Jump to content

Talk:Doug Phillips (speaker)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion

[edit]

I will try to add some more information and notability refs to the article soon. Jehorn (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They had better be good ones because at the moment the article just says he is a preacher and preachers are ten-a-penny. – ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new source added worries me; it is highly critical, in parts specifically of Phillips, but I don't see a sensible way to mention it in the article without violating BLP & the quote picked from it isn't necessarily very representative of the source's point. It's actually a criticism, albeit drawn out. --Errant (chat!) 20:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information

[edit]

I disagree with part of this edit. I think the removal of the "Doug Phillips was a leader in the Christian film industry" part was good, but I disagree with removing the part of him starting the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival. The reference given may not be the best, but it does state "[Phillips] says he started the film festival five years ago when he realized that Christians were losing the hearts and minds of the young." The ref could be tagged with a "better source needed" tag, but I think it should stay. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but it really does need a better source other than him saying he started it! We need a reliable third party source first. Theroadislong (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True. But I think we should tag this source rather than removing it outright, until/unless a better source is actually found. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Self published"

[edit]

We would need a reliable source to say that Phillips' books are self-published. Being owner/director of a publishing company does not automatically mean an author's books are self-published. We would have lots of cases were editors and publishers write books, and we don't generally list those books as self-published. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is his company that published his own books, that is self published by definition and we have the sources. You would need to provide sources that he hired outside editors/reviewers and that they reviewed his book before publishing to remove the self-published moniker. Your assertion that he may have had editors is WP:SYNTH unless you have sources for that information. Lipsquid (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the definition - the definition at Self-publishing is "the publication of any book or other media by its author without the involvement of an established publisher." But VF was an established publisher. In any case, the onus is on you to provide a source for the statement that has been challenged. StAnselm (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could say that “He has written or edited the following books (published by his own company Vision Forum)”. Theroadislong (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, I just want factual material in the encyclopedia. Lipsquid (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal in first sentence

[edit]

I think this edit is a BLP violation - although it is in the source, putting it in the lead sentence is massively undue weight and unduly negative.

The edit summary says "lead missing major notability". It is true that when this page was nominated for deletion in 2011 there was no consensus, but it is still a long bow to say that this is what has made Phillips notable. In any case, we should discuss it here first as to whether this should be mentioned in the lead at all. StAnselm (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged sexual abuse is very well sourced and seems to be a major part of his notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a violation WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPCRIME, which disfavors inclusion of allegations of crimes without a conviction. Sexual abuse is a crime, whether or not the subject was arrested or charged. Even if I'm mistaken about BLP, incuding the matter in the lede is definitely undue weight. Under WP:BRD once contentious material is removed, it should not be re-inserted. Instead, discussion should take place on the talk page. The contentious material should, thereafter, only be re-inserted if there's a consensus on the talk page to do so. David in DC (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a specific exemption in WP:BLPCRIME for WP:WELLKNOWN which says "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Mr. Phillips doesn't deny it. Lipsquid (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly denies the allegations of sexual abuse: "Phillips denies all charges, calling them sensationalist and suggesting that they are motivated by a desire for financial gain." StAnselm (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Phillips fits the legal definition of a public figure (which is what WP uses), but I have added the denial to the article. StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added his admission to the article, seems well balanced now. Lipsquid (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no - that creates an imbalance, We had just mentioned the "inappropriate relationship" in the previous paragraph. Repeating it is undue weight. StAnselm (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, a girl made a claim and Mr. Phillips made a counter claim which was that he was not guilty of sexual abuse though he admits to inappropriate sexual contact, that is about as neutral to everyone as possible. Lipsquid (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a "girl", a 29-year-old woman. StAnselm (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She is 29 today and it has been over for a number of years, she became a nanny for them at 15. Nice try on twisting the truth. Lipsquid (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted a similar addition to the lead - although "sexual affair" is better than "sexual abuse", I don't think it belongs in the lead. Anyway, I don't the the phrase "sexual affair" occurs in any of the sources. @Lipsquid: perhaps you could start an RfC on this. StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see it is used once, but only in the negative: "[http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/pastor-accused-of-using-nanny-as-sex-object-2/ Gibbs said this was not a sexual affair between two consenting adults.]" StAnselm (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will change it to alleged sexual abuse then since that is what is sourced. This is a source you mentioned when talking aboiut biblical patriarchy [1] "The woman with whom Phillips confessed to an “inappropriate” relationship, named Lourdes Torres-Manteufel, filed suit in Bexar County, Texas, accusing the powerful Christian right leader of pushing her into a multi-year abusive relationship that allegedly featured frequent sexual assault. While the complaint never mentions sexual intercourse, it does claim that he repeatedly groped and masturbated on her while she protested." The inappropriate relationship is clearly with the nanny. Lipsquid (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with this article we have the additional issue of whether it belongs in the lead (and note David in DC's comment above that it should not be there for BLP reasons) as well as the connection to the closure of VF. As I've said (repeatedly) as Talk:Vision Forum, the organisation had already closed as a result of Phillips' admission - the allegations of sexual abuse did not come until several months later. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We already been to BLP board and they disagreed, the allegations of sexual abuse came after the woman's parents went to church leaders after they caught Phillips knocking on their daughter's window late at night, per sources. He was then removed from leadership and then VF closed. It is very clear in sources. Lipsquid (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But knocking on the window is not in itself sexual abuse. In any case, editors at the BLP board (and on this talk page) have indicated that in this article, it is not appropriate to mention it in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, your version of events is not in the sources. You just made it up. StAnselm (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally in the sources and I posted it at BLP, which is why they disagreed. You are the only person disagreeing with my edit. It seems there is no consensus to remove it. Just you WPO:OWN the article. I have asked for compromise edits and you refused. How about he allegedly masturbated on the girl while he told her his wife was going to die soon? [2] Lipsquid (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And just so we are clear on who makes things up. [3] "Then in January of 2013, after Phillips allegedly attempted a late-night visit to Torres family home (by knocking on her bedroom window), her parents brought the situation to the attention of the church elders. While in early 2013 Phillips was removed from authority in his church, he remained at the helm of Vision Forum Ministries" Parents went to church elders before VF was closed. You are incorrect on your facts.
Right, he was removed from leadership at his church, but not at Vision Forum. You said "the allegations of sexual abuse came after the woman's parents went to church leaders... He was then removed from leadership and then VF closed." But that's not in the source. The woman's parents went to church leaders, then he was removed from (church) leadership, then VF closed, then allegations of sexual abuse came. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense and is not in any source. Why was he removed from leadership if there was no allegation of groping and masturbating on the nanny which he called inappropriate contact and she called sexual abuse? Lipsquid (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's easy - it's still what Boerne Christian Assembly considered marital infidelity, and what Phillips admitted was inappropriate. I don't think Phillips has admitted to any details, but he has said it was all consensual. But you mentioned his knocking on the woman's window at night - that presumably would have been enough for them to remove him (I'm not sure if Phillips denies the visit or not - by itself, it certainly wouldn't constitute abuse.) I imagine that what Phillips meant by "inappropriate contact" was kissing, but I don't think any of the 2013 sources have any details (e.g. the first HuffPo article). I don't know what you mean by "not in any source" - it's in all the sources. E.g. HuffPo II here:
  • The woman's parents brought the situation to the attention of the church elders
  • Phillips is removed from authority in his church
  • Phillips makes a public confession of an inappropriate relationship
  • This led to his resignation
  • Vision Forum Inc. sells off its assets and closes its doors
  • A complaint then accuses Phillips of various sexual improprieties
I do note, however, that in her first article, Ingersoll speculated that there was stuff under the surface, since "powerful leaders do not resign over a flirtation." But that speculation does not belong here, of course. StAnselm (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(And of course, we have no way of knowing the content of the parents' complaint to the church.) StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have this sourced where? "I imagine that what Phillips meant by "inappropriate contact" was kissing". Unless when you say kissing you mean ejaculating on her stomach? This is starting to get funny. Do you seriously believe what you type? Do you have any sources at all for you kissing only assertion, I have a bunch for the masturbating. Lipsquid (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have any sources for "kissing" - that's why I said "I imagine" and why it isn't in the article - but your sources are only for allegedly masturbating, etc. StAnselm (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, you need to stop this edit warring. You never gained consensus for your proposed edit, and two editors have said that putting it in the lead is a BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have already been to the BLP noticeboard over this wording and the sources. where it was unanimously determined to NOT be a BLP violation. You should certainly get no BLP exemption. [4] Lipsquid (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the BLP noticeboard did not discuss the wording of your latest edit; in any case, it was suggested that "WP:BLPCRIME disfavors including allegations of crimes in biographies of living people without the allegation leading to a conviction." StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not suggested by the BLP reviewers, it was just another attempt at distraction AND many of my edits included no implication of crime, including the latest, yet you reverted it anyway. The BLP board unanimously found there to be no BLP violation. You WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Lipsquid (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've written on the Edit-warring noticeboard now, including this language in the lede of this fairly short BLP would be undue weight. The topic is covered (both the allegation and the subject's response) adequately in the "Controversy" section. This IS NOT a case of IDONTLIKEIT. It's a case of editors disagreeing in good faith about content. In a BLP, contentious matter is not re-inserted until a consensus is reached on the talk page. Consensus is not achieved with declarations that I'm right and you just don't like it. David in DC (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a synopsis of the article. A significant portion of the article, lets estimate it to be 33%, is dedicated to the interaction with the nanny. The nanny material especially when it includes language like "alleged" is not undue in the lead. WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Lipsquid (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we have a good faith disagreement. In this case about "most important". Beyond that WP:BLPLEAD suggests a somewhat different format and should be read in conjunction with WP:LEAD. And in conjunction with WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Biographies_of_living_persons, which quite specifically mentions considerations of undue weight.
Applying binary, toggle-switch decision-making to biographies of living people is ill-advised. There's rarely an answer that can be broken down into "yes, include it" or "no, don't". We need to apply adult, nuanced editorial judgment, and work collaboratively.
What we really need here is more than just the three of us. We've each stated our opinions fully and darned near exhaustively. We need other opinions, from thoughtful, careful, collaborative editors. But I imagine the tone of the posts here, on the Vision Forum talk page, and on the noticeboards makes sane people leery of expending their volunteer time in a debate that keeps coming back to "I'm right and you just DONTLIKEIT. David in DC (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position and I don't have a toggle switch position and am totally willing to find an adult and nuanced compromise. I am open to any verbiage mentioning it in the lead, it is a significant part of the article, it is certainly notable for the person. I am offering to mention the incident in any way other editors prefer and at least from StAnselm the answer is "No, there is no wording I accept". Who has a binary position? My last edit was about as neutral and non-controversial as it gets. "until he resigned after an inappropriate sexual relationship." nope still reverted. Lipsquid (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you think your latest edit was "about as neutral and non-controversial as it gets" makes me think you shouldn't be editing BLPs. The sexual nature of the relationship was merely something that was alleged in the lawsuit. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lipsquid, a few days ago I suggested you start an RfC on the issue. Is there any particular reason why you didn't do this? StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are a master at gaming the system, you win, congrats on WP:OWN. I deleted this article from my watchlist. Lipsquid (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doug Phillips. 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, 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) 05:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the lawsuit

[edit]

I've found a 2016 blog post on HomeschoolersAnonymous.org saying the case that the ex-nanny brought against Phillips was settled, but that there's a gag order - which means we're unlikely to find out the result. We've got nothing from a reliable source. I'll keep looking for a better source. Assistance would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - we're waiting for a reliable source. I emailed a journalist a while ago and requested follow-up. StAnselm (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime after this exchange, someone inserted information about a settlement without a source. I only noticed it today. I've copyedited the insertion and then "hidden" it with birds beaks and dashes. Please do not unhide without a source. In my view, a blog post is not enough. David in DC (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doug Phillips. 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) 03:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doug_Phillips_(speaker)&oldid=1203244640"