Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Someone needs to go through and edit this article

In the description of the Church there is too much use of "we" and "our." The parts containing the "we" and "our" over and over sound like members of the ICOC that are writing that part of the article. I know some corrections were made but it still sounds biased and should not be in and unbiased encyclopedia article. I don't even know who the "we" and "our" are. I have highlighted a few ours and we in the following part of the article: Qewr4231 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio removed. Arcandam (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems with facts in the article

"The International Churches of Christ (typically abbreviated to ICOC) is a body of co-operating[7] non-denominational,[8] religiously conservative, and racially integrated[9] Christian congregations, an offshoot from the Mainline Churches of Christ.[10] This group is known for and has a long history of showing charity to the poor.[11][12][13][14][15] Nearly 2.5 million poor people are served each year through the ICOC volunteers and benevolent partner HOPE Worldwide [16][17]"

The part above that is in bold and italics can not be proven. It is not proven, and can not be proven, that "Nearly 2.5 million poor people are served each year through the ICOC volunteers and benevolent partner Hope Worldwide." Hope Worldwide is owned by the International Churches of Christ and this information has not been proven. Even the links connected to this so called fact are links to biased ICOC websites.

HOPEww is not owned by the ICOC, they are a section 21 company. They have independently audited finances and service reports. Independent auditors varify that they do serve 2.5 million disadvantaged people each year. If you have evidence to prove otherwise then produce it, otherwise do not remove verified information from this article. 00nuthinbutthetruth00 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We should make a seperate article about HOPEww. Arcandam (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam, you are welcome to do exactly that but since it is a Benevolent partner of the ICOC it is relevant to include it in an article such as this.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that HOPEww should be mentioned in this article too; we can describe it in more detail in its own article. Arcandam (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See HOPE worldwide. Arcandam (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The following section needs to be encyclopedic and not opinion based:

"The ICOC regards the New Testament of the Bible as the supreme authority on doctrine, ecclesiastical structure, and moral beliefs. They acknowledge the Old Testament as historically accurate and divinely inspired, and its principles as true and beneficial, but hold that its laws are not binding under the new covenant in Christ unless otherwise taught in the New Testament. Through holding that their doctrine is based on the Bible alone, and not on creeds and traditions, they claim the distinction of being "non-denominational". Members of the International Churches of Christ generally emphasize their intent to simply be part of the original church established by Jesus Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, which became evident on the Day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2. They believe that anyone who follows the plan of salvation as laid out in the scriptures is saved by the grace of God.[18][19][20][21]"

All of the links for this section go to ICOC websites. I have no way of knowing whether this information is true or not because all of the links go to ICOC owned and operated websites.

"The International Churches of Christ (typically abbreviated to ICOC) is a body of co-operating[7] non-denominational,[8] religiously conservative, and racially integrated[9] Christian congregations, an offshoot from the Mainline Churches of Christ.[10] This group is known for and has a long history of showing charity to the poor. [11][12][13][14][15] Nearly 2.5 million poor people are served each year through the ICOC volunteers and benevolent partner HOPE Worldwide [16][17]"

The part above in bold and italics, "This group is known for and has a long history of showing charity to the poor" is an opinion and not a fact. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It is removed. Arcandam (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Sometimes called the Boston Movement because of its early ties to the Boston Church of Christ,[25][26] it is a "remarkable but controversial"[27] restorationist Church which branched from the mainline Churches of Christ in the late 1980s under the leadership of Kip McKean.[28] Many of its members have nothing but praise for the church and the ways it has helped heal broken relationships, escape addictions and find a relationship with Jesus.[18][29][30]"

The part above in bold and italics, "Many of its members have nothing but praise for the church and the ways it has helped heal broken relationships, escape addictions and fine a relationship with Jesus." is not supported by the article's links. This is also opinion and not fact. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It is removed. Arcandam (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are direct quotes taken from members of the church and referenced as such. That is consistent with Wikipedia rules and is clearly stated as opinions of church members. 00nuthinbutthetruth00 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:ABOUTSELF & WP:COI. Thanks in advance, Arcandam (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"The International Churches of Christ (typically abbreviated to ICOC) is a body of co-operating[7] non-denominational,[8] religiously conservative, and racially integrated[9] Christian congregations, an offshoot from the Mainline Churches of Christ.[10]"

The part above in bold and italics, "The International Churches of Christ (typically abbreviated to ICOC) is a body of co-operating[7] non-denominational,[8] religiously conservative, and racially integrated[9] Christian congregations" is not fact and is not supported by the links provided. This is opinion. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article and included a source for the claim that they are co-operating. Which part(s) do you disagree with? Arcandam (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Some of the practices of the International Churches of Christ have drawn criticism. The primary sources of complaint are the high expectations that is, the high commitment expected of members in terms righteous living, although to be fair, every convert goes through sessions of Bible studies where the beliefs and practices of the church are explained in detail before anyone can place membership or join the church. The expectations of time and money, (There are both a Sunday service and a midweek bible study and members are asked to tithe to support the work of the church) are clearly explained upfront. One of the doctrines of the International Churches of Christ has been the "One True Church" doctrine (recognizing repentant disciples who are baptized as part of the one universal church). The International Churches of Christ teaches that a person is saved by grace through a personal faith and the power of God at the point of repentance and baptism by immersion, and that once baptized, you are added to God's heavenly kingdom, and to the church here on earth. They believe that anyone, anywhere in any church that follows the plan of salvation as laid out in the bible is saved."

The part of the article in bold and italics above contains opinions, " . . .although to be fair, every convert goes through sessions of Bible studies where the beliefs and practices of the church are explained in detail before anyone can place membership or join the church. The expectations of time and money, (There are both a Sunday service and a midweek bible study and members are asked to tithe to support the work of the church) are clearly explained upfront." This is clearly opinion and not fact. How do people outside the ICOC know whether each person that joins the ICOC has been told of the commitment before hand? How do people outside of the ICOC know whether or not each person that joins the ICOC goes through Bible Studies? This is not fact, but opinion unless otherwise proven to be fact. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the criticism-section should be rewritten by someone without a COI. I do not have enough spare time at the moment. Arcandam (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

"Remarkable and controversial"

Longstanding text in the Intro describes the article subject as "controversial", with a reference to a reliable source. User:JamieBrown2011 has changed this to read "remarkable and controversial", as the source does indeed put those words together. However, "controversial" is an objective description; you only need to observe that both strongly positive and strongly negative views of the article subject exist and you can see that the word applies. "Remarkable", on the other hand, is inescapably a value judgment (for example, while the article subject has some unique characteristics, I do not think it is particularly remarkable among Christian sects) and should not be given in WP's NPOV voice but tied to the person whose opinion it is.

One solution I suggested was to put the phrase "remarkable and controversial" in quotes, so as to identify it as someone's opinion rather than as verifiable fact in WP's NPOV voice, but User:JamieBrown2011 has reverted that also. I offer two suggested solutions, 1) use only the verifiable word "controversial" and eschew the opinion word "remarkable", or 2) put the phrase "remarkable and controversial" in quotes, to identify it as someone's opinion. I prefer #1 but am willing to compromise on #2. Please discuss rather than persistently reverting to your preferred version. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Charity to the poor

• This group is known for and has a long history of showing charity to the poor.
  • John, Appel. "Hunger Pains NorthCote". Philanthropist.
  • http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/550
  • http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/1741
  • https://www.hopeww.org/NetCommunity/SSLPage.aspx?pid=1924

I've noticed a lot of controversy at this article, but I haven't had the time to do a complete review of what's going on. Let me instead pick one short sentence which might serve as an example of one of the ways the article should be improved. The sentence asserts that the group is known for charity and that it has a long history of charity. But the sources do not support either assertion. None of the sources assert that the group is known for charity. Instead, they simply list individual charity events. Nor do the sources show evidence of a "long history" of such activities, the earliest event listed having been in 2008. Third, two of the sources are the ICOC website, and the other is not an objective source. We can't really use those as a basis for making assertions like this, even if they did support them directly. Based on these sources, a more reasonable sentence would be something like "The ICOC has held charitable events to raise money for various causes." Speaking generally, it's important that the text summarizes the sources correctly in a neutral fashion, and that ICOC sources are not used for self-serving claims.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Will. I have become concerned that the two primary users currently editing this article are more interested in positively portraying the article subject than in NPOV, and the concern you have just presented is just one example of that. They have accused me of a negative bias against the article subject, but if you look at our records you'll see that both these users have never edited any article other than this one, while I have a record of working towards NPOV on a variety of WP topics. I came across this page recently as I was carrying out a task that took me to most pages connected to the Restoration movement, noticed its unwarranted positive take on an organization that is in fact quite controversial, tried to restore some balance, and ran into difficulties with these users. Conversation has not been much use, and I'm not really sure where to go from here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Will, you hit the nail on the head. I removed that sentence. Arcandam (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That is not actually true. The 3rd reference is a video covering 20 years of charity to the poor. 00nuthinbutthetruth00 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

HOPEww is not the same thing as the ICOC. Please read WP:ABOUTSELF. We need reliable sources independent of the subject. Arcandam (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

When has it ever been proven that the ICOC ever gave money to any organizations outside of the ICOC? Sure there are articles put out by the ICOC that say Hope Worldwide and other ICOC charities do this and that, but that all comes from the ICOC and those organizations are run by the ICOC. When I was a member and leader in the ICOC I was always told that all of our tithes and offerings which are mandatory are given first to pay for ICOC expenses and then for benevolent work done through ICOC's Hope Worldwide. The leaders would show us pictures of lepers in India and Southeast Asia. While I agree that there are lepers in India and Southeast Asia; there was no factual evidence to support ICOC's Hope Worldwide of giving any money and/or resources to those lepers in India or Southeast Asia. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have to do more research but many members of the ICOC have been involved in AmeriCorps. I know several personally. Generally, congregation members contribute to such organizations outside the church directly from what I know. Why involve a middle man if there is no need? The ICOC no longer has a top down structure Qewr4231. You will need to look on a congregational basis if you want to find evidence of giving. For instance, North River has a partnership with a local Family Resource Center in Marietta, GA. North River also facilitates a neighborhood watch and work service weekends for the surrounding neighborhoods although you may be hard pressed to find documentation on it. Marietta Christian Church either runs or has a partnership with a local soup kitchen. I'm sure that Atlanta Metro Christian Church is affiliated with some local outside charities. With a bit of research you could likely find these things. I would find them for you but I am currently only taking a break from homework. Hope did relief work in Haiti after the earthquake by the way. I had friends who went on the hope mission team.

Will, that seems to be a rather fair change. I wouldn't understand why anyone would be unhappy with that. BlueMoonlet, you do seem to have a slight negative bias in my opinion (minute bias is relatively unavoidable though) but based on the comments of yours I've read I would imagine most of your changes would be rather fair. It may just be some of our members getting a tad overzealous or excited. I would imagine that it happens in any movement that has been looked upon largely with negativity by the outside world. I would like to contribute more than opinions on the soundness of articles but I'm afraid I can only offer my opinions and suggestions for directions of research for the time being. 168.28.180.30 (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (Brian Selph)

What do individual members of the ICOC being a part of Americorps have to do with any of the ICOC movements? Are you saying that the ICOC supports Americorps?? Does the ICOC give contribution money to Americorps?? I could be attending a church and also volunteering at a homeless shelter. This is not evidence that the church supports the homeless shelter that I volunteer at. Qewr4231 (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Brian Selph wrote: "For instance, North River has a partnership with a local Family Resource Center in Marietta, GA. North River also facilitates a neighborhood watch and work service weekends for the surrounding neighborhoods although you may be hard pressed to find documentation on it. Marietta Christian Church either runs or has a partnership with a local soup kitchen. I'm sure that Atlanta Metro Christian Church is affiliated with some local outside charities. With a bit of research you could likely find these things. I would find them for you but I am currently only taking a break from homework. Hope did relief work in Haiti after the earthquake by the way. I had friends who went on the hope mission team." I don't understand why you can't do the research and find evidence for these things. You brought these things to attention. Also I wasn't talking about churches in Georgia. I was talking about Hope Worldwide and lepers in India and Southeast Asia. Qewr4231 (talk)

File:ICOCHotNewsSmall.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ICOCHotNewsSmall.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files missing permission as of 16 January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

The sentence: "This group is known for and has a long history of showing charity to the poor" has 5 references. I am unable to access this webpage, even through archive.org. The rest of the references do not support the claim made in the article. Therefore I am going to remove the unsourced content. Arcandam (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence: "Nearly 2.5 million poor people are served each year through the ICOC volunteers and benevolent partner HOPE Worldwide" had references but they did not support the claim made in the article so I removed it. Arcandam (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit more cleaning. In the expansion section there are two similar sentences: "Once among the fastest-growing religious movements in the country, expansion of the mainline Churches of Christ had stagnated by 1970. The ICOC sought to reverse this." and "Once the fastest-growing Christian movement in the United States, membership growth slowed during the late 1990s. McKean was removed from Leadership in 2002 and Henry Kreite's letter of 2003 sparked internal reform and restructuring. Even so, the ICOC still boasts nearly 100,000 members in 160 nations around the world.". I think one of those sentences should be removed. Arcandam (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Rv by JamieBrown2011

User JamieBrown2011 reverted the cleanup, I would like to invite him to use this space to explain why. Arcandam (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Clean out" might be a better description of what you are doing. But what IS strange is to see what you remove and what you allow to remain. You allow referenced material from students who made presentations in a lecture. These are students taking a R133 class. No comments are made about whether the student passed or failed, did poor research or not. These are hardly reliable sources! Yet after nearly 50 edits on your behalf there they stand: WP:NOTRELIABLE http://web.archive.org/web/20080708035710/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs133/Resources/StudentPapers/present.html You allow a personal newsletter http://cnview.com/index.html WP:V You allow references and material from Rick A Ross even though he has a serious COI because his personal business relies on scaring people into paying him to 'exit counsel' people from churches. He has been convicted of violating peoples civil rights and child abduction and yet you allow his testimony to stand!!! I could go on but I think it is clear that you are NOT editing with a NPOV.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, why don't you help me clean up the unreliable sources? Its quite a lot of work (long article, many low quality sources). Please follow this link and edit the article according to policy. Arcandam (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I googled a bit; are you referring to the Jason Scott case? Scott was eighteen years old at the time of the abduction and thus legally an adult. Ross was acquitted in a January 1994 jury trial. Please explain what you are referring to, but be careful not to accuse people of stuff they did not do. The truth (as described in the Wikipedia article) is bad enough (emphasis mine): "The nine-member jury unanimously held the defendants liable for conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. In addition, the jury held that Ross and his associates (but not CAN) "intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." The case resulted in an award of $875,000 in compensatory damages and punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000 against CAN, $2,500,000 against Ross, and $250,000 against each of Ross's two accomplices.". Arcandam (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted that testimony written by an ex-member BTW. Arcandam (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Order

Please don't mess up the chronological order too much, it is very hard for readers to understand a story written by someone who owns a timemachine. Arcandam (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at other church Wikipedia articles (churches of Christ, Christian churches, Mormons etc...) "who they are" comes before their historical origins. I have kept the History consistent so no time machine needed.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all I have to say that this is a source of much confusion on Wikipedia. I think we can agree it would be nice if Wikipedia as a whole was a bit more consistent. I've seen a couple of cases where good-faithed editors tried to make a group of related articles consistent, and the end result was much WP:DRAMA. The problem is that there is no consensus what the best order for an article is. We have collected a couple of rules we more or less agree on on WP:MOS, but other than that most decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. I'll be the first to admit this leads to a somewhat chaotic situation, but I don't have a solution at the moment. Because of this chaos is the fact that article X uses a particular order not really a good reason for using the same order in article Y. A similar problem occurs in discussions about articles that are nominated for deletion; the fact an article about Pokemon X exists is not a good reason for saying Pokemon Y is notable.

A good long-term solution would be to have a discussion which results in a proposal that most of us can agree on using the consensus-building method. Please see WP:CONSENSUS for more detailed information. It may seem impossible to achieve consensus in some cases, sometimes there are people who refuse to co-operate. In that case we may have to exclude "spoilers" as a last resort. Usually that is not necessary.

Because of the fact that we don't have consensus about what "the correct way of doing things" is someone may suddenly decide the order used in the articles Churches of Christ, Christian churches and Mormons is wrong, and re-organize those articles. Another editor prefers the order he/she used in his/her favourite article and re-organizes all articles in that category. Then yet another editor comes along, notices the change on one article, and reverts it back to his/her preferred version. Even though they are all trying to make Wikipedia more consistent, the endresult is a big mess.

This is not my native language so unfortunately I cannot show you some examples (I don't know any on the English Wikipedia; if you want to you can ask an experienced user if he/she knows any examples) but I've seen a couple of similar situations and they all ended badly.

An easy way to check for "time-machine problems" is to simply write down all the years without the rest of the text in between them. If I start here the timeline in that revision in the sections "Boston Movement" and "McKean" is as follows: 1980s, 1982, 1986, 1981, 1980s, 1990s, 2000, 1972, 1979, 1990. The next section starts in 2001. Currently it is: 1860s, 1906, 1967, 1972, 1979, 1980s, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1980s, 1980s, 1988, 1994, 1990s, 1990, 1990s, 2000. It is almost impossible to have a perfect chronological order and a readable story at the same time so a little bit of "time travelling" is OK. I hope you like this cartoon.

In this case we can fix the problem you mentioned (quote: "who they are" comes before their historical origins) without re-ordering the article. I think the best solution is to expand the lead section. Arcandam (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ex-member Criticism

There is a Criticism section this article. It should contain legitimate criticism of the ICC, not straw-men easily dismissed by the church. On numerous occasions now I have inserted the following claim: "Ex-members complain of being brainwashed, emotionally, and sometimes even physically and sexually abused". To support this statement I cite two Web sites: Reveal.org and a forum of ICC ex-members. However, JamieBrown2011 keeps removing the statement. He first claimed that forums were not legitimate sources. First, I cite two sources, only one of which is an online forum. Second, an online forum of ex-members making claims against the ICC is a legitimate source for said criticisms. JamieBrown2011 then claimed that the links do not support the statement that "Ex-members complain of being brainwashed, emotionally, and sometimes even physically and sexually abused". But the sources most certainly do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nietzsche123 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nietzche123 It would be recommended that you read some of the Wikipedia policies so you can understand why some of your edits are being reverted. Maybe start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, You continue to revert my edits unjustifiably. Critics of the ICC refer to it as a 'cult' in an evaluative sense, as in a group that practices brainwashing. See my references to CultWatch and ApologeticsIndex call for examples. Ex-members criticize the ICC for brainwashing, emotional abuse, and sometimes even physical and sexual abuse. Cases can be found on the Reveal Web cite and the ex-member forum I cited earlier. Critics of the ICC also criticize the ICC's use of the "First Principles" Bible studies; see my citation at Reveal.org. It's important to maintain a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Reporting how critics like CultWatch and ApologeticsIndex criticize the ICC follows this policy. Just because critics accuse the ICC of brainwashing doesn't mean that the claim is true or even that brainwashing exists; it's simply adopting a neutral point of view.

Thus far, in the Criticism section of the entry, you've lacked any semblance of a neutral view. It's fine to include the ICC's response to criticism, but the response should be flagged as such, not misportrayed as ex-member criticism. You continually set up straw-men, not legitimate criticisms. When others enter legitimate criticism, you either delete it or edit to make it no longer critical. For instance, you deleted part of the quote from Christianity Today that read something like "although the church is among the fastest growing", "it's also among the most dangerous". You deleted the last bit. Clearly this portrays a lack of a neutral point of view. For another instance, your summary of the article from the Churches of Christ newspaper lacks neutrality. Rather than merely reporting what the article says, you endorse its findings; further, you inaccurately summarized it, drawing conclusions not found in the article. Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123

• Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not a gossip magazine or a soapbox. You may want to Read WP:SOAP for more clarity.
• The standards for an encyclopaedic material are ever so higher than the references you are providing. You continuously reference "Delphi forum" as your proof of your claims. Forums for people to rant about their pet hates, hurts or disagreements is an important way for people to vent but it is not widely regarded as encyclopaedic reference material. WP:SOURCES
• You also use as a repeated reference a website called 'Reveal'. This "self-published" website has no professional journalists vouching for the material produced, no editorial oversight, no accuracy checking mechanism, in fact their journalistic standards are so low they state:

"just send us in your story, and let REVEAL make it available in the online library. We only ask that you use your real name on your story. You are free to use pseudonyms for others in your story, provided you identify them as such, and in rare cases we may agree to post a pseudonymous story provided we know who you are."

— Found on Reveals website

Our ONLY requirement is that "you use your real name" or "we know who you are". Wow! No fact checking, no investigation into the accuracy of the claims. Not even BASIC journalistic standards being employed here! Which, curiously enough, you seem to deem worthy of putting into an Encyclopedia!

• WP:V might be a good read while you consider your sources.
• Finally, I know you have attacked me as being biased because I kept reverting your edits and encouraging you to read some of these Wikipedia policies, yet you are a WP:SPA and your only contribution so far to Wikipedia has been these "blog-worthy, gossip magazine" type edits about the ICOC. I hardly think you have shown a NPOV. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, as I stated above, you continually revert all of my edits, not just the ones regarding ex-member testimony. Critics of the ICC refer to it as a cult in an evaluative sense; see the citations to ApologeticsIndex and CultWatch for clarification. Critics of the ICC also complain of the Bible studies the ICC uses to recruit new members and maintain those who already are members; see David Anderson's study on the Reveal Web site.

Now, about testimonies regarding alleged abuse, it's something of a unique phenomenon. Think of the court room. Suppose a group of people, let's call them 'A', accuse another group, let's call them 'B', of abuse. In such a scenario, all the jury (or judge) has to go on is the testimony of A. All A needs to do is provide their real names so that the lawyers of B can attempt to discredit them. I admit that a Delphi forum by itself is insufficient for supporting the claim that ex-members state that the ICC brainwashed and abused them. But combined with the citation from Reveal, it's no longer insufficient. You correctly state that Reveal requires submissions to include real names; but who are you to say that they engage in no fact-checking? Do you know this for a fact? Or are you just inserting your opinion and presenting it as fact? This all being said, if you find the claim to be unjustified even with the Reveal citation, there's the book, The Boston Movement. Of its two authors, one is a reputable scholar. Both authors are available to verify the contents of the book. The book, amongst other things, discusses ex-member criticisms of the ICC. I'll include page number information later. If that's not good enough for you, then I don't know what is.

You're correct to note that I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm also a philosophy PhD candidate focusing, in part, on New Religious Movements like the ICC. That's why I'm currently focusing on the ICC and a few other articles on Wikipedia.

Lastly, I haven't "attacked" you for lacking a NPOV; rather, I've just stated a matter of fact. Nearly all of the (substantial) edits you make to the Criticism section of the ICC article portray a lack of NPOV. You unjustifiably remove quotations from Web sites critical of the ICC; not only that, you dumb them down and insert the church's response to ex-member criticism as ex-member criticism itself. You also just hack quotations in half, leaving the parts you like, deleting the parts you don't. You also mis-summarize articles, making it look as they make claims when in fact they don't. Moreover, you even endorse the findings found in articles you agree with. This clearly betrays a NPOV; our job is to report what people say, not endorse it. You also make broad generalizations, like " today it is difficult to make any generalizations about the organization collectively" without any semblance of a citation. This simply won't do. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 As a Phd student you should know better, quality research IS important. You should also know that the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusations. You must prove that fact checking was done, basic journalistic standards were employed. Especially when the accusations are extreme in nature. (sexual abuse) JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way the "ICC" now refers to Kip McKean's new group International Christian Churches The ICOC threw him out.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, you continue to only attempt to justify one of your many reverts of my edits. Now that you haven't even attempted to justify your reversions of my additions of how critics use 'cult' in an evaluative sense and how critics complain about the ICOC's use of the First Principles Bible studies, I will include them in the entry. Now, back to ex-member testimony. You continue to misunderstand the nature of how alleged abuse is handled in society and in the courtroom. That being said, I will refer to the published book, The Boston Movement to support the alleged abuse claims. The Reveal citation will also be included, mind you, but be of a secondary nature. Notice also how you don't even try to defend your edits against a COI charge. I'm going to be editing the Criticism section of the entry, ensuring that it has a NPOV; I suggest you maintain a NPOV in your edits. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" WP:V Unfortunately "Reveal" has ZERO evidence that they do any fact checking what-so-ever. As you know they offer to publish anything, anyone sends them, so until you provide some evidence that there is some basic journalistic standards being shown anything you reference from there will be removed.

JamieBrown2011, thank you for the references to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. But you're once again inserting your opinion about Reveal, claiming that they do no fact-checking without evidence to support your claim. Reveal requires the real names of authors who contribute. In my experience, the sources I have researched seem legitimate. Remember that Reveal is an organization of ICOC ex-members. References to them as sources of ex-member criticism are therefore legitimate so long as one doesn't endorse the references. But again, I accept your removal of the citation of them for ex-member criticism. What I do not accept, however, is the removal of the mention of criticisms of the First Principles Bible studies. Again, the analysis is done by David Anderson and happens to be found on Reveal's Web site. This meets Wikipedia's verifiability criterion and is therefore a legitimate source for such criticism. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I found another Web site that contains Anderson's analysis of the First Principles Bible studies: http://www.spiritwatch.org/Iccstract.pdf. Spiritwatch, from their "Who Are We?" page, is "a group of Christian believers concerned with the advance of spiritual and philosophical deception in the regions we live in". Spiritwatch goes on to list and provide biographies of their members (who are also apparently their only contributors). I can add this link the discussion of the First Principles studies, if you'd like. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 At first glance that looks much better as a sourceJamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the criticisms from Anderson about the ICOC's First Principles Bible studies using the Spiritwatch.org reference. I also want to discuss the following change by JamieBrown2011.

Before JamieBrown2011's edit, a portion of the Criticism section read as: "Ex-members complain of being brainwashed, emotionally, and sometimes physically and sexually abused by their "discipling" partners.[63]".

Due to JamieBrown2011's edit, it now reads as: "Ex-members complain of being brainwashed, emotionally, and sometimes physically and sexually abused by their "discipling" partners.[63] Every convert goes through sessions of Bible studies where the beliefs and practices of the church are explained in detail before anyone can place membership or join the church. The ICOC claims that the expectations of time and money (there are both a Sunday service and a midweek Bible study and members are asked to tithe to support the work of the church) are clearly explained upfront.[64]".

As I see it, my original bit has a NPOV: although ex-member criticisms are reported, they aren't endorsed. The first sentence of the added bit, however, seems to lack a NPOV: it not only reports that "[e]very convert goes through sessions of Bible studies [...]", it also seems to endorse it. I've added the phrase "The church regards these testimonies as erroneous, claiming that every convert [...]", which then follows JamieBrown2011's edit. I hope he finds this change agreeable. I want to report the church's response to the allegations, but not endorse the response. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I revised several edits by JamieBrown2011 of my edits. JamieBrown2011 incorrectly summarized the book, The Boston Movement. In it, one of the book's authors, Giambalvo, does not merely report that some ex-members have been brainwashed, emotionally abused, and sometimes even physically and sexually abused; rather, the book contains ex-members saying these very things; look up the page numbers I indicated. Once again JamieBrown2011 also incorrectly summarized The Christian Chronicle article, removing the fact that ICOC leaders state that they now admit to wrong-doing and are making amends. This is an important bit to keep in, especially given that this is a criticism section. These edits continue to suggests that JamieBrown2011 lacks a NPOV.

I also created a new sub-section, ICOC Response to Criticism, where the church may respond to criticism, changed around the flow of the article, and made some unsubstantial edits. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, the Criticism section of this article is a criticism section, not a place where church response to criticism gets paraded as legitimate criticism. This article should of course contain the church's response to the criticisms; but it should be its own section. The response section should contain church response to every criticism; but it should be in its own section, not the Criticism section. Moreover, the responses need to have citations; otherwise, they should be removed. I'm trying to find references for them, but cannot. If I still can't find references for them and a few days have past, I'll have to remove them. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The following bit is included in the Criticism section of this article.

Criticism has also come from inside the church; for example, Henry Kriete of the London Church of Christ has said during the McKean era of the 1980s and 1990s that his leadership style resulted in the London church: As ‘lead evangelists’, we have forced our administrators to ‘get in line’ or be ‘loyal to us’ – as plans and programs and pet projects are railroaded through. Administrators have admitted to deceit in the name of compliance. We have demanded monetary sacrifice from our members, but comparatively, it appears we have demanded little from ourselves. (Members and leaders are encouraged to tithe off of their income)

Notice that there's no citation. Now, unlike JamieBrown2011, I will not simply delete it. It needs a citation, and I'll try to find one. But if I can't, I would think it should be removed. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to JamieBrown2011, I will let the church's responses to criticisms stay in the Criticism section of this article. What I will not stand, however, is JamieBrown2011's continued hacking of quotes, inaccurately quoting and summarizing, and complete lack of a NPOV. If JamieBrown2011 continues in this manner I will request for outside comment; this is ridiculous. Also, as I said, church responses to criticisms need citation; without citation, they should be removed-Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You may need to make clear which responses you are having a problem with. The Al Baird response came directly from the same source that you quoted, all I did was take his response from the article quoted. There is an anger you have that may be distorting your perception.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, you know very well what parts of the Criticism section of this article require citation. I've indicated them as "citation needed". I've also told you several times now which parts of the Criticism section you continue to edit without any semblance of a NPOV. Once more, The Boston Movement's authors do not make allegations against the ICOC out of thin-air; rather, the book contains ex-member testimony alleging that the ICOC brainwashed, emotionally abused, and sometimes even physically sexually abused them. You should know that if you continue to edit the entry without a NPOV, I will make a request to Wikipedia for an outside comment. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I also returned the form of the section back to its original style of going from more universal and general criticisms to less common and more specific criticisms. It seems to me that this is the most natural and reasonable way to present the criticisms.-Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 (talk) You continue to attack me as not having a NPOV (15 times and counting now I think) and continue to ignore the issue of the material in the article. At least 5 times now you have placed a quote "the church regards these as erroneous" without any reference whatsoever. You are literally "making up" church responses. When I remove it you get angry and accuse me of lacking a NPOV.

• In the Christian Chronicle article you distort the response to say what you want it to say. I change it, you get angry and accuse me of not having a NPOV. I have placed specific quotes of what is ACTUALLY said in the article, hopefully that will settle the issue.
• Regarding the order and responses. It is perfectly normal to have accusation, then response. In the opening paragraph there is an accusation that the church distorts the teachings of the bible, I then place the response. You then insistently move the response to a seperate section where the accusation and response no longer connect. I move it back, you get upset and accuse me of editing without a NPOV.
• Also, you claim there are "universal" "General" and "more specific" criticisms. Yet each of the accusations are very specific. Accused of distorting the scriptures. SPECIFIC. Accused of being a cult. SPECIFIC. Accused of brainwashing people. SPECIFIC. Accused of sexual abuse. SPECIFIC. Your argument is not a justification for your continued change of the order and seperating accusations and responses.
• I place a response by Al Baird taken from the very same article you reference. You get angry, remove the quote saying "it is not sourced, its a distortion, its a hacked quote" then criticise me as not having a NPOV without EVEN reading the article YOU referenced. You attack first and then ask questions later. Your aggression is uncalled for!
• You attack saying that I do not show a "semblance of a NPOV" for placing edits like "it's hard to make generalisations about the ICOC", Yet you do not EVEN BOTHER to check that I was never the editor that placed that quote in the 1st place. A quick look on the History of this article will reveal that it is a long standing statement that was on this article long before I became an editor. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 (talk) While we are riding the NPOV bandwagon it is interesting to note that you are a WP:SPAJamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, thank you for your response. Yes, I continue to assert that your edits lack a NPOV. Notice that you didn't respond to my reasons for asserting that you lack a NPOV; you just presumed I'm wrong, or made up reasons for me. I'll again describe the actual reasons.

First, before I started editing the Criticism section of this article, it incorrectly cited both CultWatch (CW) and ApologeticsIndex (API). Both sites claim the ICOC to be a cult in an evaluative manner. CW claims the ICOC is a cult because, they, say, it employs brainwashing. API claims the ICOC is a cult because, they say, its doctrine is contrary to scripture. Before I edited the entry, the section made it look as though both CW and API merely used the term 'cult' in a descriptive context to say that the ICOC was different from the norm. After I edited the entry to reflect what CW and API think of the ICOC, you changed it back. You did this at least three times, without providing any justification for doing so. This weakens the criticisms that CW and API make, thus portraying the ICOC in a more positive light.

My second reason for claiming your edits lack a NPOV has to do with brainwashing. Critics commonly refer to the ICOC as a cult because they think the ICOC brainwashes its members. Before I started editing, the section made the criticisms much weaker than they are: it said that the complaints from ex-members were merely due to the fact that they couldn't handle the rigors of the ICOC. Now, this is an obvious church response to criticism being portrayed as authentic ex-member criticism. I don't just delete something I disagree with. So instead of deleting it, I labeled it as 'church response to criticism'. If it's not the church's response to criticism, then it should be removed, for clearly it's not ex-member criticism. I admit that I was wrong to cite a forum to support the charge that ex-members make against the ICOC. But you shouldn't just delete something you disagree with. Rather, note that it needs proper citation. And you still continue to edit the claim, weakening it unjustifiably. Ex-members report of being brainwashed, emotionally abused, and sometimes even physically and sexually abused by their "discipling" partners. The stories in the book support this claim. Notice how my phrasing is not agreeing that the ICOC brainwashes, etc; it's just describing the fact that ex-members complain in this fashion.

My third reason for stating that your edits lack a NPOV, concern quote hacking, deleting portions of quotes you disagree with. Twice now you hacked the following quote: "although the ICOC is "among the nation's newest and fastest growing movements", "it may also be among the most dangerous". You twice edited to say merely: "although the ICOC is "among the nation's newest and fastest growing movements". This is not merely dishonest, it's also ungrammatical. Now I'll address your points.

• I never accused you of lacking a NPOV merely because you remove the phrase "The church regards these testimonies as erroneous"; rather, I accuse you of lacking a NPOV because you delete cited ex-member criticism and replace it with a straw-man: saying that criticisms against the church amount to ex-members not being able to handle the rigors of the ICOC. Again, I didn't delete this; I introduced it as church response to criticism, which it surely is. Moreover, it needs to be cited, as I noted in the entry.

• The Christian Chronicle article contains the following:

"At that reunion — described as a first step toward healing — ICOC leaders apologized for the authoritarian discipling techniques and “judgmental elitism” that led many away from the movement and created friction with mainline churches."

And this: "Evertt Huffard, vice president and dean of Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tenn., attended the summit and said he witnessed a “humble spirit” among those present. "I saw a group who have learned from their mistakes and have tried to respond accordingly,” Huffard said. “My feeling is, if mainstream Churches of Christ were ever so open and honest about the mistakes of our past and responded accordingly, we’d be a healthier, growing church today.”"

This too: "Among the concerns the ICOC has attempted to address: Top-down hierarchy".

And lastly: "Aggressive discipling techniques: In the past, discipling partners sometimes exerted too much control and influence over converts, ICOC leaders acknowledge."

Now, the following represents an accurate summary of the article: "Church leaders admit that alleged criticisms did happen prior to 2003, but maintain that such practices have since been reformed or discontinued." You apparently disagree, since you've deleted it half a dozen times. Instead of merely deleting something, say where you think the summary is mistaken.

• I never accused of lacking an NPOV because you deleted the sub-section ICOC response to criticism that I created. I'm fine with having ICOC responses to criticism after each criticism. But I thought that maybe if I created the sub-section, you would stop editing the criticism section in a biased manner and instead focus on the response sub-section; I was clearly mistaken.

• I use 'universal' to mean more common and 'general' to mean less specific. Many ex-members complain of being brainwashed, etc, by the ICOC, making it a very universal criticism. It's also general because it's not a criticism directed against a particular ICOC practice or doctrine. Many ex-members also complain about the First Principles Bible studies. Although this is a less general, and therefore more specific criticism than the brainwashing charge, it's still more general than the sinner's prayer charge, which is a charge over a specific doctrine, not a set of doctrines as the First Principles are. Thus, to maintain this "logical" flow, the section should go from charges of brainwashing, to First Principles, to sinner's prayer, unless of course more universal and more general criticisms arise.

• I never accused you of lacking a NPOV because you added Al Baird's response to the cult charge. Again, my criticism is that you simply delete the accurate citations to CW and API, misportraying their criticisms of the ICOC, thereby weakening the criticisms. I don't remember deleting the Baird quote; if I did, I apologize. If I remember correctly, I added the phrase: "citation needed". I added this because you deleted the citation from the API claim; this made it look like you just moved the citation to the Baird quote. This, in turn, made it look like you didn't have a citation for it, and were just making it look as though it came from API. You're right to note that the quote does come from API; so it should of course stay. But it should be introduced as coming from an elder and current spokesman of the ICOC. The article from the Christian Chronicle tells me this about Baird, namely: that he's an elder and spokesman.

• The claim that one can't make generalizations about the ICOC appeared _after_ I started editing. Maybe you weren't the author of the quote. But your reverts of my edits continued to contain the generalization, uncited, and lacking any support.

• And yes, this is my first month editing for Wikipedia. Of course I only edit a few entries right now. I'm in the process of editing the happiness page, and petitioning for a new page on welfare or well-being. I currently write about my research interestes. Brainwashing, happiness, and welfare is the essence of my current project. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

The slow-motion edit war between Nietzsche123 (talk · contribs) & JamieBrown2011 (talk · contribs) is not appropriate. I have, therefore, protected the page against further editing for three days. Please work out your disagreements on this talk page. Try a request for outside comment if you need additional input. Edit-warring is not productive and can result in account blocks. — Scientizzle 16:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Scientizzle (talk · contribs), I did not intend for my edits to be counterproductive. I admit that some of them were made merely because I was angry at JamieBrown2011 (talk · contribs) for reverting all of my edits. An example of this is removing a photograph from the Criticism section. For such edits I apologize. But I made the overwhelming majority of my edits to better introduce a NPOV to the Criticism section of this entry. As the talk page suggests, much of this entry seems to have lacked a NPOV over the years. My edits are intended to portray actual criticisms of the ICC. The criticisms aren't endorsed, of course; that would violate the NPOV policy. But such criticisms should be displayed nonetheless. JamieBrown2011 (talk · contribs) continually dumbs down the criticisms; worse yet, he portrays ICC response to criticism as the actual criticisms of ex-members.Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

See my response above explaining my reverts of your edits. I am happy for properly sourced material to stand, just not the low quality stuff you are putting up insistently without reading Wikipedia policies. I know you are new to Wikipedia, I am a relative newbie myself, and it takes a while to learn the ropes.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, yes, I'm new to Wikipedia. Yes, use of the Delphi forum by itself is an insufficient citation; I'll give you that. But you continually revert all of my edits, not just that one. What's going on here isn't explained by my just joining Wikipedia. As I explained above, you reverts of my edits portray a clear lack of NPOV. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted all your edits because you insisted on using such low quality sources, and refused to read the WP policies I was directing you to. I admit some wheat may have been removed along with all the chaff, for that I apologise. Use proper references, that pass the test of WP:V and I am happy to let your edits stand. Continue to treat Wikipedia like Facebook and we will continue to have problems.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, your statement is simply false. One of my numerous edits included a link to a Delphi forum as a citation. It also included a link to an organization of ex-members of the ICOC, Reveal. Despite your criticisms to the contrary, it's a verifiable source. But even if you still aren't satisfied, I'm adding the use of a published text as well. Don't revert edits you simply disagree with; this involves maintaining a NPOV. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 If your material is according to the WP:V I will not interfere with it.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, your edits continue to portray a lack of NPOV. Although you're wrong in claiming that Reveal violates Wikipedia's verifiability criterion for citations WP:V, I'll accept your deletion of the organization as a source for the claim of brainwashing and abuse; but I will not accept your deletion of the mention of critics of the ICOC's Bible studies, the First Principles. The source is verifiable: David Anderson. He's the author of the analysis of the First Principles. His analysis happens to be found on Reveal's Web site. Don't dismiss something just because you disagree with it.

I'm fine with including an article from a newspaper of the COC to provide evidence that the ICOC is now making changes. But the article makes it explicitly clear that ICOC leaders admit to past wrong-doing and now claim to be trying to make amends. This is important information to have in the Criticism section of the ICOC. Again, don't delete something just because you disagree with it.

I've also flagged ICOC response to criticism from ex-members as ICOC response to said criticism. You continue to set up straw-men, presenting ICOC response to criticism as ex-members criticism, when it is not.

Lastly, I changed the order of the section to where it was before I started editing, from more universal and general to less common and more specific. Your mention of the controversy over the "sinner's prayer", is, I think, important. But being that it's a less general and more specific criticism than the allegations of brainwashing and abuse of ex-members, criticism of the ICOC's Bible studies, and criticism the church receives from the media, I've moved it to closer to the end of the article. This is not to imply that it's less important than the above criticisms, it's just a less common and more specific claim than the others. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This section flips and flops between doctrinal issues and behavioural. By grouping the doctrinal together and behavioral together it is much easier to followJamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Singapore High Court Ruling

JamieBrown2011 added the mention of a Singapore High Court Ruling that ruled a newspaper's use of the term 'cult' in its headline against the Central Christian Church, an ICOC church in Singapore, was unjustified. Although it stated that the paper failed to provide a justification for its use of the term 'cult', the Court had some things to say about the CCC itself. I included a relevant paragraph from their ruling. I could not, however, find mention of the court saying that the CCC is "not a cult", nor could I find "it is a stretch of the imagination to think otherwise", both of which were added by JamieBrown2011. I flagged both quotes as needing citation. If citation can't be found for them, obviously, they should be removed. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I also cannot find a citation for another paragraph JamieBrown2011 alleges is from the court case. I've marked the paragraph as needing citation. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Since writing the above, I've learned that the ICOC commonly misportrays the Singapore High Court ruling regarding the CCC and The New Paper, making it look as though the judge of the case says things he in fact did not say. (Check out http://www.tolc.org/singvic.htm, http://www.ccgm.org.au/index.php?g=articles&a=0021, and http://www.ccgm.org.au/articlepdf/0021.pdf for evidence.) It so happens that the three made-up quotations the ICOC commonly uses have been inserted by JamieBrown2011. The three made-up quotations are as follows. Nowhere in the ruling does the judge declare that the ICOC (or the CCC) is "not a cult". Nor does the ruling say that "it is a stretch of the imagination to think otherwise". Before my last edit, JamieBrown2011 used both made-up quotations to support ICOC elder and spokesman Al Baird's position that the ICOC is not a cult. This is clearly dishonest on the part of JamieBrown2011. The last made-up quotation is the following paragraph.

"CCC are a very religious group - indeed extremely religious - making very heavy demands on their members in terms of time and commitments, and through the system of discipleship retain a firm hold on or control over their members, jealously guarding them against any outside influence. As a result of the heavy commitments, the members would inevitably be isolated from their families, relatives and friends. CCC carry out very intensive recruitment exercises at every turn with their members evangelizing, making contact with people, inviting them to join their church and seeking to convert them. They are somewhat bigoted in their beliefs and doctrines, and consider that their church is the only true one and their way is the only way to salvation. For that reason they refuse to recognize baptism conducted by other churches, except those churches within their own group. We find that none of their teachings and practices could or would be considered by the ordinary man in Singapore as abhorrent or harmful to society. The ordinary man may find that some of their teachings and practices rather disagreeable and would probably not commend them to anyone but would not consider that they are abhorrent or harmful to society".

Now, this large quote does contain many things the judge did in fact say. It just also includes some things the judge did not in fact say. It also just lumps it all together, making it look as though the judge was pretty favorable to the ICOC.

Given the above evidence, I've removed all three made-up quotations. If JamieBrown2011 would like to add parts of the third misquote, that's fine; it just needs to be actual quotes, not made up. Of course, this all provides further evidence that JamieBrown2011 lacks a NPOV. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 (talk) You are really funny! Paragraph 35 of the court ruling was pulled out word for word out. That is what I quoted. If you had read the thing you would have seen it stated in Black and White. To say that I made that up is truly hilarious. Anybody can read it and see for themselves. By making this a personal attack against me you simply discredit yourself.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, thank you for your response. Again, notice that you only respond to a part of my criticisms of your edit, in this case you missed two of the three criticisms. To repeat, you made up two quotations and then made it look as though the ruling exonerated the entire ICOC when the ruling at beast exonerates the CCC. Now, the large paragraph you quoted was most certainly NOT pulled "word for word" from the ruling. To repeat, nowhere in the ruling does that entire paragraph lie. What it does is pick out many of the words the ruling has, adds some that aren't there, and then groups them all together. Stating the fact that your edits lack a NPOV with supporting evidence is NOT a personal attack. If you want people to stop declaring your edits as biased, start editing in a non-biased fashion. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The use of primary sources such as a court document are very much discouraged as likely leading to original reasearch, commentary and synthesis. Also, such documents posted anywhere other than on the courts own website or some other site with impecable reputation would be completely inappropriate to use. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Boston Globe Article

Please provide a link to the summary of the ICOC article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:SPS or WP:V is such a requirement made. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You may need to read your policies again

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1]

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Business News

Please provide a link to the Business News article? Something posted on someone's blog/SPS claiming to come from a Newspaper with no direct link does not pass WP:VJamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, nowhere in WP:SPS or WP:V is such a requirement made. The citation is directly to the newspaper. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But not to the article you are referencing. You don't think that might be important???JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

LCC Bribery Controversy

In 1996 the London Newspaper the Sunday Business News ran an article critical of the London Church of Christ (LCC), a part of the ICOC. The only place online that has the entire article is a page owned by exit-counselor and cult critic Rick Ross. The page is merely the newspaper article. JamieBrown2011 deleted mention of the article from Wikipedia because "Rick Ross does not pass the WP:V". Now this is misleading, at best. The paragraph uses the newspaper article as its source, that's all the page has on it. The article just happens to be one of Ross's pages. The article of course passes WP:V, which is what's at issue. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There were a number of unjustified deletions in this section, recently. Mention of the US News and World Report's report on the ICOC was deleted for "Plus irrelevant material removed regarding ICC". The article in question makes sure to criticize the ICOC, not the newly formed ICC. Then material from a Boston Globe article was deleted for "article does not exist on the Boston Globe Newspaper". The Boston Globe has archived all articles written before 2012. A summary of the article in question is available online for free; but you have to subscribe to the Globe to get the entire article. Another paragraph regarding comments by MIT's chaplain was deleted for "Student newspapers are not regarded by most as Encyclopaedic source material)". Of course what a university chaplain says is relevant and doesn't conflict with WP:SPS, especially if what she says is found in the school's official newspaper. Lastly, mention of the LCC's participation in alleged bribery was deleted for Rick Ross being an unverifiable source. Now, the paper that wrote the article is the defunct Sunday Business, a London Sunday paper that was turned into a magazine in 2006. If people think this violates WP:SPS, let's discuss the matter, openly, instead of just making willy-nilly deletions. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPS states, and I quote: "Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material." That should settle it. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:V states that it is the BURDEN of proof lies with the editors who wants to use the source. Since we cannot even find the source you don't think there is a problem???JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? We know The Boston Globe and The Tech are authors that are easily found online, though you have to pay for access to The Boston Globe. The Sunday Business is now defunct, as I stated above; but the article can be found in archives; if you're a student at a university, your school library should have access to it. If not, maybe WikiProject Resource Exchange can help. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Both the "Boston Globe" article and your "Sunday Business"

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1]

You have provided no proof that those articles were ever actually written, and in the case with the LCC article, your claim for WP:V is Rick A Ross. Since he is highly questionable and has a huge COI, it is hardly persuasive evidence.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You keep deleting three, not two, paragraphs: one stems from The Boston Globe, the second stems from MIT's The Tech, and the third stems from the Sunday Business. You seem to claim that the manner in which I cite all three violates WP:SPS in that it's not verifiable. But this is FALSE. All WP:SPS requires authors of citations to do is provide accurate, verifiable, citations. A citation from the original source of the articles in question meets this criteria to a 'T'. WP:SPS does NOT require authors of citations to provide the means by which others look up the original source, whether to verify it or do something else with it. To be clear, to repeat, it states: "Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material." You can check all the material in question. The paragraph stemming from The Tech links directly to the Tech. Despite what you claim, nowhere in WP:SPS does it state that official university newspapers are not reliable sources. The material from The Boston Globe can be found at the Boston Globe's Web site; you just have to pay a subscription fee. Per WP:SPS, it's up to YOU to pay that fee and see the source itself; the author of the citation does NOT have to provide you with access. The Sunday Business article is also archived. My university has it available. Again, it's up to you to obtain access to it.

Vandalize this page again and I will both ask for outside help and recommend that you be blocked. This is beyond the pale. You've been repeatedly shown that you're deleting items willy-nilly, without any justification besides perhaps your disagreement with it. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already asked for more experienced editors to help resolve this dispute, but go ahead and ask others. If they judge university newspapers as reliable sources, I will submit to their experience. Also, I have asked you to provide links to both the "Boston Globe" article and the "Sunday Business" article you quote below in the talk page and yet you refuse to do so. That is strange that you regard it as "vandalism" to require ACTUAL links to articles quoted for an Encyclopaedia. Provide the links (even if I have to pay to read it) so that I can read the article and I will be happy to let the material stand. Please note the WP:Policy stated above says you need to provide WP:V before putting material up. I don't think it is unreasonable to request this from you. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

CRJ articles

One other source, whose quality should be considered, are these two articles published by the Christian Research Journal. This is a leading counter-cult source, and thus will be controversial. I do not know what the general opinion of their reliability might be, but they are about as well-respected as any counter-cult figures that I know of (note that that is a relative statement). At the very least, these sources should be considered as representative of the stance of mainstream evangelical Christians towards the ICOC.

The first article is unfortunately not dated, but I remember its original publication as being in the early 1990s (the latest date reported in the article is 1992). The second article is dated 2003, and reports on developments following McKean's demotion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sinner's Prayer

JamieBrown2011 writes the following about the Sinner's Prayer. "One of the mainstream doctrines the ICOC rejects is the Sinner's Prayer. They have been heavily criticised over the years by rejecting this mainstream doctrine. However, now other prominent Christian leaders are also now publicly criticising the traditional Christian view of the sinners prayer". JamieBrown2011 then states "Willow Creek Community church self study "Reveal" concluding they were not making disciples, bringing into question the efficacy of the sinners prayer in true conversion", which is meant to lend support to the idea that prominent Christian leaders are now publicly criticizing the Sinner's Prayer. However, this bit about Will Creek links to an article that makes no mention of the Sinner's Prayer. I'm having trouble seeing how this bit lends support to the idea that prominent Christian leaders question the Sinner's Prayer. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 also says "George Barna's research shows that the lifestyle of non-evangelical born again Christians being no different than non Christians, which casts doubt over the validity of their conversions using the "sinners prayer", to support the claim that prominent Christian leaders criticize the Sinner's Prayer. But the article this Barna bit links to also does not mention the Sinner's Prayer. So I'm also having trouble seeing how this lends support to the earlier claim. This clearly seems to violate WP:SPS, for it provides no verifiable mention of the Sinner's Prayer. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind people that this is an encyclopedia: neither an online promotional media nor a critique of the organization. This article is falling short on both fronts.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the part of the criticism directed toward me. The Criticism section of the ICOC article should contain criticisms of the ICOC, no? So long as the criticisms maintain a NPOV and follow WP:SPS, what's wrong? I made sure to include any qualifications or rebuttals that the sources of the criticism provided on behalf of the ICOC. I fail to see how this falls short of encyclopedic standards. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that the article HAS a "Criticism" section is a HUGE warning light that there are MAJOR issues with the encyclopedic quality and organization of this article. see Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_.22criticisms.22_or_.22controversies.22-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 (talk) Let me help you understand why your edits fall short of encyclopaedic standards. (I am sure The Red Pen of Doom can correct me if I am wrong). You make extreme statements and then use poor quality references or "fringe" Christian websites as evidence for these claims. A Few examples:

• 1st, you use Rick A Ross as a reliable source. A brief search about his "Cult Awareness Network" shows this:

Jason Scott case was a United States civil suit, brought against deprogrammer Rick Ross, two of his associates, and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), for the abduction and failed deprogramming of Jason Scott, a member of a Pentecostalist church. Scott was eighteen years old at the time of the abduction and thus legally an adult. CAN was a co-defendant because a CAN contact person had referred Scott's mother to Rick Ross. In the trial, Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. The nine-member jury unanimously held the defendants liable for conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. In addition, the jury held that Ross and his associates intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The case resulted in an award of $875,000 in compensatory damages and punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000 against CAN, $2,500,000 against Ross, and $250,000 against each of Ross's two accomplices. The case bankrupted the Cult Awareness Network and marked a watershed for cults and the Christian countercult movement in North America.

• If that was not enough to question his material. The jury had this to say:

  Finally, the court notes each of the defendants' seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr. Scott. Rather, throughout the entire course of this litigation, they have attempted to portray themselves as victims of Mr. Scott's counsel's alleged agenda. Thus, the large award given by the jury against both the CAN and Mr. Ross seems reasonably necessary to enforce the jury's determination on the oppressiveness of the defendants' actions and deter similar conduct in the future.

• You would think that would discourage someone from using his material in an encyclopedia, yet one of the claims USER: Nietzsche123 makes comes from a newspaper article quoted on Ross' website apparently published by the "Sunday Business News". No reference is provided on Rick A Ross' website, so we CANNOT actually go and read the article from it's original source. A Google search for the "Sunday Business News" yields ZERO results. The Newspaper does not exist! (or at least it doesn't appear on 5 pages of Google search results, I gave up after 50 results and no newspaper by that description) Yet you strangely consider this as encyclopaedic material!

• 2nd, despite The Red Pen of Doom saying that "Cult Watch" would not be regarded as reliable reference material, you stubbornly keep it in the article. All editors make mistakes, (I have made a few myself) but when their material is shown to be unreliable, they take it down. YOU DONT. You persist with highly questionable material that clearly has flawed fact checking mechanisms. "Cult Watch" don't even endorse their OWN material yet YOU want their material in and encylopeadia.

• You treat Wikipedia like your personal blog. "It has been reported..." ^{[crackpotreference][nutcaseblog]}. As a Wikipedia editor you have made a total of 133 edits and ALL of them are a critique on the ICOC...(Is that the sound of an axe I hear grinding in the background...) JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Red Pen of Doom, I'm glad you brought up Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_.22criticisms.22_or_.22controversies.22. It says: "[t]here may be times when critical material should be presented in a dedicated "Criticism" or "Response" section within an article, but entire articles dedicated to Criticism are discouraged". The ICOC entry is dedicated to many things about the ICOC, of which only the Criticism section is a part; so: so far so good. And surely, if an organization is alleged to have abused its victims to the extent the ICOC has been accused of, if it has been banned from college campuses, if it's been accused of bribery, etc, the organization's article should make note of these criticisms; again, so far so good. I understand that sections dedicated to pure criticism are discouraged. But if you look at the section, the responses the ICOC has to the criticisms has also been included. If the criticisms can be incorporated within the text of the article, that would obviate the need for an entire section dedicated to describing criticisms of the ICOC. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

unless the allegations have been proven in courts, we most certainly should NOT be giving any additional weight or extrensous coverage to them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The newspaper articles state that experts regard the ICOC as a cult. They go on to describe that the ICOC has been banned from college campuses, accused of bribery, etc. The allegations of abuse stem from a book called The Boston Movement, written by experts within the field of cult studies. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

if your so called "experts in the field" are correct, how come there has NEVER been a court case in the US in the last 40 years where all these apparently "sexually abused" and "brainwashed" people took the ICOC to court and your "experts" got a chance to testify? Its not like people are afraid to sue in the US. You continue to paint a very distorted picture.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you make an interesting point concerning alleged sexual abuse, JamieBrown2011. Although The Boston Movement contains the testimonies of ex-members accusing the ICOC of sexual abuse, it may not be best to mention that fact without court cases to back it up (being that sexual abuse is illegal and all). You're also right in that of the times the ICOC has been sued, none of the charges, I'm aware of at least, reduce to just brainwashing. But there's an easy explanation for this: brainwashing is not illegal. So on what legal grounds would someone have to sue the ICOC for brainwashing? Now, I'm interested in what you mean by "paint[ing] a very distorted picture". Feel free to elucidate. When I criticize your edits for lacking a NPOV I cite examples, of which you have yet to respond to. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, it's good to hear from you again. I notice how you didn't respond to The Red Pen of Doom's criticisms of your edits, how they fall short of encyclopedic standards. I wonder what your thoughts on that are. Name one "extreme" claim I made. We've been over this before. Noting that ex-members often complain of being brainwashed, emotionally, and sometimes even sexually abused by their "discipleship partners" within the ICOC is not an extreme claim. The newspaper articles I referred to confirm that all these claims but the last one are made against the ICOC. For that last one, just refer to the selected pages within The Boston Movement. I agree that a Delphi forum fails to live up to WP:SPA. But that was settled on a while ago; I'm not sure why keep bringing up matters that have been solved. Moreover, you are the one who includes "extreme" claims in your edits. Two examples: 1) the claim that one can't generalize over whether the ICOC is a cult (without even the semblance of a citation), and 2) your making it seem articles support the claim that prominent evangelical leaders criticize the "sinner's prayer", when in fact the article made no mention of the "sinner's prayer". I understand that you weren't the author of (1); but you repeatedly included it in your edits.

Now I'll respond to your claims, one by one, as I did above, which you haven't responded to.

• Once more, I never claimed that Ross is or is not a reliable source. To repeat, that's not the issue. What's at issue is whether the newspaper that published the article, is a reliable source. Now, the article in question is dated from 1996. There are many newspaper articles dated from that long ago that aren't readily available (from the newspaper) on the internet. Surely, that doesn't mean they should just be discounted. I'll continue to search online for a link from the newspaper itself.

• Concerning CultWatch, did you even read what's written above? You continue to distort either the words or actions of others; I'm not sure whether it's deliberate, or it's just because you have read what's been written carefully enough. After discussing the matter with The Red Pen of Doom, I removed the CultWatch citation this past Friday. But I added a citation from the well-respected psychologist Dr. Flavil Yeakley. The question wasn't over whether CultWatch published reliable material; rather, the question was over whether it's regarded as an expert in its field. I'm not sure what you mean by CultWatch not endorsing the content of its Web site; of course they do.

See my comments on this issue under the "Cult Watch" heading. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• You have me mistaken for yourself: you treat Wikipedia as if it's your own blog, inserting unsupported general statements, pure conjecture like the bit on the "sinner's prayer", deleting quotes you disagree with, deleting references you disagree with, and misportraying ex-member criticism. Of course I start off quoting from a newspaper by saying something like "The London Times reports that". That's what's called adopting a NPOV, neither endorsing nor condemning but describing what the articles say. As far as the number of edits I've made, I don't whether to be flattered or creeped out by your interest in me. I know we've been over this before, but here it is again: I'm a new editor to Wikipedia; so I've only made the time thus far to edit this entry, and a few others. I'm working on edits on some other entries, like happiness, but unlike you, I don't make edits willy-nilly; I take my time and try to make them as neutral and truthful as possible. Speaking of edits, after glossing over your talk page, I noticed that you were banned under a different account name for repeatedly vandalizing this entry. Now, this wasn't a mere three day suspension for an edit war; it was a full-on ban. This sheds some light for me as to why most of your edits still lack a NPOV. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

as an outsider looking in, both of you appear to be WAY too personally vested to be approaching what appears to be a sensitive subject with enough detachment to create a WP:NPOV presentation of the topic. I would suggest you both take a long break from the article and work on something for which you do not have such passion, like : one of these.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Red Pen of Doom That sounds like a very reasonable suggestion. It doesn't look like Nietzsche123 (talk) and I are going to reach consensus any time soon. Can you tidy up the article a bit so that it has NPOV and looks more like an encyclopedia and less like a gossip magazine?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ICOC Stance on its Own Bible Studies

I deleted three citations that were said to support the two following statements.

The church, however, asserts that it never claims to have the sole interpretation of the bible, and lets every convert goes through a series of Bible studies where the beliefs and practices of the church are explained in detail before anyone can place membership or join the church. [55] The ICOC claims that the expectations of time and money (there are both a Sunday service and a midweek Bible study and members are asked to tithe to support the work of the church) are clearly explained upfront.[56] [57]

References 55 and 56 lead here: [[1]]; where it's said that:

These Bible Studies are a resource so that anyone coming to Christ has a clear understanding of who Christ is, his expectations of repentance, faith, discipleship and grace. Their involement in His Body, the church, should also be clearly explained upfront before anyone can place membership, be restored or be baptised.

Now, nowhere does this remark say anything about interpretations of the Bible, expectations of time, expectations of money as the above two statements make claims about. Reference 57 is to the Yeakley quote above the paragraph in question in the article. The reference certainly does not support these claims. First, it's in regards to "Bible talks", not the "First Studies". Second, Yeakley doesn't use language remotely like this. Considering all this, I've deleted the two statements and instead replaced them with the actual quotation from the web page. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I recall the PDF entitled "Church" talks about time involvement to Sunday and Midweek services, and the PDF "Lordship" covers the issue of tithing. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Does CultWatch violate WP:SPS?

According to CultWatch, the ICOC is a cult in the sense that it "employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques". Clearly, this is a relevant thing to mention in the Criticism section of the ICOC page, so long as it's reliable. According to JamieBrown2011, CultWatch violates WP:SPS because it "makes it's money by "exit counseling" so it is in their interest to create fear in certain groups". CultWatch is a "para-church organisation made up of people from different Christian denominations. (Para-church means not founded, owned, or controlled by any one church group.) Cultwatch's two main aims are to help the people trapped in the cults and to warn people about the cult danger before they are ensnared. Cultwatch is a Christian based organisation dedicated to helping people from all walks of life" (http://www.cultwatch.com/about.html). Given CultWatch's area of specialty, what they have to say about the ICOC should be considered. The mere fact that CultWatch is critical of organizations it deems 'cults' and tries to provide assistance to concerned individuals is not sufficient evidence for throwing out what they say regarding the ICOC. If this is our criterion for verification, why even bother having a Criticism section at all?-Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly true that CultWatch seems to make money off its criticisms of the ICOC; but this doesn't make it an unverifiable source. Think, for example, of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative political think-tank. Suppose that the following sentence were placed on Wikipedia: Some analysts and critics assert that Obamacase is inefficient health policy, as in "a policy that will drastically increase the deficit" (reference to analyst from Heritage Foundation). Now, the Heritage Foundation makes money off its criticisms of Obamacare and other policies. Can we thereby discount whatever it says of those policies? Of course not. Likewise, Al Baird is an elder and spokesman for the ICOC. He is referred to numerous times in the Criticism section, rebutting critics' claims against the ICOC. He surely makes money off saying what he says; does that mean we shouldn't mention what he says? Of course not. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation has a well established reputation for its work and is frequently quoted and its work reported on by reliable sources. Is CultWatch similarly seen and used and quoted by reliable sources as an expert in its field? In any instance, it would be best if any claims from Cultwatch were via reliable sources utilizing their work / analysis rather than the Wikipedia article pulling directly from their site. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Within the field of "cult studies", CultWatch is considered to be a reliable source, if not something like an expert. However, nobody who studies "cults" has the reputation that an organization like a Heritage Foundation does in politics. By 'cult studies' I mean the field concerned with analyzing and criticizing so-called cults. If you have a loved one whom who think is being manipulated in her church, CultWatch is one of the organizations you'd go to to do research. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The dispute in question is over the following sentence: "[The ICOC's] assertive recruitment methods, high level of control allegedly exercised by leadership over members through "discipling" partnerships, and rejection of certain doctrines of some other churches have caused some researchers, observers, and ex-members to label the organization a 'cult', as in a group that "employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques"". It seems to me that the CultWatch citation verifies what some observers and ex-members think of the ICOC; this, to me, seems beyond dispute. The only real dispute, as I see it, is over whether CultWatch justifiably supports the claim that some researchers call the ICOC a cult in the sense described. Some researchers do in fact consider the ICOC to be a cult in this sense; Michael Langone is perhaps the most notable. But I'm having trouble finding access to his articles online. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

IF the content is included in the article, it will need to be without the weasel-ly "some" and directly attributed to the organization. ("CultWatch says ....")

whether or not CultWatch's opinion/analysis should be included in the article at all still depends upon the final consensus of CultWatch's reputation, of which I am neither supporting nor refuting at this time. You may wish to seek an official WP:3O or WP:RFC or go to the WP:RSN.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

MIT's newspaper The Tech ran six articles on the ICOC. One article of the series accuses the ICOC for practicing "psychological manipulation of its members" (http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N41/johnson.41o.html). The chaplain of MIT, Betsy Draper, is used to support the charge. In a letter Draper wrote to the paper she warns students of the ICOC, which she claims has a "notorious reputation" (http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N38/draper.38o.html). Her warning stems from a concern about "extremely aggressive" recruiting by the ICOC and the fact that it was banned from recruiting both at BU and Northeastern. She doesn't accuse the ICOC of mind control as CultWatch does; but I think it's along the same lines, particularly the "psychological manipulation" bit.

Thanks, The Red Pen of Doom, I'll follow your advice-Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that CultWatch doesnt merit its own article is leading me to say "no, it doesnt qualify as a valid opinion source". -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Flavil Yeakley seems to be a scholar who verifiably supports the disputed sentence. He's a reputable researcher, being the director of the Harding University Center for Church Growth Studies, and he has a PhD. Yeakley is also one of the leading experts on the Churches of Christ, the organization the ICOC split from. In one of his books, The Discipling Dilemma, he states that the ICOC employs "psychological manipulation" (http://www.somis.org/TDD-01.html). In fact, the entire book is a detailed analysis and criticism of the ICOC. It seems also worth mentioning that the book contains this passage: "These professional counselors [as in "[p]sychologists who specialize in treating cult victims"] are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult".

I propose the following modification to the disputed sentence: "[The ICOC's] assertive recruitment methods, high level of control allegedly exercised by leadership over members through "discipling" partnerships, and rejection of certain doctrines of some other churches have caused some researchers, observers, and ex-members to label the organization a 'cult', as in a group that employs "psychological manipulation" over its members (with a reference to the Yeakley text)". What do you guys think? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I modified the above statement to the following: "The church's emphasis on "discipling" has not been without its critics. Some researchers, professional counselors, observers, and ex-members label the organization a 'cult', as in a group that employs "psychological manipulation" over its members.[50]"

JamieBrown2011 disagrees with this, apparently. He wrote the following about the statement in question. "I read through the whole of the Yeakley article and could not find any of the wording you used in your description of the article. He does criticise them for "manipulation" and he does use the word "sect" but he actually says the word "cult" is not an appropriate description of the ICOC, yet you use it in your description of his article. I think distorting his words is inappropriate. Also using weasel words is not right."

For some reason, he wrote this in regards to the discussion on the sinner's prayer. I thus didn't see that he said anything when I reverted his edit. The quotation comes form Yeakley's book, not an article. He states right on the page I cite that the ICOC practices psychological manipulation. Later in the book he notes that ex-members and professional counselors refer to the ICOC as a destructive cult; see page 206, where he writes "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult".

Where does Yeakley say it's inappropriate to use the term 'cult' in regards to the ICOC? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I read through the whole of the Yeakley article and could not find any of the wording you used in your description of the article. He does criticise them for "manipulation" and he does use the word "sect" but he actually says the word "cult" is not an appropriate description of the ICOC, yet you use it in your description of his article. I think distorting his words is inappropriate. Also using weasel words is not right. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 (talk) Maybe you would like to explain why you are now attributing words to Yeakley that as far as I can tell are not even his. There is an editors appendix where the editor makes some comments and you falsely attribute them to Yeakley himself. Again maybe I am missing something but pray please explain? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, please delete this along with your two paragraphs above. You placed your paragraphs right in the middle of something I've already written. Not only is that just bad form, it also makes it very difficult to track what you're saying. Moreover, you've interpreted a previous train of thought of another issue: not cool. Please copy these paragraphs to the end of the section on CultWatch that's already discussing the disputed paragraph. That's where discussion of the dispute belongs. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for re-posting. The dispute is over the following statement:

The church's emphasis on "discipling" has not been without its critics. Some researchers, professional counselors, observers, and ex-members label the organization a 'cult', as in a group that employs "psychological manipulation" over its members.[50]

Yeakley asserts that the ICOC employs "psychological manipulation" on the cited page. He's a researcher and observer of high quality. He also states that professional counselors and ex-members call the ICOC a 'destructive cult' on page 206 of his text. The exact quotation is found in this article in the "Members' Personality Changes" section. I'm not aware of a place where Yeakley states that the term 'cult' shouldn't be used in regards to the ICOC. Feel free to provide me with a page number so that I may verify. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

An extract of page 37 reads: "By most of their definitions, the New Testament church would be called a "cult," churches of Christ today would be called "cults," and most of the conservative denominations would be called "cults." But those six groups that I have chosen to call "manipulative sects" are clearly producing unnatural and unhealthy personality changes. The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm."

Hope that helps.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing which appears to violate WP:BLPGOUP

User:Nietzscher123 has added a new section listed below where he attributes comments clearly made by the "editor" to Flavel Yeakley himself which appears to be a serious distortion. I can only assume Yeakley is not both the editor and author of his own book???

• 2nd I have tried to find a copy of his book to see if these editors comments are found in the book itself. But to the best of my understanding they seem to belong to the editor of www.somnis.com. These guys have some fascinating things in their online library like "Satan's spawn" [Spawn] (the guy has a horn coming out of his head!!!)
• Also since there is no explanation as to how this un-named "editor" managed to get a hold of information from "multiple professional counsellors in several cities" who all stated "they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together." It is highly suspect!
• Without High Quality references this just seems completely irresponsible to place these kinds of accusations in Wikipedia.

Members' Personality Changes

Researcher and psychologist Dr. Flavil Yeakley conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that the "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways". These are the same personality changes, Yeakley notes, found in "highly manipulative" sects, "not generally found in other churches of Christ or in various mainline denominations".

After publishing the results of his research, Yeakley reflected on developments within the ICOC and concluded that "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult".

Does this belong in Wikipedia? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, if you had read the book in question, Discipling Dilemma: A Study of the Discipling Movement Among Churches of Christ, you would realize that Yeakley is both its editor and author. He's the author of pages 1-69; pages 87-191 are written by three other contributors. Yeakley is also the editor of the entire work. Even the text's Amazon page points this out: [2]. I of course have the actual text, and I can assure you that the editor's page, page 206, is there and quoted accurately.

But this does bring up an interesting point. The online citations may be to Web sites that violate copyright laws. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And for future reference: perhaps you should obtain a copy of the text in question and read it before accusing others of "irresponsible editing"; reading the original source is what we in the education business call 'responsible reading'. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I did read the Yeakley book from the site you referenced at www.somis.org but didn't see that Yeakley is both author and editor of his own book. Sorry for the "irresponsibility" comment. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Rick A Ross Institute A Credible Source?

The Rick A Ross Institute is a credible source because it meets Wikipedia standards.

This is from: http://www.rickross.com/aboutus.html

"The Rick A. Ross Institute (RI) of New Jersey is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization devoted to public education and research. RI's mission is to study destructive cults, controversial groups and movements and to provide a broad range of information and services easily accessible to the public for assistance and educational purposes.

RI maintains a large archive on the Internet and is available to assist researchers, the media, professionals and those concerned with accurate information about various cults, groups and movements and related issues of interest. RI is an institutional member of the New Jersey Library Association.

An Advisory Board of well-recognized experts assists the Institute; one of the most prestigious yet assembled in the field."

The Rick A Ross Institute lists its contact information as:

The Rick A. Ross Institute Hours M-F: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST 1977 N. Olden Ave. Ext #272 Trenton, NJ 08618 Phone: (609) 396-6684 Fax: (609) 964-1842 email: [email protected] URL: http://www.rickross.com

Copyright © 1996-2008 Ross Institute"

Here is what Wikipedia lists as a credible source:

"The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form). Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Source content related to living people or medicine especially carefully.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. You may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. You may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source

Qewr4231 (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You can take a specific content request to WP:RSN, but in general Rick Ross (consultant) has his own credibility problems so in most cases, NO. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have proof that the Rick A Ross Institute "has his own credibility problems?" Qewr4231 (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Rick A Ross Institute sounds pretty legitimate to me:

"In 1996 Ross started a website titled "The Ross Institute Internet Archives for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements".[52] Ross has lectured at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago and University of Arizona,[53] and has testified as an expert witness in court cases.[3] According to the biography page on his website he has worked as a paid consultant for television networks CBS, CBC and Nippon, and Miramax/Disney retained him as a technical consultant to one of the actors involved in making Jane Campion's film Holy Smoke!.[6]

In 2001 Ross moved to New Jersey and two years later founded the Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults and Controversial Groups and Movements, a non-profit, 501(c)(3) public charity located in New Jersey, USA. The Advisory Board of the RRI includes Ford Greene, a California attorney specializing in cult-related litigation, as well as Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, co-authors of the books Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change and Holy Terror: The Fundamentalist War on America's Freedoms in Religion, Politics and Our Private Lives. Psychologist Margaret Singer also served as a board member of the Institute until her death in 2003.

In June 2004 Landmark Education filed a US$1 million lawsuit against the Institute, claiming that the Institute's online archives damaged Landmark Education's product.[54] In December 2005, Landmark Education filed to dismiss its own lawsuit with prejudice, purportedly on the grounds of a material change in case law after the publication of an opinion in another case, Donato v. Moldow, regarding the Communications Decency Act of 1996.[54]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ross_(consultant)#Rick_A._Ross_Institute

Qewr4231 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Jason Scott case the fact that he apparently thought its OK to kidnap adults to "save" them from organizations he identifies as "cults". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I read, Jason Scott's mother paid some people, one being Rick Ross, to deprogram her son. Jason Scott was in a cult. Yes, kidnapping is illegal. I've also read that Rick Ross has put this behind him and that his Rick A Ross Institute is a legitimate organization made up of a body of scholars that are very knowledgeable about cults.

"In January 1991, at the time of the failed deprogramming attempt, Jason Scott, of Bellevue, Washington, was an 18-year-old member of the Life Tabernacle Church, affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church International.[3][4] Scott's mother, Katherine Tonkin, had been a member of the church, but had withdrawn from it.[5] Jason and two younger sons of hers disagreed with her decision and insisted they would remain in the church.[5][6][7]

The two younger sons then left Tonkin's household, the youngest, aged thirteen, going to live with his grandmother, and the second-youngest, sixteen, moving in with another family from the church.[5] Jason remained at home at first, but subsequently also moved in with his grandmother.[5]

Tonkin, who believed a pastor in the church had behaved inappropriately toward one of her younger sons, subsequently called the local Cult Awareness Network (CAN) hotline.[4][5][7] The CAN contact person, Shirley Landa, referred her to Rick Ross; based on her endorsement of Ross, Tonkin retained him to deprogram her sons.[5][6][7] At the time, Ross still performed forcible deprogrammings, a fact that Landa was aware of.[4][7] Landa had had a longstanding relationship with CAN; she had founded its predecessor organization, and was a former member of CAN's board.[7]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott_case

I agree that it's NOT OKAY to kidnap people. I also agree that it's NOT OKAY for cults to brainwash and deceive people.

Qewr4231 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

anyone who has a background of "I know what a cult is and I am willing to kidnap to 'save' someone from a cult" cannot by any means be considered a "reliable source" for cults and how to deal with them, and that a board of individuals he has selected is not anywhere near a "peer review" or legitimate editorial board. But you can take your specifics of what content from what specific RR site to the reliable source notice board WP:RSN and get community feedback on what the wider community be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Rick Ross has a rather serious credibility problem, consider the following:

Jason Scott case was a United States civil suit, brought against deprogrammer Rick Ross, two of his associates, and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), for the abduction and failed deprogramming of Jason Scott, a member of a Pentecostalist church. Scott was eighteen years old at the time of the abduction and thus legally an adult. CAN was a co-defendant because a CAN contact person had referred Scott's mother to Rick Ross. In the trial, Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. The nine-member jury unanimously held the defendants liable for conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. In addition, the jury held that Ross and his associates intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The case resulted in an award of $875,000 in compensatory damages and punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000 against CAN, $2,500,000 against Ross, and $250,000 against each of Ross's two accomplices. The case bankrupted the Cult Awareness Network and marked a watershed for cults and the Christian countercult movement in North America.

• If that was not enough to question the reliability of his material. The jury had this to say:

  Finally, the court notes each of the defendants' seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr. Scott. Rather, throughout the entire course of this litigation, they have attempted to portray themselves as victims of Mr. Scott's counsel's alleged agenda. Thus, the large award given by the jury against both the CAN and Mr. Ross seems reasonably necessary to enforce the jury's determination on the oppressiveness of the defendants' actions and deter similar conduct in the future.

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: does author of a citation need to provide means for others to access cited material

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the author of a citation need to provide the means by which another user accesses the cited material? JamieBrown2011 claims that I need to provide direct links to cited material. The problem is that one reference is to the Boston Globe, which charges for access to articles written before 2012; the article in question is written before 2012. The other reference is to the Sunday Business, which is no longer a newspaper, but a magazine. The article from the Sunday Business in question is available at some university libraries; at least it's available at mine; but Sunday Business doesn't provide online access to it. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:V#Accessibility The citation must be to the reliable source. The reliable source does not need to be freely accessable nor accessible on the web. But you cannot base article claims upon a bloggers quotting of a newspaper. Bloggers misquote and take things out of context all the time, so you MUST be certain that the newspaper actually supports the claims you wish to include. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something but Nietzsche123 (talk) continues to insert this article citing all manner of wrongdoings by the ICOC including "bribery" which is illegal. But there is no court case where these these things are brought to light or where the ICOC was even ever accused of these things. Despite being asked some time ago to provide evidence that this article was in fact ever actually even published in this newspaper Nietzsche123 (talk) has been unable to produce ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever, yet he insists in re-inserting this at every opportunity he gets! (The sound of the axe grinding in the background is getting louder and louder....).JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The only wrongdoing the article accuses the ICOC of committing was the act of bribing police officers. True, the article states that members of the LCC were arrested; but they were arrested for merely preaching Christianity in the streets of Indonesia! Surely, that's not immoral, despite Indonesia's laws. The citation is verifiable; it's to a Sunday Business article written on June 9, 1996. The newspaper no longer exists as a newspaper, and hence doesn't provide online copies of their articles. This is the case for many newspapers published before 2000; they're just not that readily available on the web. JamieBrown2011, do you have a university library you can access archived newspaper articles from? If so, have you tried to find it? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually the BURDEN lies with you proving that this article actually exists. Have you ACTUALLY seen this newspaper and the cited article? You are a student and should have access to university libraries.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the RFC question is absolutely not. If Nietzsche123 has provided a publication date in the Boston Globe, then the burden of proof is on you to look up that issue of the Globe (on microfilm, if necessary) and protest if you do not find the article there.

And JamieBrown2011, that axe we all hear in the background is your own. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet (t/c) the article concerning the accusation of "bribery" never came from the Boston Globe. The article in question is from self published website by Rick A Ross who refers to a newspaper that does not exist by that name, (possibly he got the name wrong). I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the actual article and I think Nietzsche123 is still trying to find evidence that it ever was published. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I will defer to RedPen's judgment as to the reliability of that source. I was speaking only to the RFC question of whether verifiability is affected by limits on accessibility. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just did a search for "Kip McKean" on Factiva (I work at a university, so I have paid access). It turned up literally dozens of critical articles from credible news sources, including Boston Globe articles dated 3/20/88, 6/9/96, and 5/17/03, but not the one allegedly dated 2/23/01 that has been the subject of recent edits (though that doesn't necessarily mean that the reference is wrong, as I don't know how Factiva filters its search results).

Are you aware that Kip mcKean has not been a part of the ICOC for something like 7-10 years. He was forced to go on sabbatical, then fired and started his own church group. International Christian Churches JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. But today's ICOC was built on McKean's legacy, and thus the controversies that surrounded his leadership must be fully reported. If reliable sources can be quoted to show that the ICOC has moved in a different direction since he left, then that should be reported also. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, my previous comment about a search on McKean's name was only meant to be an example, showing how easy it is to find reliable sources on this topic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot post these sources publicly as they are copyrighted. But if anyone has the time and energy to use these sources to improve the article, let me know and I will forward them to you privately. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 specifically indicated that they had verified the content in the sources they were adding. [3] It is very troubling if that is not true. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have verified both the Boston Globe and the Sundays News articles. I didn't pay the fee for the Boston Globe article, although a free summary of it is available at the Boston Globe's web site. I have access to both through my university. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide links to the free Boston Globe article and why don't you load a picture to Wikicommons of the Sunday News article, since the claims are that there was "illegal" behaviour it would require strong evidence rather than just hearsayJamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Posting a copy of someone else's article is a violation of copyright laws. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry bad suggestion.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche123, on your talk page you stated that you had read the articles and could verify that the material was being used in appropriate context. Reading a summary does not provide a full context. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't merely read the summary of the Boston Globe article; I read the whole article. The summary is available for free from Boston Globe: just go to their Web site, search under archived articles, and it shows up. I just didn't pay the fee for full access; my university provided me with the article itself. Why would I pay for something when I have it for free? ;-p -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you make a throaway Gmail (or any other free e-mail) you can get in for free [4] In there Thornburg is indeed quoted as making those statements, AND followed by "The Rev. Peter J. Scanlon, Catholic chaplain... was somewhat less alarmed. ""I think our kids will be OK. ...cults aren't limited to religion - you could have a beer- drinking cult too, and we do have that."

So multiple people have now verified that the reliable source does indeed have the Thornburg statement. The question now becomes, Is Thornburg's opinion "expert" enough on the subject to be included, and representative enough in the manner in which it is included? . -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Thornburg has neither published any academic articles nor any books. That said, being dean of the Marsh Chapel at BU is, I gather, a well-respected position. Take a look at the credentials of the current dean: [5]. Unfortunately, with a quick Google search, I'm not able to find the credentials of Thornburg besides the fact that he taught "practical theology" as a lecturer for 23 years ([6]). At the time Thornburg made the statements regarding the ICOC, it seems to be the case that he was regarded as an authority on "cults". A quick Google search reveals that The Boston Phoenix [7] and The Sun Chronicle [8] newspapers, amongst others, all call Thornburg a 'cult expert'. (Although the article from the Sun Chronicle doesn't label him a cult expert, the article is named "Experts: Cult Wants Total Control"; being that Thornburg is one of the three authorities quoted in the article, the article implies he's an expert.) I think this shows that his opinion is "expert" enough. As to whether it's also representative, I think that's an affirmative given the comments from MIT's chaplain, Betsy Draper, and the fact that the ICOC was banned from at least 39 colleges -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This brings up another topic for discussion. JamieBrown2011 has twice now deleted the phrase 'cult expert' before the names 'Carol Giambolvo' and 'Herbert Rosedale' citing as his reason for deletion that the label connotes a POV. Both Giambalvo and Rosedale are regarded as experts within their field. They authored a book together and individually published scholarly articles in the cult studies field. Labeling them 'cult experts' doesn't, therefore, portray a lack of NPOV. Perhaps JamieBrown2011 doesn't like the label 'cult experts'. In that event, can he suggest a better one? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just that you were the one who called them "experts" on neither of their Wikipedia pages does anyone refer to them as "experts" in this field. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I take this comment to mean that you're okay with the phrase 'cult experts' going before the names 'Carol Giambalvo' and 'Herbert Rosedale' in the paragraph we discussed. I'll make the change tomorrow. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can show that it is not just your opinion that they are experts, then I am happy for that to be added.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I already did do this; see above comment dated Thursday, 9/20. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of this proves they are "experts". Writing a book doesn't necessarily make you as expert, last time I checked??? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, Giambalvo and Rosedale wrote a book together on the ICOC. They've also contributed scholarly articles on cults to other books. Moreover, each has authored scholarly articles on cults published in professional journals. They even have their own Wikipedia pages. Giambalvo is also the founder of one of the leading networks of cult ex-members: reFocus. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The "scholarly articles" all seem to be under the aegis of the International Cultic Studies Association, as do their books. It's unclear whether this qualifies as "scholarly."

The only purpose of the word "expert" is to provide an implicit endorsement. It might be best to skip that, though it seems to me that the work of Giambalvo and Rosedale is clearly citable. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, a reliable source does not have to be freely available to any editor whatsoever, except the one making the edit at the time he makes the edit. To wit, "Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet": "an archived copy...must exist". That means, at an extreme, we could reference the Gutenberg Bible, because an archived copy exists: it does not have to be readily accessible, although, all other things being equal, "it is convenient" if it is. How else could we include results from scholarly journals in Wikipedia? Not many people other than myself subscribe to them, that I've known, on a personal basis, and even I only subscribe to a narrow, inexpensive amount in my central areas of interest, not many. And, no one is going to doubt that Journal of Philosophy, Philosophical Quarterly, New Blackfriars, Communio, Mind, Nous, or American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly are unreliable sources. And, on the other (same?) hand, very, very few editors are going to have access to them. Now, as a matter of courtesy, if all editors are being civil, and the request is in good faith, I would do my best (which isn't very much, as one would almost certainly have to get permission from a copyright holder to satisfy the current request) to provide a copy (i.e. a picture taken with a phone, or a scan) of the controverted section/sentence, which I think (although I am completely unfamiliar with copyright) should be fair use, if only a sentence or two is provided "for the purposes of critical commentary" - but, I repeat, this is in no way required, and jumping through the hoops of trying to obtain permission for something that it won't be granted for, is, frankly, ridiculous). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 21:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.