Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Section on Church Government

I don't believe that that article's section on church government is accurate. If it is, then it reflects only some GCA churches and not all. I believe my GCA church to be the norm: - "Pastor" and "elder" are interchangeable titles for the same person, just as the terms are interchangeable in the New Testament. - There is a plurality of pastor/elders, with each man viewed as having the same level of authority. - The pastor/elder may be paid by the church on a fulltime or parttime pbasis, or may not be paid at all. Payment does not equate with authority. - The plurality of pastors lead the church, and do not "report" to any other group of individuals except for the church as a whole. There is no board of directors. - Deacons serve alongside the pastors. Their role is to assist the pastors with leading and performing ministry. Candidates for deacon are generally nominated by the pastors, approved by the church, and then recognized. Deacons may be women ("deaconess.")

Again, I would ask the primary editors to consider changing this section of the article so that it more accurately, and succinctly, reflects the leadership model of most GCA churches. 4/19/07

Thanks for your comment there. I would tend to agree with all of your sentiments, as they are the case with my church as well. With respect, though, wikipedia is not a place where we can share our personal experiences with a person, place, or object and have the article about said thing improve. We need to cite credible, noteworthy, second-hand sources. If you could give a reference to a GCLI or LTC teaching, an article written by a pastor or church leader, or especially by someone not personally invested in the Movement, etc. that would be very helpful to improve the article in the way you suggested. Also, it might be helpful for you to register and get a userpage while you're working with wiki. It looks like you've got around a dozen edits here and on the main article, and it improves the discussion page atmosphere when we all know who is saying what. Thanks again for commenting. Nswinton 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand the sourcing need. I guess personal experience from two separate churches isn't a proper source. It still stands that the article paints an incorrect picture of general practice, and I don't see much of that section of the article "sourced." If it is and I'm missing it, I'd suggest the sourcing is simply wrong (or isolated). 4/19/07

Yea, I lived in Sierra Leone for a good chunk of my childhood as a missionary kid, and I know alot about the country, but I can't contribute to the article on the basis of what I experienced. If it was a blog or personal article of my own, I'd be able to, but since this is an encyclopedia that's not good writing practices. What sections in particular do you think are unsourced? Lets work on them. Nswinton 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted back to what the anonymous person put - the part about pastor and elder being interchangeable is correct, I verified it in the GCLI document "Elders and Leading the Local Church". Gatorgalen 17:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any instructions in the document for obtaining congregational input, though instructions abound for all other procedures. Since the GCLI document's statements are unverifiable by a reputable secondary source, we can dispense with it altogether. So much for the compromise. According to Jimbo Wales, it's better to have no information than bad information, so next week a lot of improperly sourced statements will hit the chopping block. ClaudeReigns 03:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should all reread the Verifiability and Reliable Source wikipedia documents. There is no need in wikipedia's policies for the GCLI documents to be verified by a secondary source. There is a great discussion of primary sources. I highly advise against "hitting the chopping block", mainly because to do so would be extremely arrogant and rude. The article has developed, especially lately, through a long process and a lot of neutral input. Claude, you are alone in your reading of the wikipedia policies, and seem to be particularly prone to using words outside of their wikipedia definitions and guidelines. As for specifics, you should really reconsider your attitude. Taking out the part about pastors and elders being interchangeable without discussion when I already listed the source here is simply immature. Sorry to be so frank. If we were to follow your policies, the only info we'd be able to include would be the newspaper articles. If GCLI isn't eligible, the GCC websites aren't either. They're both from the organization itself. Where does that leave us? Not surprisingly, with one long criticism section. Thankfully, wikipedia policies discuss this very issue. Stick to the policies. Gatorgalen 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pastors are NOT the only elders in GC. The cited source did not include the word elders at all. Board members who are not simply deacons are also elders and the GCLI document reflected that. However, if you and the anonymous editor are going to engage in unsourced statements and OR, I am told I MUST delete all of those statements, and will do so. The unverifiable letter statement was deleted as per WP:V, and all editors are cautioned to observe this policy, especially WP:V#SELF. None of this is relevant to GC's notability, the very first criteria for inclusion of self-published statements in an article about itself, and will hit the "chopping block" accordingly. The burden of proof is on the including editor, so I definitely caution you not to 3RR or you will be reported.

The letter about the book has not been sourced in a credible way and never presented for verification. The source and verify tag has been up for a couple of weeks now. Is there a reason you are not able to produce this letter? ClaudeReigns 06:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we all chill for the weekend or something and invite someone completely new to the article to come look at this discussion and see what they think. I think some NPOV would be nice right now :) Lets take Mmoneypenny's advice from a while back and refrain from any major edits and let the page evolve by other's hands. Nswinton 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My GCC church has the identical elder/deacon selection described above. Why is a printed source document necessary when you have three independent sources saying that this is the practice in their church? Autonomous churches, no less. Claude, I don't understand your angle. Do you attend a GC church? If so, what is the practice where you attend? If not, how would you know what typical practice looks like? Now, as for a source, if we provided a GC church website for a source, would that be acceptable?

BTW, if my lawn is green, and my neighbor says its green, and my other neighbor says its green, how can I prove on Wikipedia that it is green? Does a newspaper writer have to come to my house and write an article so it can be "proved?" 4/21/07

Please register and log in if you're going to contribute to this discussion. It's for everyone's sake, so we can all tell who is saying what. A different anonymous IP commented above (not sure if that was you), but for the sake of conversation it's nice to know who said what. Also, if both of your "neighbors" agree with you, and can be established as credible, please post an image of your "lawn" and some published quotes from your neighbors. I hope that makes sense. I can't write an encyclopedia article about my neighborhood as a first-person sourced article. I could write about it in my blog and tell everyone on teh intarnets all about my experiences there, but on an encyclopedia it's different. Nswinton 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, personal stories about how you think your churches are run are of no use on this talk page. According to some of my sources, the 1980's GCI was run in a very top-down hierarchal fashion, and this includes leaders. If things have changed officially in GCC churches today, let's have some sources and not just anecdotal evidence. Thanks. Xanthius 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Claude, I offered to mail you a copy of that letter long ago. Your verify tag is meaningless because the source is already there. You can't just through around wikipedia words and tags while ignoring their application. There is no online version of the letter, just as there aren't of almost all of the newspaper articles. If that's your standard, we should just go ahead and delete the entire criticism section. Please read ALL of the Verifiability guidelines. The GCLI document I put here (Elders and Leading the Local Church) uses elder and pastor interchangeably. Please say where you're getting this idea that board members that aren't deacons are elders - you simply have the order mixed up, board members are people who are elders, ie a church's board is its pastors, and sometimes other pastors as well. GCC uses pastor in that way on that one page already cited from the web because it's a short document and they want consistency, and they are using the culturally normal term. You can look in pretty much any document or teaching of GCM and see that they are interchangeable, you're the only one who doesn't see this. Gatorgalen 16:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My wikipedia email link on my homepage is not broken. User:Xanthius was able to provide verification of a questioned source recently by posting online. Is there some reason you are unable to produce the letter? The tag is important because you have not cited the source using a citation template; currently the template for {{cite letter}} was deleted precisely because we aren't supposed to cite correspondence. If the letter was actually published somewhere it could be cited properly, but consequently since it isn't you are unable. It will be removed in the very least until verification can be provided. In addition, it is a self-published source which does not serve to establish the notability of GCC, and is contentious. See policy:WP:V#SELF While it is always good to provide a citeable response to criticisms, the usual standards of sources still apply.

The GCLI document is a self-published source which also does not serve to establish the notability of GCC. Consequently, I will remove it as per WP:V#SELF. I do however find it interesting that the claim is that there are no board members who are neither pastors nor non-elder deacons. We should absolutely reestablish that section when it can be supported through a secondary source. ClaudeReigns 02:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Source types and minority views

Okay. I think it's about time we had a discussion about some important things pertinent to this article. The first is that of what types of sources are appropriate. There is a view espoused here frequently by ClaudeReigns that secondary sources are the only usable sources. Quoting from WP:No original research, "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also, "Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. However, these may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable." (from WP:RS). Both of these also encourage common sense and the occasional exception, something I feel we have become prone to ignoring.

The bottom line is this - there are few secondary sources from the past 15 years. GCA, while definitely notable, has only 45,000 adherents, not frequently putting it in the public spotlight. In fact, the media doesn't frequently present articles about any religious organization unless something negative happens to it or around it. The point is that we have a responsibility to present an accurate article, particularly when it comes to current events and views. We must not present minority views as majority views. Because the only articles we presently have are from a particular window painting GCA in a particular light, if those were our only sources we would have a horrible article. This is where common sense comes in, and this is the reason for the Wikipedia guidelines including primary sources. Primary sources are not the same as self-published; if you'll read the info about self-published material you'll see that GCLI material and other GC documents don't fall under it. If I or another individual were to make our own website, our opinions there would be.

Representation of GC websites and publications and GCLI materials should be purely descriptive. That is our only hope, given the controversial nature of this article, of producing an NPOV article. So far I feel like we've been doing a decent job of doing that; the only exception is that a reader might take away from the current article a belief that the criticisms are a continuing part of the organization's history. While there are certainly some individual critics, nothing major has happened in 15 years, nearly half GC's history. Like the Vineyard article, an org that has similar history and timeline, it should be noted that criticisms have waned. We need to be careful in representing minority views as majority views without cause to do so. Gatorgalen 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lack of secondary sources? There's over 50 on the page, more still available. Primary sources not allowed? No, primary sources are definitely allowed to establish the notability of the subject so long as they are non-contentious, not unduly self-serving, don't involve claims about third parties, and we also know for sure who authored them. Sources are best employed using the actual wording rather than engaging in any original research through our own interpretation of those sources whenever possible. We can't violate copyright, and blocks and blocks of quotes aren't encyclopedic, but we can easily represent the main ideas of sources by work or chapter or paragraph using basic procedures for identifying theses. Common sense as you would interpret it allows a whole different article at places like Bill White (Neo-Nazi) and Cult Awareness Network and even Jericho (TV Series) where the subjects of the article wish to exercise definite control over the content to advance their agendas. We need to cover people and groups with definite opinions and even T.V. shows with complicated backstories in Wikipedia, and we have to have a basis for doing so which still keeps it encyclopedic. The rules we have were developed over several years to permit this. ClaudeReigns 04:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Of those secondary sources, how many were written within the past 15 years? It looks like 1, Pile's book, which primarily discusses the early history. I would call that a significant lack of secondary sources when writing about the current beliefs and structure of the organization. The GCLI sources are clearly from GC and should be represented as such, but any idea of removing them is ridiculous and contrary to the the rules. If you'd please take the time to read what I wrote, I quoted some of those rules which are, as you say, developed to keep it encylcopedic. Common sense here fits the rules. FYI, the quotes you attributed as guidelines for primary sources (misquoted, actually, "relevant to the notability") are in fact for self-published sources, which are very different things. However, I was trying to point out to you that you have misread the rules frequently and misused wikipedia terms frequently because of a lack of use of common sense. I'm not trying to belittle you, but I think your recent activity is irresponsible and disrespectful, and that if you were to carry out your plan it would be vandalism. I fully mean that, and if you do I will revert it as vandalism. Just a friendly warning. Gatorgalen 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Right, self-published sources i.e.: "The GCLI sources are clearly from GC". GC published that source. It must adhere to the rules about self-published sources. Why don't you just find some acceptible sources within the framework of wikipedia rules? It's really easy to do. Maybe it would help to have more experience outside of the GCA article. ClaudeReigns 09:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, to me the article seems to have settled in a position between the controversy/criticisms of the group, and the promotion of group by the group's own sources. It points out the media critical of the movement, and the date range of these criticisms, while at the same time acknowledging the movement's acceptance into the NAE and other groups. I think it's clear from the sheer amount of newspaper articles critical of the movement that the critics were not in the minority, but I also think we need to allow some of GC's self-published sources to have their say as long as they aren't contradicted by more reliable sources. And the article does that.

Because of my belief that at the present time the article strikes a level of balance, I can't help but feel that both of you in your latest comments seem to be vying towards a tipping of the scales in one way or another. I don't feel significant changes to the article of that sort are necessary, and feel like you guys are presenting a justification for the beginnings of another Great Edit War. We really don't need another one of those here.

Two big points of contention lately seem to be the 1993 prayer letter and the church government paragraph(s). The church government section seems like a whole lot of hairsplitting and arguing over very minor semantical issues to me. Perhaps someone could explain to me why that section is so important to both sides. Regarding the 1993 letter: Gatorgalen, why don't you just scan it or type it up so we can determine who it was sent to (ie, if it was published movement-wide or only sent to a small number of people).

Xanthius 12:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The GCLI doc didn't stand on its own, the paragraphs in question were de-cited evidently by the very people who wanted it to remain (?) and so without a source and as per WP:V#SELF I deleted and they remain gone. Good riddance. As for the letter... well why don't you send us a letter supporting why Obscure Internet Reference is an important vestige of our digital history. That fine letter that you would send me would be a more accepted (yet STILL unencyclopedic) source than the alleged unseen 1993 Prayer Letter that is

• also allegedly self-published
• by contrast the very definition of contentious: 'Are not!'
• serves only Great Commission
• still not verified, so might originate from a different source than as described. Don't even get me going about your suggestion that Gatorgalen "type it up". That does not satisfy verifiability at all. You provide web-based scans upon request and Gatorgalen is to be held to the same standard.

The only thing which could make it a worse source is if there were a further quote within which made insinuations about Paul Martin's state of mind while writing "Cult-Proofing Your Kids". One thing in its favor, it may be slightly more verifiable than its even weaker sister, The Email. Only slightly. To paraphrase Jossi, "If a letter was quoted in a RS, cite that, otherwise, don't cite it.". ClaudeReigns 13:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was giving Gator the benefit of the doubt that perhaps the "prayer letter" was a published newsletter of some sort, sent to the entire movement. I still think if he scanned and provided it we would have a better idea of the nature of this letter. If it's not addressed towards the entire movement, however, it's obviously not published and not usable. I would at least like to see it to figure out who it was sent to, if nothing else, for personal research reasons. Regardless, since he still has not provided it and it probably is dubious, I've gone ahead and just removed it from the article.Xanthius 17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please read the Wikipedia rules. You are right, Xan, that it was a published newsletter to the entire movement. While I appreciate you wanting to see it for personal reasons, just as I'd like to see all the newspaper articles here which aren't available. I've trusted you on all of those, and there is no reason to consider this one dubious other than Claude not liking it (which doesn't qualify btw). If you (Xan) send me an email, I'll try to find time to scan you a copy, although honestly I don't have near as much time as some of you others seem to have to spend on wikipedia. I'd appreciate the rules being followed for now. Let's go by the WP definition of verify, not a made-up one. Thanks. Gatorgalen 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You can just scan it and put it on imageshack or somesuch. That's what I did when asked to provide a source. Also, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. It really doesn't seem like we can use it as a reliable source, especially as an attempt to discredit Paul R. Martin, a respected researcher in his field. Xanthius 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre

Good sources. None of them mention the subject of this article however. Since the Christianity Today article focuses specifically on New Life Christian Fellowship, recommend using the material to create an article there, and mention of that one particular church body as notable within the barren Great Commission Ministries section, and as the chief and most notable body if we find other notable GCM churches. Entry would read something like this:

• Most notable of the GCM campus ministries is New Life Christian Fellowship, whose pastors Jim Pace, Matt Rogers, and Chris Backert were sought out by national media in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, which claimed the lives of two NCLF members and ten others connected to the ministry. (then cite all sources, or at least five starting with Christianity Today and CNN, and including at least one for Rogers and Backert).

All the material is notable, immediately verifiable (make sure to save the Wash Post article--the archive is a subscription service), and the summary of the information is well written and NPoV for the purposes of WikiProject:Christianity (some Confucian may disagree with me?). But again, no mention of Great Commission Ministries is made in any of the articles so the inclusion in this article should be limited to the particular GCM church and what it is notable for. I'd make all the changes myself, but I'd like to give Gatorgalen an opportunity to create his first new article and receive the credit for a job well done. ClaudeReigns 05:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): shouldn't''.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed wikidates, slashed suggestion above. Not 100% sure that I did it right, open to suggestion. Nswinton\^talk 21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Split (unmerge GCM and GCC)

GCM, although born out of GCC, is a seperate entity from GCC, having its own IRS codes, board of directors, etc.

GCM's article should have never been merged. I'm proposing it to be split. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sohmc (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Both "organizations" have the same roots and history. They share many of the same board members, and the campus ministry of GC, now as in the past, is tied to the rest of the movement as a whole. The article is about the movement as a whole, from Jim McCotter to GCI to now, and while it's true that today GCM has a focus on campus ministry and leadership training, it is still part of the "Great Commission movement" and has been described by the organization as such: "GCM is a member ministry of the Great Commission Association of Churches."

If we split, we would simply end up having two articles with near identical information and very little differentiating them. Newspaper articles talk of the campus ministries of the movement and the movement as a whole as one in the same. Last, GC has been criticized in the past (I can think of two instances in expert research sources) for its history of changing names and creating subsidiaries, a practice that has been suggested by the experts to have been done to obfuscate the past and confuse people about the connectedness of the subsidiaries. Likewise, splitting up this article into articles based on GC's various subsidiaries would have the same effect.

GCM is a "member ministry" of GCAC. GCM was born out of Jim McCotter and "The Blitz Movement," just as GCI was, GCAC was, and GCC was. It all belongs in this article, which is about that movement, and not just individuals subsidiaries of any of the specific various stages of the movement. Xanthius 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what Xanthius is saying. I just looked and saw that the article is currently 50KB long - which is higher than suggested. If we're going to have an article about the movement, it should probably be renamed as such. Otherwise, it would seem to make sense to have them based on actual legal identities. It would make it a lot easier to state verifiable facts about the topic. We wouldn't have to replicate info, we'd just have to have them linked well. The WP policy on splitting makes a good point that pretty much no one is going to read the article as long as it is now, and that it's length also prohibits outside editors from coming in to wade through info. Overall it looks like it'd be healthy for the quality of the article, encyclopedically speaking. I'm not saying either way right now, just thinking out load. Oh, ant btw, fact check - GCM was formed after Jim McCotter involvement ceased. Also, I'm not sure where the current saying that GCM came from GCS is sourced - it looks like OR to me. Gatorgalen 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The length of the article may be misleading. There are quite a bit of references, many with long quotes, and I believe these feed into the 50k number, even though most people are not going to read the actual references. Just a quick glance and it really doesn't seem as long as most featured articles. Compare to the Jesus article which is 99k, or the 68k George Washington article. We could possibly split out some of the sections, as has been suggested with the Virginia Tech section, but I don't see it as a huge necessity at the moment.

As for GCM not being connected to GCI and The Blitz Movement? Absolutely ridiculous. This is the same argument we had about GCI repackaged. Just because GCI was formed in 1983 doesn't mean that all history of the movement before then is somehow unrelated to it. In the same manner, yes GCM was formed in 1989, but it was formed as a member ministry for a greater preexisting movement, its leaders all come from that movement, and it is simply another subsidiary in a long list of GC subsidiaries that have come and gone. I am not aware of any reliable source that suggests that the campus ministry of GC is notability different from the movement as a whole other than its focus on college ministry. All of the subsidiaries GC has formed are designed to work together for the purposes of the movement. This article is about that movement, not each subsidiary. People wanting information on GCM are wanting information on the movement as a whole, including why GCM was formed and what led up to its formation. It's all inter related. It thus all belongs in this article, and not separate. Xanthius 14:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I get what you're saying. There's no need for rhetoric - I never said GCM wasn't connected to GCI and The Blitz, just that it was after the McCotter area, so saying it was "born out of Jim McCotter" is a little misleading. Basically what I see you saying is that you want this article to be about the Great Commission "movement". What I'm saying is that I can see a need to clarify that in some way - either have separate linked articles about GCC and GCM as has been suggested, or else rename this article so that the topic is clear, ie rename it the "Great Commission Movement" if we want it to be all-encompassing, or else just link it. Either way all the info is going to be there easily accessible. Gatorgalen 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've thought for a while that the article should be renamed "Great Commission Movement", but didn't ever say anything because it can be hellish trying to enact change on this article. I can see why someone would want to split it, but at this point I don't see that as being necessary. I think if we were in the 75-100k range, that'd be a good idea, but this article is, in my opinion, thousands of edits from being there. I've been busy lately with work, but I'd like to see the above proposed edits that the peer review (largely unsuccessful) brought in. If we get to the point where it's really, honestly a huge article, and we think we have materials to split it and make two decent articles, I'd support the split then. Nswinton\^talk 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I wanted to go ahead and quote a couple things to facilitate discussion. From Wikipedia:Summary style "Articles larger than 30 KB (those that trigger page size warning) may be getting too long to efficiently cover their topic. This likelihood increases with larger size and it is very rare for an article 50% larger than this to still efficiently cover its topic.

There are also technical issues with editing articles over 30KB that often lead to duplicated information and poor structure. Few editors will read an entire 50 or 70KB article just to make sure a piece of info they want to put in is not already there. The result is that the information is misplaced, duplicated, or not put in at all." I also recommend just going ahead and reading all of Wikipedia:Article size. Gatorgalen 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article "Great Commission Movement" would possibly provide more clarity into the scope of the article, however, I am not sure the movement has ever actually been referred to that in any reliable source.

As far as splitting, I don't think splitting GCM from GCC is appropriate. The Maryland Political Controversy section might belong in its own sub-article though, with a brief summary in the main GCC one linking to that sub-article. Xanthius 02:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• Since I would like to see this article eventually become a FA (yes, I can dream), we are eventually going to want to meet the general guidelines for length.
• The article is currently 53k. How much of that is the reference section/images? The article size page says that the main body should be ~32k or less (as a "guideline")
• Does anyone think that we could work (with consensus?) to trim down this article to the point that it's ~32k? I think there are some sections that could become their own articles or be re-written in a more brief way.
• Lists, images, tables, footnotes, external links, etc. do not count towards the "main body" that we need to get into the 32k range. Does anyone else think the "Beliefs and Values" and "Partnerships" sections can be reduced to a set of external links? I think those could qualify as "further reading" in my mind - but I think a lot of crazy things...
• I'm just going to quote this:

"Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information."

• I'm going to repeat myself from above - I think we should re-name this article "Great Commission Movement" - because it covers everything from the Blitz to GCA. Then we should strip it down to the most notable points of history and the most notable points of the modern incarnation of the Movement. Another option might be to break the history of the movement to another sister article? Just some thoughts. Totally open to discussion.

Nswinton\^talk 03:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is content here that has absolutely no mention of the movement in its original source. This article should specifically be about the whole and not the pieces especially when one asserts that the pieces are autonomous. If sources only mention a member church, the split needs to happen there first. Otherwise I'd be including stuff from Tom Short. No OR means definitely not drawing conclusions about a subject where none are drawn in sources. I mentioned in my userpage from the very beginning that I am not much of a splittist in philosophy. That doesn't mean splits don't happen. I won't stonewall a split if that is truly the consensus of all the other editors, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't distort inter-organizational relationships or constitute blatant WP:NOR or otherwise fail a common sense check. I know User:Sohmc is of the opinion that based on independent legal status there is a definite separation between GCC and GCM. In practice, the separation is not very distinct, and my general statement is easily sourced and verified in many individual cases (which is where it seems we are eventually headed). I guess what I'm going to do in the hopes of centralization is to delete information present in other places which is not specifically tied to any GC* organization. In my ideal, this article acts as a portal page so people can assess all sourced claims about GC* organizations as a whole, and easily find branch articles to do with the non-profit(s) they are specifically interested in, and then finally find information on the local church(es) that they have an interest in by geography. Example: all the Minneapolis churches would link together. I'm not thinking "should we or shouldn't we" - new sources will emerge continuously - as much as planning how when we do and hoping to get to it slowly with good edit-pruning that does not unduly isolate or annihilate information in the meantime. ClaudeReigns 08:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if size of the article is a problem, the information about churches in the movement (but not about the actual movement as a whole) should be the first to go/be split. It's just trivia when placed in the context of the movement as a whole. There are what, 60 U.S. churches in the movement? I would venture to say many of them have been in the newspaper at least once, for some event they were holding or what not. This isn't the place to be listing every single event that has ever happened in a GCC church. That is where individual articles on those churches could come into play, with perhaps link to them from this page, maybe. The Virginia Tech Massacre section comes to mind. None of the sources even mention the movement. Why is it here?

I do want to say that I don't see this as a huge need right now. According to Wikipedia:Article size, in the Rule Of Thumb section, > 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time). We are at around 50kb minus references. I personally think, with a few exceptions, the scope of this article is vast enough to justify the size. We are covering a movement with a complicated and well publicized past, which has changed names numerous times, and has had an often changing organizational structure. There are probably thirty sources being referenced in this article. I think anybody interested in reading about the movement is not going to find the article too excessive in size. While this article could do with a few minor trimmings, but it certainly isn't at critical mass. Xanthius 17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another paragraph that seems completely out of place here is the information on New Life Church's building project. The justification seems to be that GCM approved the funding, which is mentioned in the article, but in the context of the movement as a whole who cares about one church's building project? If size is a problem I think this should go before any trimming of the History/Criticism sections. It's not really notable. Also, I notice the phrase "received much media attention" is only backed up by one Michigan State newspaper article, which doesn't seem like much media attention to me. Xanthius 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What about making a list of churches in the GCA article? That'd be relatively easy to do, and would be a starting point for individual church articles (if individual churches are particularly notable). Nswinton\^talk 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reduce?

I've got some thoughts on reducing the size of the article. First, I'll start off with just laying out the basic size of the different sections:

• History: ~18k
• "Today" - "Funding" sections ~16k
• Criticism/Response to Criticism: ~15k
• Lead/references/external links makes up other 2-3k

We could split off some sections to their own articles, but I think it would be awkward. For example, if we split off and make a "History of the Great Commission Movement" article, the criticism section would be awkward in this main article, and in that article. Splitting off the criticism section will most likely violate some rule (I don't think I'll have to look hard to find one), and will surely cause chaos and strife here on the talk page. So I'll rule that out. GCM as it's own article would be awkward, in my opinion, as a separate item from this main article.

So it seems to me that we need to improve/reduce the article as it is. We need to work within consensus to re-write the bulk of this article with the mindset of only keeping the most notable content, and keeping it in formal prose. Some sections can be dramatically reduced in my opinion. For example, the "Beliefs and Values" section could keep the links to the Statement of Faith and Core Values pages, and then just say that GC also holds a Complementarianism view of women in church, a brief statement on church autonomy within the movement, and a few sentences on native appointment of clergy. This section could be one paragraph, rather than four, and one section, rather than 2, with 3 subsections. This revamp would also improve the table of contents (which is also getting too big).

There are other sections that are just very long-winded, or list several items without prose. Those sections should be bulleted and re-written for the sake of the reader (parts of the "Criticism" section and "Subsidiary organizations" sections are what I'm thinking about, mainly. Format is my biggest problem here, not necessarily content. I think if we actually work carefully and within consensus to revamp the whole article based on the above thoughts, we can get it down to about 35k, and we'll have significantly improved it.

How 'bout if we just start selecting certain parts of the article, section by section, and work over them here on the talk page until we all agree, then insert them - reduced and improved - in the actual article. Then we'll avoid 3RR and POV issues (hopefully!). It might take longer, but it'll be more legit, and hopefully we'll all be more happy as a result. What do you guys think? Nswinton\^talk 15:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is long because of one single reason -- negative editorialism. When Our two most negative editors decided to use this as an article to paint GC in a negative light, it forced other editors to find positive info to offset the negative, to at least attempt neutrality. There are whoe sections that could completely disappear, but they won't because Xanthius and Claude are going to insist on trimming the positive, so GG and Nate are going to combat it by trying to trim the negative. Good luck playing nicely in this little sandbox.

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed! I'm assuming good faith across the board and not pointing fingers at anyone. I'm believe that we can all work together and clean up this article. Only the other real editors can prove that belief wrong. Log in and read up on "assume good faith" before posting again. Nswinton\^talk 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In whoever that was's defense, he has point. I think the point of "assuming good faith" has somewhat passed as the policies allow for - assuming good faith doesn't mean ignoring the obvious. I hope he's wrong, and I hope Claude and Xan prove him wrong, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Gatorgalen 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how pointing fingers is going to do anything to improve this article. To be fair, Galen, you and I came here with the express purpose of turning this article around. It seems like Claude and Xan came to maintain the text that communicates some of GC's past failings. Regardless of what everyone brings to the table, we've got to find some way to get everyone on the table to stop bickering and actually work to improve the article - regardless of whatever biases we bring. There is going to be compromise, regardless. How can we expect CR & X to assume good faith about us if we don't return the favor? I'm initiating with this and saying that regardless of how it has been, I think things can go well. Lets all try and make that so. Nswinton\^talk 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not finger pointing, it is the truth as I see it. The article started out as a one paragraph entry pointing to the GCC website. Then, editors who wanted to label GC a cult took the article and ran with it. When the GC "association" realized that 1) there was an article) and 2) that it was almost completely negative, individuals came to the article loaded with "positive speak" to counter the article. As I see it, this point, counterpoint continues. Want to say that GC has been labeled a cult by three school newspapers in 1978? Then we're going to point out the positive press surrounding VT. Want to use Martin and Enroth's research (two guys almost nobody has ever heard of) to make the point that GC is authoritarian? OK, but we'll counterbalance by saying that respectable guys like Rick Warren are "partners" with GC. Etc, etc. You know who "wins" in Wikiland? It's the person who has the most time on their hands to babysit the entry they wish to control. If Xan is out here everyday controlling the negative content, he wins. If Gator is out here everyday adding positive (or eliminating the negative), he wins. Sure, go ahead and wrap yourselves inside the "NPOV" flag and other "regulations." Its just a way of using the "rules" to advance an agenda. Nate, this isn't about waking up on the wrong side of the bed ... the reality is that there is no real good faith here. I would bet that Xan and Claude aren't even your brothers in Christ, Nate. If they aren't, why would you assume good faith? And if they are, do you think they would so resolutely be attacking their fellow Christian brothers?

Want to use Martin and Enroth's research (two guys almost nobody has ever heard of) LOL! Yeah, Paul Martin and Ronald Enroth are a couple of nobodies... Xanthius 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous, when people engage in edit wars, no one "wins". Eventually someone gets disciplined, and then people have to clean up the messed-up, one-sided article. I assume good faith as a general rule while I'm working on wikipedia. I haven't personally engaged in any edit-wars (that I'm aware of or that I can remember). I'm aware that they've happened (I archived the talk page, I know). I don't know what CR & X believe personally (but their edit histories are telling), and I'm not going to assume. I'm going to continually extend my right hand of friendship to them - BECAUSE I AM A BELIEVER, regardless of their beliefs. If you want to consider this a form of persecution, you might want to think about Jesus' thoughts on persecution in Matthew 5. I think the past mistakes of the GC Movement have helped shape them into the association that they are today. It's not my experience at all that GC is a cult (by any definition I'm comfortable with), but I can still see the... echoes of past practices in the movement. There is nothing scary at all for me about having the criticisms of the movement in this article... it's just history (though I do think that they're given undue weight at this point). If there are present-day faults then I say bring them into the light and let them be dealt with in the best way possible. I'm not going to write off CR & X as simple slanderers yet. I'm going to wait and see if they'll continually be the voice of criticism, or if they're willing to participate in making this article truly great. Please get a user account soon so these discussions can take place there, rather than here. This whole discussion is tangental from the purpose of this talk page. Nswinton\^talk 17:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, here is the change that I'd make to the Beliefs and Values section:

== Beliefs and Values ==

GCC's Statement of Faith can be found on their website. GCC also maintains a Core Values Statement, which expresses the essential values common to all churches within the association.

Being part of the association requires that a church agree to Biblical and ethical standards set by the association. Final authority rests with the pastors of each local church. [1] Churches within GCC cooperate within the association for conferences, mission efforts and accountability in doctrine and ethical practices. According to GCC, its churches are "independent under the Lordship of Jesus Christ." GCC adopts John Piper and Wayne Grudem's Complementarian view of women in church leadership, as detailed in their co-authored book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

GCAC states that it places great emphasis on raising leaders from within its congregation, based on the character qualities detailed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. This is contrary to the more common practice among Christian denominations of hiring pastors from other churches/cities. It is not required that GCAC pastors have formal seminary training. [2] However, a number of GCC pastors and staff have received training from specific Bible Schools and Seminaries.[3] Certain schools are listed as partners on the Great Commission website (See Partners[4] list for specifics). GCC also founded the Great Commission Leadership Institute (GCLI) in 1999 to support the development of pastors within the local churches. The GCLI program includes teaching materials written by pastors and leaders from across GCC as well as regional "Going Deeper" conferences for discussion of doctrine and values.[5][6][7]

Does that seem reasonable? It'll reduce the overall text and the TOC and will still communicate all the essential stuff. Nswinton\^talk 15:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I see lacking at this point:

• "This is contrary to the more common practice among Christian denominations of hiring pastors from other churches/cities."

• This statement needs a source, but that shouldn't be too hard to find. Any takers?

Ok, the citation needed for the complementarian view that GCC holds is going to be tricky (at least for me), so I need some help. GCC got permission from Crossway Books to actually copy a chapter from the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, and use that chapter as the GCLI section on women in church leadership. It's the official stance of GCC on the issue, but I'm not sure if I should cite GCLI or Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - as it's kinda... double published. Any thoughts? Nswinton\^talk 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Xanthius' Response to NSwinton

It appears much of the information in those paragraphs is without a reliable source. I know at one point they did have one. For instance, regarding seminary there was once this [8] which had a quote from Tom Short (who is on the board of directors) about the movement's beliefs about seminary education. To quote from the article: He said his denomination, the Great Commission Association of Churches, does not ordain based on seminary education, but rather on the minister's relationship with God. "Personally, that's where we [GCAC] think a lot of churches are weak because they don't have an example of people living as Christian leaders," he said. "We'd say American Christianity has cluttered what it means to be a pastor and a simple calling." Short said the authority to preach does not come from ordination but from the Bible, and added that there were no seminaries in the New Testament church."

The Complementarian sentence also needs a source.

The line "However, a number of GCC pastors and staff have received training from specific Bible Schools and Seminaries." is lacking a reliable source backing it up, and seems like a pretty bold statement contradicting the above Short quote. Just because the movement lists educational "partners" on its website doesn't mean the nature of partnership has ever been disclosed, or that "many" of the staff are busy getting seminary educations because of that listing. Again I am looking for some reliable sources that make that conclusion, not just an assumption because they list "educational partners" on their website.

Last, thanks for remaining level headed, NSwinton. I grow tired of the personal attacks I have received on this page. I have majorly edited several other controversial religious group's articles and have not received even close to the amount of backlash I received here. Xanthius 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Xanthius, thanks for the response. You're right, those things need to be referenced. I'll look into it. Ha ha, God willing we'll get this article up to GA status before 2010. Nswinton\^talk 00:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to two of the things. All you need to do to verify the part about pastors and staff receviing seminary training is just look it up. Greg Van Nada is a notable example - it's not based on the partnerships, the partnerships are for that purpose but there's only one source that says that (Winebrenner has a thing on their website, I'll put it up). I've stated this several times. If you'd like to go source by source and find pastors with seminary degrees, it's not hard to verify. The Complementarianism comes from the GCLI reproduction, as it is currently stated/sourced. I don't see why we have to keep rehashing this. Gatorgalen 01:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What part of Wikipedia's requirement that information be backed by Reliable Sources is not being understood here? I could call every pastor in the movement and ask them if they have seminary education but it wouldn't be useful to this article because it violates WP:OR. The information about GC's educational partnerships is currently from an unreliable self-published website. If the Winebrenner website mentions the exact nature of those partners then provide it and perhaps we will be closer, but for those of you complaining that there's too much "negative" information in the article, provide reliable sources that back up your view. Don't quote only from the movement's websites and documents and expect it to hold much weight. Has the movement never received positive press from the media? Surely those of you on staff with GCC like Gatorgalen could ask about any newspaper articles that praised the movement as a whole (not just a single church) and then include them here. It's a big enough organization, surely there are some right? The endless quoting from unreliable self-published sources, however, really needs to stop. The websites are promotional in nature, designed to "sell" the movement to potential members. There is nothing npov about them.

I want everybody here to get along, but if any charge can be leveled towards "defenders" of the movement's "positive image" it would be this: try harder. There are probably 20 to 30 reliable sources that could be described as critical of the movement which have been sourced here, while almost every source added by "defenders" has been something the movement self-published.

I am not here to attack or destroy the movement's reputation, and I have put a lot of work into the history section which could hardly be described as critical of the movement (it describes how a handful of people created an international movement in mere decades, pretty impressive I'd say). If I had more positive reliable sources to work with I'd put them in for you, but I don't. If you think the movement is so great, and insist that everyone else does too, find those sources and cite them. It's as easy as that. Xanthius 01:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here is the old source for the belief about women paragraph: [9] There was also mention of GCC agreeing with some statement by John Piper. Anyone want to provide those links again? Xanthius 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this before. Let's get one thing straight - "self-published" is not the category these things go under, but rather primary. Read the wikipedia policies, there is an enormous difference. They are reliable not in making a decision ("such and such is really the case") but they are very useful in saying "GCC said this" and so on (descriptive claims). We should really be past this by now, the policies aren't that complicated. The GCLI part isn't linkable because they aren't online, which is irrelevant. Get a copy and read it - the current article describes the source, the John Piper info is there (it has a lot of info in one sentence, I recommend reading it, it's not "some statement by John Piper".) Our job as editors isn't to present a case for or against GCC. As for "positive" RS, let's get real. The media doesn't publish articles like "GCC a great org" or "Campus Crusade: Is it a wonderful thing?" They simply report on them as normal and on what they do when they think they are normal. Your roommate Mr. Claude pointed out that there are however many articles citing people critical of GCC, all from 15+ years ago. If you'd bother to put half as much effort in researching you might find some of the more "normal" articles. As for praise of "the movement", don't forget this is an association of churches we're talking about. The individual churches are the real actors. Thus they receive the publicity, because of the less central nature of GCC. You don't seem to object to critical articles talking about one local church. BTW, I put a couple on there (for example the one saying GCM is one of the top ten US campus ministries). There's plenty more to say, but I think we really need to get a grasp of OR vs. source-based research. I didn't suggest calling the pastors. The info is out there though, if you want to make the effort then do it, all you've got to do is look up if they have degrees. They do, it's not hard, let's get real. Gatorgalen 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In one corner we have a quote from Tom Short basically saying that the movement isn't big on seminary education, but explaining the reasoning behind it. On the other corner... there seems to be a certain embarrassment on the part of some editors for what this leader said, so what has creeped in is unsourced speculation/OR about "some" leaders having seminary degrees. Of course some leaders in GCC are going to have seminary educations, it's a movement of 45000 Christians of various backgrounds. The movement is not being accused of banning people from seminary. It is just detailing the movement's difference from most other Christian denominations in terms of its beliefs on seminary, and the reasoning behind it. The unsourced speculation about "some" people having seminary degrees is being used to "counter-point" a well known GCC leader's quote (from a reliable source) about what the movement believes on the matter. Unless there are other reliable sources countering his 2002 quote, why fight it? It's not a belief to be embarrassed about, Tom Short obviously isn't. Xanthius 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a debate, at least it shouldn't be. This is an encyclopedia. How can you honestly say that it's speculation and then say that of course it's true. The point is that the "movement", while not requiring seminary education, is also not opposed to it. The point is to display an accurate view. It's not countering Tom Short's quote at all. It's just important not to present one side of the organization on any issue. We don't interpret quotes, we put them and facts. We've got to get away from trying to use sourcing to prove points - that is not what this article is for. We're not here to endorse any view of GC. Here's a tidbit for you [10]. Just scroll to the bottom. One example for you - Greg Van Nada, while being a national leader in 2005, got a degree from Reformed Theological Seminary. The reason the article reads as it does currently is that we don't want people to read "it is not required" as it is not done. saying "it is not required" is only half of the real story - the other half is that some do have it or go get it. I seriously don't see why you have a problem with this (unless you think it somehow makes GC look bad to have nobody ever go to seminary, something you seem to projecting onto others). Gatorgalen 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has taught me so much about sourcing and the pitfalls of bad sourcing (especially my own) and why it's important to stick to what's already been worked out. The discussion seems to be focusing on the pros and cons of seminary education. To address the topic in the article, one finds all the reliable secondary sources, if any, to describe the subject's treatment of the topic (reliable outsiders y and z say 'that' about x's attitudes toward seminary education) and then one rounds out the treatment by noting primary sources' claims of notability with regards to seminary education (notable X member Bob says this makes X special in 'this' way - which is basically how the Short quote functions) while ignoring unusable primary sources (X member George says it makes X better than Q, X member Joe says this makes X totally rock, et cetera). One insures the statements are both true AND verifiable. One crafts the statements in such a way not to endorse the point of view of the sources. And most people also dig it if you can show how the topic is of note. And that's the simplified version of the process. One needn't evaluate GC's seminary educational practices--that's what sources are for. Sourcing means that if you wanted to, you could write the article like "expert says this" and "critic says this" and "Bob says this" and "Big Magazine says this" until everyone is sick to death of reading "'Source' says 'this'". Which sounds pedantic. That's one of the things that really bugged me about Xanthius' writing when I first got here - I read the word "stated" so many times that it made me want to cry to my AP Composition teacher - but congrats, Xanthius, for showing through clear writing that at least everything was sourced. People come away from the poorer articles here at Wikipedia wondering, "Sez who?" If we do our jobs, people won't have to ask. ClaudeReigns 06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling up... I see that we're pretty much in agreement that it isn't unusual for a church to hold a complementarian view. What is then notable about it? This is the pickle we are in with sourcing. Someone gets a primary source and wants to paint it one way... then another wants to correct the depiction of that piece of information, and now we're scrambling for sources to prove a particular wording to link it to a wider view of it. This problem has arisen from the misuse of primary sources. If you're looking for a source to prove an assertion, you're writing the article backwards. That was exactly the mistake that I made with other GCLI documents. We're not supposed to evalute primary sources as encyclopedia editors. We're not even supposed to include them unless they come with the implication 'this makes us special'. 'We're special because we're complementarian' covers it. 'We're like other churches who are also complementarian' doesn't. You'll need to find someone that says GC says it is special because it is complementarian. If you find any other sources which can actually speak for GC like a board member or Faithwalkers/Nats speaker while you are looking who also claims that GC is distinctive from other church organizations in other ways, bring them. We can use them. ClaudeReigns 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's seriously fine with me that we drop the Complementarian part. Anyone opposed to dropping that? Nswinton\^talk 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary really. There are common themes and structures in the Christian articles. It may not "make them special' (not a lot of the article does, but it is an important fact people want to know. It's one of the biggest issues in Christendom today - a hundred years ago almost everybody in the US would have been considered complementarian, but now you have Methodists, Episcopls, PCUSA, etc., a huge division. I don't think it's necessary to remove it - the quote might not add a lot, but I think it's valuable to put that they are complementarian on that issue. BTW, Claude, that is not waht the policy says about what is included - we don't need to prove they're different from others, surely you don't mean that. Notability is not uniqueness. Gatorgalen 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bold

May I ask for the reason for using bold text for the previous names of the association in the History section? I didn't think you were supposed to use bold (for titles) except in introduction. Overusing bold is very hard on the eyes. Not even NLP ads would use it that much. -- trlkly 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a good question. I didn't make it that way, so I don't know the answer. It seems ok to me, but perhaps it is unnecessary. If you know where there is a policy mention of this I'd love to see it. (a note it is essentially in the intro to the history).Gatorgalen 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)