Talk:Brother Jed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brother Jed article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Biography

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

South Dakota

	South Dakota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Columbia, Missouri Low‑importance

	This article is related to WikiProject Columbia, an attempt to write quality articles about the Missouri city of Columbia and the surrounding Metropolitan Area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Columbia, MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject Columbia, MissouriTemplate:WikiProject Columbia, MissouriColumbia, Missouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mizzou Low‑importance

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

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

Cindysmock (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Article and image cleanup

This articles layout has suddendly taken a turn for Livejournal. I've removed most of the inline pictures inserted by User:Jesse Morrell:

bro_jed.jpg
Here is a picture of one of his books: jedbook.jpg
pointing.jpg
police.jpg
prank.jpg
Here is a picture of speakers circle at Mizzou University: picjed.jpg

What's more, they are badly named. The only picture in the history of the Wikipedia called "police.jpg" is Brother Jed talking to a cop!? --Adamrush 16:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I'm shocked at the lack of any mention to any sort of controversy Brother Jed has caused in his preaching. No mention of his rather frequent racist or sexist remarks? I personally have seen him speak several times, and this article, at best, is incomplete, but frankly quite biased in ignoring the bigoted and inflamatory nature of Brother Jed's so called "confrontational" preaching. 24.161.183.72 20:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contribute to the article. Be advised, however, even if mr Smock would tell you a bunch of stuff in person that would be "original research" and thus not acceptable by the WikiPedia policy. It's without a doubt, however, that mr Smock is firmly planted outside the fold of christianity. --128.214.133.2 09:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw come on, original research? What about his classic explanation of sex using two electrical plugs (to demonstrate, naturally, how only the penis and vagina fit together, and that two penises don't. Although that's not how gay people have sex...). But seriously, what about catching him on camera? Is that original research?Rglong 04:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about his 1987 book, Gold in the Furnace: South Africa on Trial? As far as I can tell if it's either pro-apartheid or takes a position many would label as such. Obviously, my take on it is original research. But Smock's own words are a citable source, and there's got to be some criticism or reviews of this book out there, right? --216.45.228.131 (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Arentwethereyet[reply]

Pelagianism

Has there ever been a published counterpoint to the report of Brother Ned teaching Pelagianism? This article seems to have little critical aspect.Brian0324 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk show

Brother Jed and Cindy were also on Sally. [1] Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Ministry

Brother Jed's offical website states that he is based in Columbia, Missouri. Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been at FSU for the past several years. I have pictures to prove it. I realize that's OR, but Jed apparently hasn't updated his site recently (perhaps because he's been preaching at FSU for so long)⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure hes been at FSU. He tours around the nation in the fall and winter and preaches at the University of Missouri in spring and summer. The website was last updated in 06. I'm afraid pictures won't be enough as hes been to campus' all over the U.S. Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

I'm going to substantially edit this page, adding verifiable sources and removing biased point of view. I've created a page in my user space; feel free to contribute there. Also, leave any suggestions on my talk page. Thanks! JFlav 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions instead of citation-tags

A much better procedure is to identify those statements requiring citations. Material essential to understanding the subject has been deleted, much of it not requiring citation on a common sense view..."Brother Jed draws from many experiences in his early life while preaching" for example. Restored; please be specific about what you want cited. DavidOaks (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that. None were forthcoming, so I deleted the material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that citation-tagging is merely a courtesy, not a procedural necessity, so that even if I had failed to do this, you would have had no justification for restoring unsourced material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added citations, and Hrafn deleted them along with another wholesale edit. I'm going to try to recover at least some of that work...please examine the text before simply reverting, and insert the specific points at which you'd like citations. In fact, most of the material deleted was referenced to his autobiography. DavidOaks (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't delete any citations. Further I did not "simply revert" as my piecemeal deletion of that material should indicate. You are flagrantly and repeatedly violating WP:V. PLEASE DESIST! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites. And I should correct -- your deletions simply created an edit conflict when I attempted to save the cites-added version, wasting a lot of work. However, I protest the claim of violation of policy -- please reflect on what it means when a book is mentioned adjacent to a fact -- it's generally thought of as a reference. Desist yourself. DavidOaks (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fault is yours -- you restored the unsourced material without at the same time adding citations, in clear violation of WP:V. If legitimate re-removal of this material caused you an edit conflict, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. -- WP:V#Burden of evidence

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the legalism. And now for a word on behalf of common sense. For the benefit of those who would like to improve articles: it really helps to be as specific as possible regarding the fact that needs citing, rather than putting the tag on an entire paragraph. But sometimes paragraph level tags are appropriate. However, the use of paragraph-level tags should not, on a reasonable view, warrant deletion of paragraphs, but direct editors' attention to a general problem. On your logic, every article with a whole-article tag needs to be deleted after a week. Silly, huh? DavidOaks (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the baseless whining. When I found it, the article only had a single citation. In such a situation there is no point in being "as specific as possible" -- virtually the whole damn article needed citation! I templated & tagged and got ignored. Nobody wanted to "improve" the article by adding citations until I started deleting this unsourced material. You don't like it? Well tough! It's generally the only practical way to cut through the enormous swathes of unsourced pseudo-information that infest large areas of wikipedia. It is fully sanctioned by policy. So I have no qualms about doing it, particularly when the protesters generally don't get off their arses until faced with deletion of their precious sacred cows. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, you are absolutely right, and I apologize for impatience. Your tagging got the appropriate results. All the same, I think the {{Fact}} tag is in most cases more useful than the section tag, for a more specific guide to the particular items in need of cites. DavidOaks (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Claims and Fact Checking

Brother Jed claims to hold several degrees (including a graduate degree) in his autobiography; has anyone bothered to fact check this?

Also, has anyone bothered to check with Delta Upsilon Fraternity to see if he was ever actually a member? Mrbusta (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the job of encyclopedists. Borock (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lynch

It might be good to have some mention of Smock's former side-kick, Max W. Lynch (25 September 1929 – 24 August 2000). —SlamDiego_←T 11:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:RS for his involvement would be required first. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I could have inserted my own knowledge, but…. —SlamDiego_←T 02:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Citations

All claims which are sourced to Smock's autobiography are now specified in the text as such. I believe this solves the problem of needing third-party sources and justifies removing the tag. What do others think? DavidOaks (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objections....DavidOaks (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific attribution is probably irrelevant for that template -- but as less than half the material is now sourced from his autobio, removal of the template now seems reasonable. I am however concerned at how much of the article is sourced to student newspapers (which tend to be a fairly low-prestige source, of perhaps less than perfect editorial oversight) -- but as there's no specific template or policy for this (short of somebody coming along and challenging their reliability one by one), I'll just leave it as a comment here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from subject of this article

This is a response to the article that was posted in the mainspace, I deleted it in the mainspace and have copied it here. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Jed Smock:

I find Wikipedia to be a helpful and often reliable source of information. But the encyclopedia has done a hatchet job, including misquotes and innuendos, in my biography. Therefore, I am posting my response on facebook and on my website.

Wikipedia says, "Smock may be exaggerating or lying about his early years as many of his claims have not been substantiated. Smock claims to have taught history at the University of Wisconsin yet he cannot be found on the payroll records and has yet to comment on this issue. [3] He also claims to have done his master's thesis on 'the personal effects of smoking several joints of marijuana'[4]"

I commented on these insinuations on Wikipedia; but my comments were quickly deleted. I taught U.S. history in the 1969-70 academic year at what was then called Wisconsin State University, LaCrosse, which is now known at the University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse. Who actually checked these records? Are these records even available to the public? If the check was made at UW, Madison, they would not have my payroll record. If LaCrosse was checked perhaps their records are incomplete.

I received both my B.S. and M.S. from Indiana State University. My M.S. was in U.S. History. Later I worked on a second M.S. in College Student Personnel Work. I wrote the mentioned thesis for the Institute on Research into Human Behavior for which I was a graduate assistant. The Master's program did not require a Master's thesis for the completion of the degree. I did not complete the second M.S. in CSPW.

Wikipedia says, "on another occasion, he said "the only thing Mexicans contribute to society is burritos, and Jewish people are only good at making bagels and running banks."[9] He often shouts, "A masturbator today is a homosexual tomorrow."[9]"

The Arizona Daily misquoted me. If you will remove the words "only," you will have accurate quotes. My response was to a question as to what I think of Jews? The actual quote was intended as a humorous (tongue in cheek) response to someone whom I perceived was trying to make me out to be a bigot.

I went on to say, as I daily do, that the Jews gave us the Bible. And Jesus was Jewish as were all of his original disciples. We Christians consider ourselves to be spiritual descendants of the first Jew, Abraham.

Wikipedia says, "They are members of the United Methodist Church. However their actions, views, and theology are not indicative of the Methodist Church.[12]"

The footnote from the Houstonian actually reads, "Preaching under the title of the United Methodist Church, many in the Methodist denomination do not agree with Smock as they say his actions, views and theology are not a part of the foundations of the Methodist beliefs."

Although I am a member of a United Methodist Congregation, I have never claimed to be preaching under their title. Daily when asked about my church affiliation, I answer, “I am a Methodist, but I am not representing the United Methodist Church. I represent the Kingdom of God coming in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

Although many within the modern UMC do not agree with my methods and beliefs, my approach and faith are rooted in the foundational doctrines of Methodism. John Wesley, the primary founder of Methodism, is one of the main inspirations of my ministry. He preached in the open-air and he taught that one could live above sin.

I added the page ref to the conference-proceedings in which an investigator reports failure to find Smock in the payroll records at the institution named. I deleted the claim about his master's thesis on smoking marijuana, as that claim was not to be found at the ref given. DavidOaks (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Methodist Church

We had: "They are members of the United Methodist Church. However their actions, views, and theology are not indicative of the Methodist Church." I changed this to: "They are members of the United Methodist Church. However their actions, views, and theology are not indicative of that church."

The first version would imply to a reader not familiar with the United Methodist Church that Brother Jed's actions, views, and theology are indicative of the UMC, but not of the Methodist church movement more generally. As it turns out, one of the interesting things about Brother Jed's membership is that he is decidedly at odds with the UMC on many issues. The UMC is, in relative terms, a moderately liberal and quite mainstream Christian denomination.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, and heard from Brother Jed in person, I agree that your change does make the statement more accurate. Thanks for your contribution. BlueGold73 (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions?

Is there a source that lists the conversions (if there have been any) that have come from Jed's evangelism? That should be included imho Superbuttons (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brother Jed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120204102419/http://www.lsureveille.com:80/news/brother-jed-grabs-student-attention-with-controversial-evangelism-1.2693044 to http://www.lsureveille.com/news/brother-jed-grabs-student-attention-with-controversial-evangelism-1.2693044#.T1oKIvVm7hU

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brother Jed. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053951/http://microentertainment.net/?page_id=43 to http://microentertainment.net/?page_id=43

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brother Jed. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Alleged) Death, June 2022??

Recent edits indicate that Brother Jed Smock died yesterday (as I type this), June 6, 2022. However, I see no documented sources for this besides this article. Is it accurate? Even if it is, should this be removed until other sources documenting his passing can be found?
75.188.230.160 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed the lack of source (and that user making the edits has no other edits it seems). The source seems to be his wife via Facebook and TikTok where she is also an evangelist.

I would assume that an obituary will be published somewhere reliable within a week or so - not sure if it is preferable to remove until then or not. Jmul-11 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the TikTok video (https://www.tiktok.com/@sistercindyforreal/video/7106586007172336942), which seems reliable enough for me. (My concern was that this page might be at risk for vandalism, if there was no source for the news.)

75.188.230.160 (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add: cause of death. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]