Talk:Prestonwood Baptist Church

message: I trimmed the section down to eliminate details that will have zero impact on the church itself.  I still think the entire section should go but the low-level details detract from the article as a whole so much they must go. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that you only "trimmed" details that I added.  I fail to see why his particular assignment within the church matters...if you were reporting on a McDonald's worker soliciting minors in his spare time, you probably wouldn't mention that the suspect primarily manned the fry machine while on duty.  Similarly, the man's date of hire has little to do with anything...I doubt that anyone would care whether the McDonald's fry guy was hired in April of 2007 or June of 2006.  On the other hand...the fact that Mr. Barron is being investigated for possible involvement with over a dozen other girls suggests that we may be dealing with a "serial" pedophile (which - I would think - would have a pretty serious "impact on the church itself"), rather than some poor guy that a made a "sinful" mistake like having an affair.  "Being investigated for similar crimes" could mean one or two others over a period of twenty years...quite a different scenario than the Dallas Morning News article seems to suggest.  I really do have to ask...what is your bent on this? Are you a member of this church?209.183.51.46 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he were a McDonald's worker other than a clown-mascot or children's-party-planner this would be immediately removed from McDonald's as totally irrelevant - I'd be willing to risk a WP:3RR block for the good of the article.  Likewise, if this were a layperson whose job did not relate to children I'd have yanked it and risked a block.  The only 2 reasons I haven't yanked it already are 1) you are the 3rd person to add it, so I'm giving some time for other editors to chime in and, coincidently, avoid 3RR sanction, and 2) he is a minister, and the allegations of moral turpitude have at least a slight relevant to his office.  It's not relevant enough to keep in this article but combined with 2 previous attempts to put up the material it is relevant enough to arrest my delete-on-sight/WP:NOT/WP:BLP attitude for this kind of material where it's not obviously relevant.  You do make some good comments with respect to what I left in.  If you were charged with the task writing no more than a paragraph about this incident that reflected the impact this is having on the church, without adding extraneous details, what would you write?  Forget I said "if," because as an editor, that is what both of us are charged with doing. My preference would of course be "nothing, unless there was an obvious major impact beyond the loss of a staff member" but I'm asking what you would write.  By the way, if I were a member of the church, I would have a conflict of interest and would have to be much more careful editing the article, no matter what my understanding of WP:Notability, WP:Encyclopedic, and other WP:* criteria are with respect to this section.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we're getting into a question of values here...I personally believe that "allegations of moral turpitude" have more than just a "slight" relevance to a minister's office.  Personal values have little place in an encyclopedia, though, which is why I respect your right to express a belief in the relative insignificance of this man's actions...but I'm not trying to censor you.  I would think that - at least, for the time being - the appropriate thing to do would be to err on the side of free-speech and free-press rights.  If - six months down the road - this story turns out be a completely insignificant blip on the radar, then...fine, take it down.  In the meantime, why not let the story develop a little more before rendering a verdict of "insignificant"? As to what I would write...I think the answer to that can pretty much be found in what I already wrote.  I might not have added the details about his particular job assignment or his date of hire, but I also don't think that they create any major problem.  I don't know if you added those details, but...if not, then somebody else apparently found them relevant.  Since they are factual and don't create any major problem, then why not leave them in? More information is not necessarily a bad thing.209.183.51.46 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Re: Unfamous people with their own articles:  If they are not WP:Notable, that's what WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:AfD are for.  Note that notability is a much lower threshold than fame.  In this case, we aren't talking about having his own article.  Given recent press statements by the church, I'm admitting I was wrong that he doesn't belong in this article at all.  However, the gory details that were in an edit yesterday have no place here unless those details have some particular long-term bearing on the church and that bearing is both encyclopedic and verifiable.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section trimmed

message: *Comment If one looks, it seems that attempts were made to create an article on Joe Barron a year ago (I found this while I was about to make a redirect). Could it be that he was seeking publicity? Let's do him the honor. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more than one Joe Barron out there who may want a Wikipedia page with his name on it.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an admin, I can view the deleted Joe Barron article, and it did not appear to be about this person.Edison (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously existing article

message: I disagree, but I'll leave that off for a few days in case events change and it does become encyclopedic for this article.  Other than the expected public statement from the church, and of course the loss of one of their ministry team, I haven't seen how this event impacts this church.  To put it another way:  Assuming this guy resigns quietly and the impact on the ministry is no more than if he resigned suddenly for any other reason, then either he should go or we should add the resignations for each and every other ordained minister formerly on the staff, because they would be equally relevant to this article.  Of course, we shouldn't do the latter, as it's not encyclopedic.
Here's how I see this playing out:  Within a month or two, probably sooner, we'll know what impact this will have on the church.  It will probably be nothing more than having to do some hand-wringing and hire a replacement.  We will also have some idea if this person's trial turns into a media circus sufficient to cause him to meet WP:Notability in his own right.  Based on this, the content will either go here, if it impacted the church, go in an article about this person, if he meets the notability criteria, or disappear from Wikipedia.  I'm expecting the latter.   davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: dvaidwr, you obviously haven't been unfortunate enough to be in a church where this happens.  It always, significantly effects the church.  I've already heard the comment "this just makes me not want to trust any ministers."  It has a huge, significant impact in a church; people will leave; trust will wean; and good things will happen as well. But my no means is it an insignificant occurance in the ministry or  history of the church. Doublet89 (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of unencyclopedic tag

message: An anonymous user removed the section yesterday and a registered user removed it today.  It's hard to know if this is one or two people, but in any case, it's clearly not unanimous that the text should be kept.  With that in mind, I think this should be re-visited in about a month, with heavy weight given to the verifiable, encyclopedic impact on the church.  If the church continues on "without missing a beat" then it's probably not encyclopedic.  If there is a visible impact on the church's mission, or if they make additional public statements, then keep it.  Another option is to go to WP:RFC and ask others to help decide if this content belongs.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   I can agree with revisiting after the impact is known- That being said the minister involved was one of the lowest on the totem pole and most members of the church probably couldn't have even identified him as a minister (pre-arrest), this is hardly encyclopedic.  Are we going to start chronicling all actions of Prestonwood's hundreds of employees?  --Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, now there is a roughly evenly divided opinion, so I'll leave it off.  If there is no discussion in the coming days I think that will be the very definition of consensus.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: One two three four I detect an edit war.  Not good. Seriously, can we freeze it for a day or two and discuss it?  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is a roughly divided opinion...go back and count the comments on each side.  I also don't think that a member of the church in question is exactly an unbiased observer.  I just don't understand what the rush is to sweep this incident under the proverbial rug.  Give it time, see where it goes...but in the meantime, leave it alone.  I think that locking the page would be appropriate at this point.  I know there's probably about as much chance of that happening as there is for pigs to fly...209.183.51.42 (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removed twice in last two days

message: I've been disappointed at the "gossipy" nature of the text surrounding the scandal.  Over the weekend the Dallas Morning News did an online editorial praising the church for its swift and open response to the crisis.  That reaction, rather than the arrest itself, is germane to this article.  I've rewritten the text accordingly.  I also put it at the bottom of the timeline.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought David's rewrite was good, and made two minor changes to clarify the act and Mr. Barron's position.Floridapeaches (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: this is a better wording and not as gossipy and I think we can agree--Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New try at scandal 

message: The details of the arrest are not encyclopedic to this article.  It would have made no difference if he didn't have condoms, or if he had a love letter or porn or something else titillating instead.  It makes no difference if he drive 300 miles or 30 or 3000.  The key facts are:  An ordained minister on staff committed a sexual sin which was also a felony and which indicated a mindset capable of committing offenses against children, that he resigned, and that the church didn't try to hide it.  Save the details for WikiNews.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, arrest details are important. It lends credability to the claim. The package of condoms are evidence of Barrons intentions. The quote from a newpaper editorial, IMO, is unencyclopedic because it is the writer opinion not fact. However, I'll stop inserting the details. I wasn't wanting to start an edit war. To be honest, I thought it was a little funny to link a church (that is probably for abstainence only education) with the article on condoms (which has realistic illustrations on how to put one on). I apollogize. Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. 67.141.90.157 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with 67.141.90.157.  While I am a Christian and do no want to see all this extra information about condoms I do think that an encyclopedia is collection of knowledge on subjects.  And, I don't think trying to hide things makes us look very good to those who aren't Christians. 
In the same way that we ask if a subject or person is noteworthy in order to have a wiki page, we must ask if the detailed information is noteworthy, and as anonymous wrote, factual in nature.  The fact that the condoms were extra large would not be noteworthy, but the miles driven, the condoms, and the camera all go to the case against Barron and are material, noteworthy, factual, and (can be) sourced.  The newspapers opinion is an opinion, not fact.  In fact, it is an opinion of what they THINK people at Prestonwood might be thinking.  It might be noteworthy, but it is not a fact, or anything known, so it can not be sourced.  We can only source the the thought that it might be fact.  I'm going to remove the opinion part, and may post the other facts as well, unless there is a good consensus about the opinion being good wiki, and the details being bad wiki, so to speak.  So speak up, or forever hold your piece!Romans9:11 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's a solution. Why can't one of the Prestonwood members write an article on Barron. They know about him and the details of his life. The arrest details can go there. The churches article will only need to link to Barrons article. This scandal has possibly made Barron notable enough to warrant his own article. BTW, If you search for Joe Barron it is redirected to this article. You should fix that, because it makes this article about Joe Barron too. Besides Barron is no longer faculty at this church. 67.141.93.199 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 00:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Still this article is about Joe Barron. If you type Joe Barron into the search box and click on Go, you will be directed to this article. That IMO needs to be fixed. Give him his own page with all the "gory" details in it. Just link to it. Like I said, this scandal probably has made him notable enough for his own article. The reason I first came to this article, was to find out more about Barron. When I first read this article, there was nothing about Barron, because it was being deleted over and over again. It's starting to look like you guys are wanting to hide the facts because it is embarrassing to your church. Information is the key here. Black collar crimes deserve to be handled factually. I believe that reporting such crimes factually will be a deterrant to it happening again. Sweeping it under the rug, does not help anyone. It most certaintly won't help any future victims. (It could have just as easily been a real girl in your church who was solicited instead of a cop 200 miles away. You guys got lucky.) I promise not to edit the article but I will comment on it here. 67.141.93.199 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about Joe Barron.  The redirect which causes "Joe Barron" to redirect here is because people looking for Joe Barron will find a little information about him here.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then fix the redirect. I'm not going to do anything to this page. But, as long as the redirect is there, you are going to get vandalism. If that redirect was not there, you wouldn't even be dealing with me. That is probably the cause of so much woe. The editorial comment is not inforamtive and it's speculative. I'd just take it out entirely and mention that Barron was arrested. If Barron had a page of his own then you could just link to it. Someone had to put the redirect in there. It just doesn't happen because this page mentions Barron. It probably was redirected when Barron was in good standing at Prestonworld. 162.40.172.235 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was redirected on May 19, 2008.  It's not unusual for names in the news to get articles or redirects at the time of the news.  In this case the person would have clearly failed AfD, so the person who created the redirect wisely chose not to go that route, and created a redirect instead.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: More history on the article:  An article by the same name was speedy-deleted twice before for lack of notability.  Here are the traffic statistics for the redirect for May and June.  Stats from January and February show zero, which can't be right.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The stats have to be zero for a time when my redirect didn't exist. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They stats should be non-zero during the short time in late January and early February that short-lived articles existed.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What if they were speedied in a few minutes? Or perhaps the pageview tool drops articles that have been deleted from its database? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are logical explanations.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest details removed 

message: The purpose of the quote was to show the impact of this incident on the church's perception in the larger community.  The church got out ahead of the incident, was open about it, and as a result, gained respect from at least one member of the press.  If there is a way of saying this without citing that particular article, then feel free to replace the text with something else that gets the point across.   davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of the DMN Editorial reference and quote 

message: I re-added the invisible WP:BLP warning so new editors won't go off and add stuff about Rev. Joe without putting in a good citation.  It happened once, it can happen again.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please leave invisible WP:BLP warning 

message: Right now we devote several lines to the recent arrest.  It's too early to tell, but in a few months we should know if that is too much space.  I'm going to tag it with an  tag so the article will be looked at again before Labor Day.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I may have inadvertantly contributed to the WP:UNDUE issues in cleaning up what was there, so if somebody wants to trim that section down preemptively, that is fine with me.  I just wanted to make sure the tone was encyclopedic and the sentences parseable (the "minister to married adults" in particular confused the hell out of me), and now that's done, feel free to choppy-choppy. -Jaysweet (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Johnb, I think what you have now is very good.  It states the controversy succinctly and neutrally.  As davidwr mentions, if this ends up being an enduring story, we can update the article to include more coverage (or, as you mention, even create a separate page).  But since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we shouldn't do that prematurely.  I like this version for now.  Good show! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight for arrest - maybe not now but in a few months 

message: I've added a headline and subheadlines for the Joe Barron section.  The section lacked balance on the communities reaction and it appeared to be a compilation of statements that didn't read like an encyclopedia.  All of the content, at this point, is sourced and balanced.  If you desire to add or delete anything from this section, please consider the notability/relevance and whether your addition or subtraction will make the section unbalanced.  In the future, if this section's notability and relevance to the churches history should subside, we can remove the sections and include a sentence or two, as the Bill Webber incident is.  But for now, this is still a current event, is still in progress, and the number of revisions, discussions, and edit warring that has happened suggest that this additional information to make the section balanced is needed.Romans9:11 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization,addition of headline and subheadlines, and added content for balance for Joe Barron scandal 

message: If edit wars resume, I intend to ask for PP for 3 days, followed by a few weeks of semi-protection.  I strongly encourage all anonymous editors to register now so they will be able to edit the article when it is semi-protected.  The 3 days will be long enough for new accounts to edit the article on the same terms as established editors, subject to 3RR sanctions and the like if they become necessary.
I sincerely hope the edit wars do not continue.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have semi-protected the page without you asking.  Toddst1 (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, Jesse.  209.183.51.45 (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intent to ask for PP if edit wars resume 

message: I have been asked why I removed John Barron's title, "minister to married adults."  The reason I did is because it was confusing to me.  Not being someone who frequents megachurches, I had no idea that was a job title.  I am not sure it is relevant anyway (seems like an unnecessary detail), but I am bringing it up here in case anyone else feels it should be included.  --Jaysweet (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason it was relevant is that it clearly indicated his job was not to minister to children or to the general church population:  He had a specific job to do, and that job did not involve direct ministry to children.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See, that's another part of why I originally removed it, is I thought there was sort of a hidden apologist implication, and I thought it was a bit insidiously pov.  But I dunno, I don't feel that strongly about it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Barron's title 

message: I have a question about copy editing on Prestonwood. In the first section (I think), the acreage and square miles, I wanted to add " " to prevent a bad line break, but it came up as a Template and showed up wrong in Preview. I'm not sure how to fix that. Also, some citations I couldn't research because my computer crashes on some websites and I didn't want to lose my changes, so I requested Citation instead of inserting the reference myself (sorry). (I am hoping to convert to a different computer soon.) Thank you :)  Dkon 12:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy editing questions (Wiki markup) 

message: Why is "A similar incident" addition in there - did I miss something? It seems to have nothing to do with Prestonwood story and has no citations. It also needs copy editing, but I didn't work on it because it appears unrelated to the specific Prestonwood topic and has no citations.   Dikonped (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it has nothing to do with Prestonwood, and is therefore completely tangential to the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrongdoing section 

message: This section has twice been removed with no comment, though it seems both well-cited and relevant to the article's subject to me:
::In June 1989, a youth music minister at Prestonwood Baptist Church, John Langworthy, admitted to church officials that he had molested at least one student in the late 1980s; he was quietly fired, but as Church Officials failed to report it to the authorities (as was required under the State Family Code), he was able to go on to become a youth music minister at Morrison Heights Baptist Church in Clinton, Mississippi.Shipp, Brett, Disturbing revelations about former Prestonwood ministerIngram, Ruth, Amy Smith's persistence brings justice in John Langworthy abuse case In March 2013, a decade-long church member, Chris Tynes, was ordered off church premises and reported to the police as a 'suspicious person' after asking about the Langworthy incident.Allen, Bob, Church calls cops on inquiring member
...would someone else weigh in on what they think?  Would one of the people who's removing it explain why they feel it should be removed?  --Aquillion (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not one of the removers, but I think it's probably because it's not really relevant, or places undue weight on the particular incident.  While the wfaa and clarionleger sites may be reliable sources, but I don't think apbnews would be considered as one.  There also seems to be an element of inference going on with the addition, which might be considered Original Research.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly as relevant as Joe Barron; a scandal that's covered in multiple major news outlets definitely qualifies.  I can see what you mean about possibly waiting on the Tynes scandal to see if it's picked up in any other places, but I don't see any inferences from including Langworthy alone, and it's clearly newsworthy.  (There is perhaps the conclusion that Langworthy was able to get another job working with children because Prestonwood failed to report him to authorities, but that's a conclusion drawn in both of the cited sources, so it's not original research.) Why do you think apbnews isn't a reliable source, though? --Aquillion (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

text: From what I can tell, apbnews looks like a number of religious "news" sites that is self-published w/o a professional editorial board or some sort of ombudsman function.  As for relevance, the anon user has a point, though with clear POV bias.  This really doesn't seem to be encyclopedic, and it probably runs into issues with undue weight.  If it were an article about Langworthy, it would probably be relevant, but it's an article about a huge church that Langworthy worked at 24 years ago.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Agreed Carter (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Langworthy's actions at the church, his removal, and the church's handling of them at the time (as revealed later) seem as relevant as the Joe Barron incident. Both involved persons in a position of power at the church. The Tynes incident, at this point, seems less worthy of inclusion. Carter (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  if the church as an organisation were not directly involved in these events, then I believe it should not be on this Wikipedia page. As mentioned before in there was a page for longworthy it would belong on there. If this was a more individual issue, it shouldn't be on this page. Yes and the ip I have been reverting is from the church. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 21:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that key to the allegation is the question of how the church handled the initial Langworthy incident. The WFAA report notes that the church fired Langworthy, but did not report him to the police. They also allegedly worked to discourage victims from going to the police. (http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/Disturbing-revelations-about-former-Prestonwood-minister-127284918.html) 21:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

text:  This clearly is an issue of conflicting views. I think it is best to get someone higher up involved. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 21:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

text:   As mentioned several times now, if this were a page for Langworthy this might make sense although it would still be alleged as he was only convicted for incidents in Mississippi. On this church page though it gives undue weight, contains all kinds of Original Research and is not neutral. There also seem to be some signs of tag teaming going on here which is worth watching. Dirkmavs (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Langworthy / Tynes scandal. 

message: The political advocacy section has been twice deleted by people who don't feel it's particularly relevant to the Church; one comment was that "Hundreds if not thousands of churches are involved in political advocacy."  While this is true, we cover it in their articles, when it becomes noteworthy enough to attract coverage from reliable sources; since it has here, I can't particularly see any good reason to exclude it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted again with the argument that "other churches don't have political advocacy sections."  This is not always true, of course; they have advocacy sections when their politics has received significant coverage in reliable sources.  Remember, whether or not other stuff exists is not itself always a useful argument, because different topics have different contexts -- you have to be willing to argue that the coverage here is not unusual (and therefore doesn't make this aspect noteworthy.  I don't feel that that's the case here; the coverage, in this case, is sufficient to justify a section devoted to it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political advocacy section 

message: I propose adding information related to Graham's alleged cover-up of sexual assault at Prestonwood Baptist in 1989. The following paragraph was previously removed with no explanation. I have since added more documentation and pasted it below.
:In May 2022, Guidepost Solutions released an independent report alleging that Dr. Graham "allowed an accused abuser of young boys to be dismissed quietly in 1989 without reporting the abuse to police. The accused abuser, John Langworthy, later was charged with abusing young boys in Mississippi in 2011."
Yayfrogs (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pretty well-sourced; I can't see any reason to omit it from the article. I'd also suggest reviewing some of the discussions above (especially seeing if we can find additional sources for stuff that was previously removed) - right now the article omits almost all coverage of the church. I'm especially concerned, in retrospect, that it seems like large amounts of material have been removed from this page by someone whose username suggests they have a WP:COI - if there's no objection I think I'm going to go back and restore the things they removed themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged cover-up of sexual misconduct