Talk:Council for Christian Education in Schools

Out of date

This whole article about Access Ministries is now very out of date. It has now become Korus Connect and the CEO is Dawn Penney. Evonne Paddison left and returned to Sydney in about 2015. Could the original editors please update this page? I have other priorities to work on and can't give much time to updating this. I just came across it while researching related people.LPascal (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)LPascal

March 3 edits

Hello Sam. I am very confused confused by your edit regarding inserting information defending the chaplaincy program. Correct me if I am wrong, but this appears to be related to the National School Chaplaincy Program. There is currently no criticism in this article of the National School Chaplaincy program, 100% of all criticism is regarding SRI. Therefore I see no need to mention the NSCP in this section, much less defend it. Please correct me if I have missed something obvious.

I am also concerned by the sheer size of the block quote you inserted. I only added one one sentence quote to the controversy section, and I have now removed this as upon re-reading the bullet point it would be adequate to just say Dr Maddox criticised Access on certain grounds, without mentioning her quote which comes from a second source. I only used this in the first place as their were two reliable sources backing up her criticism. Myself and the other editors have restricted criticism to one or two sentences per individual reliable source.

I have read WP:STRUCTURE. What is your main concern regarding the controversy section that violates this guideline? The only thing I can think could be improved here is perhaps moving the criticism from mainstream Christians into a separate 'reception' section, where we could also have opinions from people in favour of Access who are notable enough to have their own wikipedia article. In the interest of keeping the criticism relevant and concise yet still to the point, I have limited opinions to those notable enough to already have a wikipedia article. I have ignored the criticism of Access from other people who would be considered notable, including but not limited to Dr David Zyngier, Reverend Ron Noone and Principal Joe Kelly. Anyway please advise what your concern is here so that I can address it immediately and remove the tag. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. After reading the entire letter you link to i've figured out your source and block quotes are a response to the May 2011 quotes from the Access' CEO. Your additions stated they were "related to the above", yet it was placed under the comments about the controversial comic book. This was confusing to any reader, so I moved it to the appropriate location. I have taken the liberty of formatting it and shortening it so that it fits in with the style of the rest of the section. I also moved the comments regarding the Uniting Churches response following the controversies to another paragraph, as it does not fit perfectly into a bullet point list of controversies. I would still like to hear your concerns regarding the tag you have placed in the section. Freikorp (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts above.

1 My concern is that the Wiki article currently reads too much like a FIRIS website appendix rather than an encyclopedia presenting a balanced NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balancing_aspects and http://religionsinschool.com/

2 Half of the article details seven major controversies. Only one has an alternative/balancing view. Even if each, in turn, had the response - this Wiki entry would still be criticism-centred. (see point 15 below)

3 I believe FIRIS-supporting-readers will support the current Wiki article. I believe the remaining readers, whether Access Ministry supporters or not, will view the current article rather as evidence of the degradation of Wikipedia.

4 You have said, "Just a disclaimer, I am a supporter of FIRIS and accordingly I strongly oppose what Access Ministries do ... but I always try to do so without letting my feelings override any of Wikipedia's guidelines" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Freikorp#Access_Ministries (hmm! - not easy for any of us to do) You also use FIRIS Child-Evangelists-Campaign emails as a source for your editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_for_Christian_Education_in_Schools&diff=597353986&oldid=597324813 I think all this is (verging on?) a 'Vested Interest'. Namely > Editors who are heavily involved with the editing of a particular article may have a vested interest in the outcomes of decisions relating to that article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vested_interest

5 I have no connection with Access Ministries. My motivation > I do have concern for the future of Australian children and believe the work of Access Ministries (as inadequate as it may be at times) does try to address that issue.

6 There is support for faith-based religious education, which is not reflected in the Wiki entry. Some examples:

- Faith-based Religious Education Has No Place in Public Schools (Current iq2oz website %) For the proposition 35 %, Against 65 % http://www.iq2oz.com/debates/faith-based-religious-education-has-no-place-in-public-schools/ (also refer point 13 below)

- I have empathy for this position > "I do have a problem with what I perceive as the current media bias against both CRE and Christian chaplains. Here are some facts that don’t get reported. Thousands of volunteers go into our public schools each week to teach CRE. These people are warmly welcomed . . . " http://www.accessministries.org.au/news/id/12

- Tim Costello supports Christian education and presents a more balance view saying, "If the vehicle is wrong, we can fix that rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water." http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/NewsAndViews/Pages/Times-up-for-volunteer-taught-RE-in-state-schools,-says-Anglican-scholar.aspx (a non-RS source?)

7 I suggest the current article description of [the notable] Maddox, Bouma and Kirby as 'mainstream Christians' is a bit of a stretch. While I do not want to judge people's 'faith', their CVs indicate the relative importance they give to their Christian and denominational credentials.

8 From reading the current Wiki article the 'Anglican position' is represented by Bouma and Kirby. However (Anglican), ​"Archbishop Freier has defended Christian Religious Education in state primary schools, saying society would do children no favours by denying them access to knowledge that could give their lives meaning, purpose, value and hope. . . . " http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/NewsAndViews/TMA/Pages/2011/2011-05/Anglicans-speak-out-as-CRE%E2%80%99s-value-questioned-001002.aspx (I suggest Freier has a more of a 'grass-roots-view' than the other two Anglicans quoted, let alone a more 'mainstream-Anglican-view' - but from a non-RS source)

9 I am sceptical of highly (taxpayer) paid and credentialed educators advocating for more (taxpayer) paid educators. There are so many issues relating to having trained and credentialed teachers of 'comparative religion', it would require many pages to for me to outline my concerns.

10 I can not hold in much regard the views of a (Christian) person who claims to promote communication and respect between religious communities and describes the (Christian) Access Ministries SRI curriculum as "crap" and "just appalling".

11 I believe one underlying motive of the media is to focus on 'conflict'. Refer the sources cited in this Wiki article. They focus on the criticisim. They gloss over the contrary view let alone provide alternatives to solve the issues. This is not some conspiracy theory. Any story about (say) older ladies - usually with years of practical life-experience - having gone through some level of vetting http://www.accessministries.org.au/creteachers/accreditation-requirements - would not sell newspapers. Human nature being what it is, people rarely write/offer their support for the status-quo, and where they do, it is often in a non-RS source, and therefore will be excluded under Wiki guidelines. Therefore the RS criticism stories have become the input to this Wikipedia article.

12 For a more balanced report (but is a non-RS) http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/NewsAndViews/Pages/Times-up-for-volunteer-taught-RE-in-state-schools,-says-Anglican-scholar.aspx

13 Compare the difference (a reversal) in quoted (reference - point 12) support for the debate proposition - support 71%, opposition 27% (on the night) with the current iq2oz website percentages (now at 35% v 65%) see point 6 above. Maybe the poll is rigged. Maybe it is on deeper reflection. Maybe those in the suburbs etc have a different view to the audience. All this casts doubt on the value(?) of ad-hoc polls.

14 I believe an encyclopedic Wiki article should say something about the history of Access Ministries. Googling > seems it was established in 1920 http://trove.nla.gov.au/collection/result?q=creator%3A%22Council+for+Christian+Education+in+Schools+%28Vic%29%22 - been going for 94 years. It must have some support.

15 I believe the current Wiki entry with its detailed, chronicled, recent WP:NOTNEWS controversies demonstrates the points I have made. Refer also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversy_sections#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies

sam Sam56mas (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

PS for point 11. I doubt if any story of a Mrs Ruth Hiatt would sell newspapers > Mrs Ruth Doreen HIATT, MEDAL (OAM) OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA - Page 246 http://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/honours/qb/qb2013/Media%20Notes%20-%20OAM%20(F-L)%20(final).pdf

PS for point 12. Another balanced article (but again in a publication probably deemed as non-RS). http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/faith-based-education-schools-debate

sam Sam56mas (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This has been mentioned to you before; it would be extremely helpful if you could only list only a couple of your concerns at a time. Most of us don't have oodles of free time and your list of concerns is so long and complicated I can't help but think you are deliberately discouraging other editors from getting involved by making the issue far too time consuming to respond to. Can you please not do this in the future. In protest of your actions, I will not respond to ANY new concerns you have until these 15 are resolved.

1. I only added about half of the criticism to this article, and I have never stopped anybody adding positive things about access. When I see reliable sources commenting on criticism of Access I often add it to the article as I find this interesting, in the same way that every-time somebody dies of a drug overdose I add it to the List of drug-related deaths (my No.1 edited article, 630 edits and counting). I have a vested interest in chronicling new information on wikipedia. Criticism is only added from reliable sources; it's not my fault that mainstream sources don't print as many positive things about Access.

2. Obviously Access will have a rebuttal for everything they are criticised for. I have never stopped anyone from adding rebuttals from Access. Each rebuttal would be taken on a case by case basis. Again, this is not my fault.

3. I don't doubt FIRIS readers would be leaning toward supporting the article. However this does not change the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, this article is simply a good collection of things reliable sources have printed about Access. I can't help it is most of things printed about Access are negative. And yes, I fully understand criticism sells newspapers, a story about a lovely, well-meaning Christian old lady who teaches Christianity in a fair and balanced manner to school children and is loved by her community is never going to make national news. But that's just a fact of life, and the wikipedia article should not be stripped of reliable coverage in order to make the world fairer in the view of one editor.

4. I shouldn't be punished for being honest and giving other editors full disclosure of what I believe in. This is EXTREMELY rich coming from you, a user who has clearly had their own vested interest. A user who undeniably created a wikipedia account for a single-purpose (and responded with "So what?" when this was brought up) and who has been blocked from editing for vandalism. But i'm not interested in arguing over this. If you think I have a vested interest that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think I can still be fair and balanced; the overwhelming majority of the articles I edit I do not feel strongly about the subject one way or the other. I don't think I should be penalised simply because I admit I don't like what Access do to children.

5. Ok. I'll take your word for it, but neither of our personal opinions are important.

6. If reliable sources supporting Access exist integrate them into the article. Don't blame me because nobody else has done it.

7. Fair enough. I have changed "mainstream Christians" to "two Christian university professors". I have removed Michael Kirbys comments. Despite the fact he is notable and the source is reliable now that he is removed criticism only comes from university professors, rather than Christians in general, which is much more organised.

8. This reliable source [1] supports that Reverend Ron Croone criticises Access but that Archbishop Frier does not oppose them. You can add it to the article if you like. I intend to stay true to my original offer of not adding criticism or praise unless the person is notable enough to have a wikipedia article, which would allow Frier's opinion but disallow Noone's.

9. Your opinions, and mine, are irrelevant. Either get mainstream coverage saying the public would't support paying for better training for people who teach children or don't bother bringing this up again.

10. As above. I don't care whether you respect him or not. We can use his longer quotes from the article if you like, but in the interest of keeping things short I summed up his opinions on Access to his small quotes, which I believe adequately sum up his overall opinion without making the article any longer than it has to be. On a personal side note, I challenge you to find a university level educator who believes that what access ministries does is actually education, rather than biased religious indoctrination. Bouma, Maddox and Dr David Zyngier are all university professors and highly qualified to comment on the subject, and Accuse access of being biased, ill-qualified, and un-educational. This is just something to think about in response to your shared personal opinions, I am not actually interested in turning this talk page into a debate of personal feelings.

11,. As per my comments in point 3. I don't disagree with you, but there's not much anyone can do about it. The world is not a fair place.

12, 13. I don't doubt for a second that Access has support from within Christian sectors. You don't need to waste your time convincing me of this; i believe you. But as far as wikipedia is concerned if it's not a reliable source it is irrelevant. And biblesociety.org.au is most certainly a biased and unusable source, even if the article itself is balanced.

14. I agree. Feel free to expand the history in a neutral manner using reliable sources.

15. This is an interesting point. But can we agree to resolve the other 14 issues first? You've brought up an overwhelming number of issues and i'd like to resolve them first as No 15 will probably be the most complicated. Freikorp (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You've brought up several interesting yet irrelevant opinions on Access, trying to establish that they are treated unfairly. In the interest of being concise, I will only bring up one point only. As per the source in the article, The Age reports that ACCESS taught CRE to 940 schools in 2011, but that this figure dropped to 666 by 2013. ACCESS Ministries hit back with a press release, saying that the number 666 was incorrect, and that actual drop was to 780 schools in 2013. And that the drop over the three years prior to 2013 was "less than 5%".[2] Interestingly ACCESS do not dispute that the 2011 figure was 940 schools. They only dispute that the 2013 figure was not 666 schools, rather it was 780, yet they insist that the drop in attendance was less than 5%. These numbers do not add up. A drop from 940 schools to 780 schools is a drop of just over 17%, not less than 5%. Access ministries are a bunch of liars. I'd love to point out this interesting fact on the article, but as no mainstream source has commented on it, I can't. Can we agree to keep things we think aren't fair out of this discussion? There's no point in clogging up this talk page with things we can't actually put in the article. Freikorp (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

With the source figures available - they would be absolutely shooting-themselves-in-the-foot to blatantly distort figures. One answer might be they meant 5%pa giving 15% (17%) rather than the quoted ‘one third’ over the three years. If based on this %-difference issue - it is a bit of an over-statement to say, "Access ministries are a bunch of liars". I will get back to you on the Wikipedia-related above points. Sam56mas (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, your theory is plausible, but at a best case scenario this just means Access made a obvious statistical error in a media update, which is downright embarrassing. Anyway if was a deliberate error or not is not important, the point I was making is that i've noticed something which I believe deserves attention, but it's not going to get any in the article because there's no independent coverage. I don't think we need to make this issue any more complicated than it has to be with our theories on what we believe is fair. Let's just keep this to what we could potentially add to the article. Freikorp (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have since taken the liberty of restructuring criticism based on the issue, rather than they date. This has allowed me to shorten one part, and to present the information is less of a way that might violate WP:NOTNEWS. I thought this would be an improvement whilst we achieve consensus here, I am happy to continue discussion. I have modelled this structure after the criticism section of the GetUp! article; Sam, I note you have expanded the criticism section of this article [3] and have never complained that over half of the article is comprised of criticism, so I assume this must be an acceptable way of formatting criticism for you.

On a side note: I can't help but think John Miller is about to write an article about how biased wikipedia and the Access Ministries article is. I thought I should bring it to your attention that a senior figure at Access Ministries, Chris Helm, has been caught several times trying to add biased information and undue weight to the article. [4]. Mr Helm repeatedly inserted contested material, reverting several other users edits and ignoring any advice given to him in the process. I only took a real interest in this article after these events occurred. I just thought you should be aware of this fact before any serious allegations are made that Wikipedia is biased against Access. Freikorp (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

After noticing the large (massive?) number of contributions you have made, I took a limited interest in this article. After reading your statement > "Just a disclaimer, I am a supporter of FIRIS and accordingly I strongly oppose what Access Ministries do", I then took a real interest. I knew vaguely of Access Ministries. I had never heard of FIRIS. I have no connection with Access Ministries. I believe I have clarified my personal opinions and that you have clarified your personal opinions.

Moving to the Wikipedia-editing-related issues raised in the 15 points above - considering both the issues I raised and your responses: 1-5 Covered largely in this Talk-page discussion. 6 I will look for 'RS support' for faith-based religious education. 7 You have fixed this issue. 8 As you suggest, possibly I will add Freier's comments. 9-13 Covered largely in this Talk-page discussion. 14 Will add some history. 15 The article is getter there. In describing the history of an organisation, or the organisation itself, Wiki Guidelines permit the use self-published sources WP:ABOUTSELF with reasonable limitations.

Discussion on this page 00:18, 5 March 2014 to 01:58, 7 March 2014 is predominately 'academic'. Yes - Let's just keep this to what we could potentially add to the article. Sam56mas (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall I am liking the way this article is looking now. I have two main concerns about your new edits.

1. You have inserted two references stating support for the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP) in the 'Chaplaincy' sub-section, and one in the 'Allegations of proselytising' sub-section, however, none of these references mention Access by name. Access is simply part of the NSCP. Generic support or criticism of the NSCP would belong at a wikipedia article for the NSCP, not the article of someone simply affiliated with the program. These references do not belong here, and accordingly all of this should be removed.

2. You have added the text "Access Ministries responded" to two of the three criticisms in the 'Educational content' sub-section. I think this is, quite frankly, rather silly. Firstly it's natural to expect Access to respond, so the fact that they responded in an undefined way is hardly surprisingly (I understand you may not have specified how they responded simply to keep the paragraph from becoming massive, which is appreciated, but I don't think the information that they simply responded is particularly helpful to the reader.). Unless you would allow me to add the reported fact "Access Ministries CEO Evonne Paddison did not return calls from The Age", or in other words "Access Ministries did not respond" to the third criticism in this sub-section (which I think would be equally silly), I think this information should be removed.

Also it would be appreciated if you could format your references using an approved method, such as Template:Cite web. As well as looking nicer, this will actually work to your advantage, as it will be easier to find said references if the original URL is moved.

Lastly i'd like to mention that prior to March, when edits became contested, I had made 37 edits to this article over 2 and a half years. I think it's rather ridiculous for you to imply this is 'massive', especially since I have made almost 19,000 edits to wikipedia over an eight year period, meaning this article has received around 0.3% of my editing attention. Freikorp (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes made as per no objections. I have started formatting the bare URLs as well, I have to go to work now but i'll finish the rest later today. Freikorp (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)