay? 12.206.73.113 04:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proportion?

message: Someone put in the middle name of LEE.  Can someone verify this? Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimmy '''Lee''' Swaggert

message: As stated in my 25 September 2006 response to "Proportion" I do not believe this article is from an NPOV perspective. As such, I have flagged the article with an NPOV-check. I believe there is much missing information about the current state of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, and as stated by Metamagician3000 in "Proportion", the article is almost entirely about sex scandals from almost 20 years ago. Help to add relevant information to bring this back to an NPOV perspective is necessary, and would be greatly appreciated. Malcolmst 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It seems that people keep trying to remove the prostitute controversy from the summary as if they are trying to hide it. This article definitely needs an NPOV check. BlakFlak (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I didn't get the watch his failed comeback to televangism on TBN, but I think it's worth mentioning by someone who knows more about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamstillhiro1112 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody should mention his failed tv comeback... 

message: I noticed this paragraph about the scandal, and it made me wonder how his original program was recorded.
"The story broke on February 20, 1988, four months after Swaggart had promised to confess his sin. On February 21, 1988, on his television show taped in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Swaggart tearfully confessed that he was guilty of an unspecified sin and made comparisons to himself and King David."
It either seems like the show could have been taped live, or that Swaggart knew it was about to come crashing down.
WAVY 10 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wa original show aired "live"? 

message: Anyone got a short explanation of what is meant by that (preferably with cite)? I'm pretty sure it isn't the Revelation of the Cross, as linked. Artw 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Revelation of the Cross" 

message: Unsurprisingly I disagree. 
Big chunks of "Jimmy Swaggart Ministries" obviously needed culling. Possibly there could be an article in that, but it would be hard to avoid just regurgitating chunks of the website. 
Jimmy Swaggart undoubtedly has a position in pop culture that is/was represented by the trivia section, but it was largely bumf.  
But your other edits... Hmm. Sorry. No. That's not "balance" or "decency", that's Politely pretending some stuff that undeniably did happen didn't, apparently for the sole intent of sparing the guys blushes.
This is not the  article it was when CyberAnth was blanking it - A lot of effort has been put into it to ensure that it isn't, and not just in the citing and fact checking of negative material - and I simply don't think WP:BLP can be used as a big stick to beat it into submission again. I'd definitely say that the article could do with more on Swaggart outside of the scandals: His folk singing career in particular could be expanded upon (and efforts have been made to find subject matter experts on that) however the guy has been involved in multiple scandals, and cited factual references to that in a neutral tone are an important part of the article. To pretend otherwise, or just include a single "representative" scandal  would be a lie by omission. I believe the way these documented matters’ of public record have been dealt with are fair and I am replacing those portions of the article. Artw 04:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response  

message: Let's do this properly. Both pros and antis, if you can be labelled that, present in this section the material you would like to include. Give a rationale for its inclusion and sources for every piece of it. We can then discuss it rationally and build a decent biography. Artw, I don't want to exclude the truth about Swaggart but I want a fair discussion of a whole life, not a focus on the bad. Grace Note 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But your not removing everything about the scandal, your removing EVERYTHING.--Iamstillhiro1112 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, I'm tempted to, but actually I haven't. Grace Note 03:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Dudette, by everything, I mean, you remove every addition to the article. Even ones that likely wouldn't be challanged by anyone. You are actually removing cited material now.--Iamstillhiro1112 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructing this biography 

message: Artw, here's how I feel about this article:
I am not going to take the time to edit and add to this article (as I did last week) only to have it sabotaged by someone who obviously has the feeling that they "own" the article.  On the web, be it Usenet, Wikipedia, or any other entity that allows the average public to contribute, self-perceived kings and kingdoms abound.  Wikipedia, it is now evident, is not excluded in this perception.  If grace note wants to have rule over the Jimmy Swaggart article, then I'm not going be the one to try and buck that tiger.  My intent in editing this article was to try and augment and balance out the article and grace note threw a tantrum.  I'm not interested in adults throwing childish tantrums, therefore, I'm no longer interested in editing this article.  If grace note decides to leave this article alone and move on to claim ownership over another article, then I might consider working on it again.  Until then, I've got better things to do.
As a side note:  One thing I have noticed in grace note's contribution history on Wikipedia is that (as far as I can see) he has never contributed anything constructive to Wikipedia; only criticism and policing.  Why?  Some people just have serious control issues, I suppose.
Ta-ta and happy editing! Kelly A. Siebecke 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just need to add some resources, then she won't have the justification to remove everything. I think alot of it deserves to stay, but I don't feel like finding the resources for you. And yes, I see Grace Note has been given warnings and such for deleting stuff she don't want to see.--Iamstillhiro1112 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Wikipedia certainly is more of a tabloid than a serious encyclopedia.  It has to be, because most of the good people with professional lives and real expertise are driven away by the rank-and-file amateurs here that run in packs, like Lord of the Flies. You can see my past efforts here to bring responsibility to this article.  But forget it.  What I regrettably believe is that the best thing that can happen for Wikipedia is that some group of parties, subjects of biographies, sue the project.  That's the only thng that will speak loud enough to bring systemic and fundamental change.  Meanwhile, allow me to suggest Citizendium.  --CyberAnth 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In order to sue wikipedia over thjsi article, wouldn't some element of it have to be untrue? Which element specifically do you see as being untrue? Artw 03:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Citizendium, BTW, has no Jimmy Swaggart article. Artw 03:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that Citizendium has no article on JS. However, you can be sure of two things: 1) if they did, editors would ensure it be a balanced, fair article; and, 2) if you persisted in making it not so, constables would have long ago banned you, unlike what has happened here.  ---CyberAnth 05:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The solution is very simple. You stub the article. As you can see, folk here in the past would have none of that. CyberAnth 05:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahem. I think yo're misrepresenting things slightly. The article DID get stubbed, and then the stub was expanded with new content with an emphasis on keeping it factual and finding sources for those facts. I think you're problem is that the facts didn't change. Artw 13:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's the other deal... 

message: Is mentioned by Frank Zappa on the Intro to Stinkfoot on Make a Jazz noise here (live).
    :And in at least 5 other songs (for example on The best band you never heard in your live and BroadWay the hard way).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.134.76 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not relevant. I'm a HUGE Zappa fan, but Swaggart was mentioned because his story was big news at the time, and it was a topic particularly close to Zappa's heart. If mention was made of everywhere Swaggart was spoken about circa 1988, the page would never end.Robbmonster (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  trivia 

message: I think it's well known that Swaggart openly attacked everything he deemed evil, but I was wondering about Swaggart's attacks on Larry Norman, Stryper (even though he pretty much converted them), and the Jesus Movement in general. I was wondering whether or not it should be in this article. I think it's notable enough to at least add a sentence or two about it, but rather than just add it myself (like the Wikidragon I am), I wanted to make sure others found it to be okay. IronCrow (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add this I would ask that you add some good sources as well. Artw (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes I know. But I had to ask first because there seemed to be alot of fuss about things within the article, and I didn't want to get in the middle of it. IronCrow (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Feel free to add/edit more. IronCrow (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swaggart and "Christian Rock" 

message: Where's the criticism section for this ignorant hypocrite? 63.225.247.123 (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I agree with your statement, you gotta be civil. The criticism is pretty much the whole article, as that is pretty much one of the few things most notable about him (besides the fact that he had what I would call a cult following). IronCrow (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I've tagged this article for checking because I have very little knowledge of the subject and I don't feel confident in addressing the problems.  The whole article seems to be completely out of balance, tilted towards over half the article on his scandals with prostitutes. If he became a full time preacher in 1958 as the article states, why is there so little information about the 30 years before his sex scandals? Surely he did something notable in all that time? 
I think the whole article is badly written and doesn't explain why these sex scandles are notable or even interesting, except to show the conclusion of his ministry. Specific lines which are both uncited and are not written from a NPOV are:
The song, which refers to Jimmy throughout as "Jimmy Sinner," ends with the repetitious line, "Miracle Man got busted," a fitting conclusion to the perceived hypocrisy that was Jimmy Swaggart's life.
Just because the word "perceived" is there doesn't make it NPOV. This whole section about Ozzy v Jimmy has no background to the conflict, or anything about why Swaggart was so opposed to Ozzy. The single sentence on it is not verified "Vehemently castigating Osbourne, Swaggart christened Osbourne as a satanist who ordered teenagers to accept Lucifer as their savior and/or to commit suicide." The rest of the paragraph is about Ozzy mocking Swaggart in his song. Which is a fair enough thing to have in the article, but it's unbalanced, even within the context of this paragraph.
Klytos (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV TAG =

message: This article is a jumbled up mess. Information is repeated in various forms, there is no orderly progression or flow. I tried to fix one little bit. Holford (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and can't believe what a jumbled mess this article has become.  I have attempted to clean it up some and Wikify it as well.  Will continue to do so over the next few days. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete mess

message: People keep trying to remove information about his prostitution controversy in the summary section, as if they are trying to hide the fact that this occurred. Please make sure a short summary about the controversy stays there, considering it is one of the main reasons why he is so well known in the mainstream. BlakFlak (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking a whack at this. Your version of the summary looks a bit short to me though. Perhaps a few more sentences on his ministry would bring it up to the length suggested per WP:LEAD. --Gimme danger (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The removal of such content has been an issue with this article for a couple of years now - I finally got tired of fighting it.  I agree that this information - no matter how uncomplimentary it is to Swaggart - needs to be included. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It was a huge turn of events in Swaggart's ministry, and I believe it should be there. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside of the USA, it is probably the *only* thing he is known for, so it certainly deserves to be in the lead. 59.101.33.190 (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of Prostitution Controversy in the Summary

message: Several times now, I've moved this image from the infobox to the section to which it is appropriate. One or more anonymous IPs keep pushing it to the infobox, and I've reverted each time. There's several reasons. First, the rationale for the image says "To display iconic image in relevant context" for the purpose. Having the image in the infobox does not place the image in the relevant context. Having it in the section titled "1988 scandal - Swaggart's confession and fallout" does. Second, Mr. Swaggart is still alive. Using a fair use image of him for depiction purposes (which is what infoboxes use images for) is entirely improper and proscribed by the Wikimedia Foundation (see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy #3). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of [[:File:Swaggart confession screenshot.png]] 

message: I'm sorry, this opening paragraph figure of "500 million viewers worldwide" sounds absurd. I've got doubts about the figure claiming 8 million US viewers - in the late 80's the US population was around 250 million, so this is 3.2% of the population watching a TV evangelist. But even if I accept that figure, in 1990 the world population was 5.2 billion, so 500 million implies that 10% of the world's population was watching Jimmy Swaggart, (despite the majority of them not being Christian and not speaking English). Very dubious. 59.101.33.190 (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 million people worldwide??? 

message: Hello
It is very unfair that there is no mention of the famous debate that was done between Jimmy Swaggart and Ahmad Deedat in 1986. This famous debate was 2 and a half hours, was also recorded and is widely spread online. More info can be found on the video itself, or here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_deedat#Debate_with_Jimmy_Swaggart
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_deedat#Debate_with_Jimmy_Swaggart
I Love Jimmy Swaggart.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.178.71 (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmad Deedat - Jimmy Swaggart Debate in 1986 

message: I removed a section saying Swaggart "pioneered" televangelism.  The referenced wiki article on televangelism doesn't mention Swaggart at all and makes it clear that many others preceded him, some quite successfully.  No sources are given to support a claim that he pioneered any aspect of televangelism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.212.162 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pioneered televangelism" 

message: I'm wondering why there is not a current picture of Jimmy Swaggart at the beginning of the article.  If someone can put one there, that would be great.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.155.21 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No current picture at the beginning of the article 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Jimmy Swaggart 2009.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: This article treats a polygraph test as some sort of absolute measure.
That is far from the truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph_test#Validity
I don't really think has any bearing on the scandal whether the lady in question passed or failed a polygraph test.
116.55.65.98 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes to her credibility, especially if there is or has been testimony or allegations to the contrary. It is not an absolute judge of whether either her story or Swaggart's was true. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polygraph test irrelevant 

message: The following is incorrect:
"Sun Records producer Sam Phillips wanted to start gospel line of music for the label (undoubtedly to remain in competition with RCA Victor and Columbia, who also had gospel lines) and wanted Swaggart for Sun as the label's first gospel artist. Swaggart's cousin Jerry Lee Lewis, who had previously signed with Sun, was reportedly making $20,000 per week at the time. Although the offer meant a promise for significant income for him and his family, Swaggart turned Phillips down, stating that he was called to preach the gospel."
Untrue, by Swaggart's own account.  He made one recording for Sun, "God Took Away My Yesterdays."  This is what that albumcover  looked like when Sam Phillips owned the copyright: http://www.amazon.com/Jimmy-Swaggart-Yesterdays-Vinyl-Record/dp/B009JGBSLG/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1362933690&sr=8-8&keywords=God+Took+Away+My+Yesterdays
Swaggart being the recording and broadcasting genius he is, that was the only time he let anyone else take control of his product.  Perhaps more research needs to be done???johncheverly 16:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you'd have to give a concrete source to rebut it. But, I didn't see anywhere on the link you gave that says Sun Records. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sent an email to JSM to try and clarify.johncheverly 22:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Phillips/Sun Records/God Took Away My Yesterdays 

message: Why is this even included in links Jimmy Swaggart's A Letter To My Catholic Friends ???  Swaggart has always been a Pentecostal/Full Gospel evangelist.  He is not only critical of Roman Catholics, but LDS, Second Adventists, Jehovah's Witness, and any other denomination that he feels teaches false doctrine, that is, not based on the Gospels or Scriptures.  Please refer to http://www.francesandfriends.com/category/false-doctrine/
Also, the site  http://www.fmh-child.org/FMHCCI.html is really a crackpot website that makes totally unsubstantiated allegations against Swaggart and others.  Such as, Swaggart was seeking out prostitutes 20--25 years ago because his wife Frances is a closet lesbian.  Even if it's true, and there is no evidence to substantiate it, why would it be relevant???
Finally, More time should be spent on Swaggart's latest endeavor, preaching "The Message of the Cross," which is essentially a reworking of Martin Luther's Theology of the Cross.johncheverly 20:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed external link. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  Now what about including Swaggarts "The Message of the Cross," which was an issue first raised in #12 above in 2007???  Please refer to http://www.jsm.org/message-cross.html johncheverly 21:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to add some info on that - with a source (preferably third party). --Musdan77 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And a third party is neccessary, why???  Swaggart is explaining the teaching emphasis of his Sonlife Broadcasting Network.  Would a third party be needed if the General Mills Website said, "We make breakfast cereals."???  I personally think that "The Message of the Cross" is just a Southern fried version of Martin Luther's Theology of the Cross.  But, that's what Swaggart and his broadcasting ministry is about right now.  So why not just come out and say it???  You had no problem with posting a link to a potentially libellous crackpot anti-Swaggart website, so what's your trouble with quoting Swaggart himself???johncheverly 04:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, calm down. I don't know what you're accusing me of. I thought we were "on the same side." I don't make the site rules. I'd suggest reading WP:PSTS. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed. 

message: In living color skit about Swaggart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAcvEAg9AHE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.151.34 (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in accordance with WP:IPCEXAMPLES. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we mention media criticism and parodies? 

message: Substituted at 19:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Jimmy Swaggart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsm.org/explore.cfm/tvprogramming/cablesatellites
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsm.org/explore.cfm/sonliferadio/programminglog
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502185329/http://sonlifetv.com/sonlife-radio/station-list/ to http://sonlifetv.com/sonlife-radio/station-list
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411090008/http://sonlifetv.com/sbn-tv-listing/satellites/ to http://sonlifetv.com/sbn-tv-listing/satellites/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I want to hear her sing. Ann Odom (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lauren Larson 

message: I know y'all think this is a big thing for us to consider and something that we should DEFINITELY hold a grudge against him for, but must we really include that junk in the second paragraph, right off the bat? Seems a little weird. This has been the wiki Ice Key. Thanks for reading. (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the scandals are a large part of what he is known for. A quick Google search shows that, after you remove wikis, the official JSM website, and social media, the top three results are: an article from Christianity Today about the prostitution scandal, a 1988 NYT article about him confessing and stepping down, and an obituary of Marvin Gorman that mostly focuses on how he exposed the Swaggart scandal. The search also features the following YouTube videos, in order, 2/3rds of which are about the prostition scandal: "Jimmy Swaggart And His Unfinished Business With The Prostitute", "Jimmy Swaggart confesses", "Jimmy Swaggart - Wasted Years", "Jimmy Swaggart New Ministry Scandal", "The prostitute who brought down Jimmy Swaggert interviewed", and "Jimmy Swaggart I have sinned". Given how much of his notability is for the scandal, omitting it from the lead of the article doesn't seem appropriate. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 16:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the response, this is very unfortunate. I understand Wikipedia's policies and with your info in mind, perhaps it is appropriate to put it at the top. This has been the wiki Ice Key. Thanks for reading. (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need the mention of his scandals be in the first section? 

message: Some bits are contradictory and appear to have been gathered at different times in history. It talks about the radio stations in the past tense, and as if it's not as big as it once was, when in reality it is a huge part of the ministry and is still growing. The Jimmy Swaggart Telecast no longer exists, now replaced by The Message of the Cross and the broadcasted Church services. Doesn't even talk about SBN on Roku. And doesn't mention that WEBC was renamed back to JSBC. Also, we can't say his role as a "Televangelist" came to an end, as SBN is the biggest multimedia ministry in the world. I could go on. Needs cleanup, but I'm not well-seasoned enough in the gathering of reliable sources to verify all the changes I'd make. IceKey8297 is awesome.[citation needed] 19:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: Gather sources and re-write the "Ministries" section 

message: God has forgiven Jimmy Swaggart who are we to Judge him..His music and sermons is so touching tears roll down your face he is a annointed and blessed servant of God. Will never stop listening to his preaching and music 41.198.136.163 (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 21:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  God has forgiven him who are we to Judge a blessed annointed man of God .Something happens when you listen to his music and sermons.  

message: Amen God bless 98.18.234.234 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy