Talk:International Christian Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

File:Kip McKean GLC.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kip McKean GLC.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Queries

How can we work this information into the article? It's written from the inside of the group ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.179.24.179 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey sounds good, here is another link with multiple voices talking about the cult aspect of Kip McKean's church — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.46.213 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Separate History from Breakup with ICOC

Hi there! My name is Tim and I would like to help work on this page to create a fair and balanced perspective. So far I think its pretty negative. I would like to separate the History section from the Break up with the ICOC section. This allows us to deal with the growth and development of the ICC and the Breakup separately and fairly. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.236.201 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the ICC came from a schism with the ICOC, the history and 'breakup' as you described it are very much entwined. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Same Old Kip Mckean Thing

Kip Mckean has been identified as a cult leader. Shouldn't the article reflect this? There are a lot of people worldwide that believe that Kip Mckean is a cult leader.Qewr4231 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that Kip Mckean is actually making most of the edits to this article himself, which has led to a large number of issues with the article. BlueGold73 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Kip Mckean should be editing his own Wikipedia entry because Kip Mckean has a long history of lies and deceit. Kip Mckean has been known to tell lies about himself in order to make himself look better. Qewr4231 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is an affirmative vote in the cult department - here is a link talking about how Kip McKean's "church" is an abusive cult today, and here is another one talking about some Kip McKean-related abusive cult activity in the past.75.171.46.213 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Also, here is a site from a former leader of the church talking about abuse in the church and why it should be considered a cult: Kip McKean's International Christian Church - An Abusive Cult REQUEST TO DELETE THIS TOPIC: Whether or not Kip McKean is a cult leader or not has little bearing on this article. This article is about the International Christian Church. Perhaps this Talk Page topic belongs on the BLP of Kip McKean. I see no reason why this frivolous topic should be discussed here. --CdHess (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC) CdHess, it's commonly known in Christian circles that Kip Mckean is referred to as a cult leader. I can show you lots of videos and articles written and hosted by thousands of Christian ministers that consider Kip Mckean to be a cult leader. But you probably already know this and want to only portray a flowery positive view of Kip Mckean. Who cares about the truth. Let's get more people to join Kip Mckean's movement! Qewr4231 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Qewr4231 - A few things: 1) This discussion is two months stale. 2) Wikipedia is not the place for you to soapbox. 3) Stop commenting on the editors. This is not the first time you have accused someone of having a bias simply because they are trying to maintain neutrality in articles. It is our duty to present the article subject neutrally. That is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. No more personal attacks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Request To Not Delete This Topic: Kip Mckean is commonly referred to as a cult leader by Christians that are not a part of the International Christian Churches. News reports about the International Churches of Christ, Kip Mckean's old movement, being a cult: ABC News: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv Inside Edition: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/InsideEditionSmall.wmv Fox Files: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/FoxFilesSmall.wmv Other videos that talk about the International Churches of Christ (ICOC), Kip Mckean's old movement, being a cult. Again I offer these videos as proof that people are criticizing the ICOC, calling the ICOC a cult, and that there is controversy. THE "INTERNATIONAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST" ALIAS "THE BOSTON MOVEMENT #1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUHNAcvTBBA&feature=youtu.be Visions and Dreams" A brief history of the International Churches of Christ: http://vimeo.com/71606023 International Churches Of Christ (Boston Movement) on Inside Edition, May 1994 - ICOC - NYCOC (1994): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QScYzMNbD04 Is the International Church of Christ a Cult? Boston News Report What Hasn't Changed in the ICOC 1998 (WCVB-TV, channel 5, is a television station located in Boston, Massachusetts, United States that serves as an affiliate of the ABC television network. It is the flagship television station of Hearst Television, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation. WCVB-TV's studios and transmitter are co-located in Needham, Massachusetts. WCVB is also one of six Boston television stations that are carried by Canadian satellite provider Bell TV.): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNPUoKMqYQ0&feature=youtu.be International Church of Christ | CBC Report | Is the ICOC a Multi-level Marketing Organisation? (CBC News is the division of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation responsible for the news gathering and production of news programs on CBC Television, Radio and online services. CBC News is the largest news broadcaster in Canada with local, regional and national broadcasts and stations.): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ncQr7c5gd0 http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Church%20of%20Christ/icoc.htm International Churches of Christ EXPOSED! By David J. Stewart http://www.cultwatch.com/icc.html The International Church of Christ (ICOC) http://carm.org/what-international-church-christ What is the International Church of Christ? by Matt Slick http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbnew.aspx?pageid=8589952668 International Churches of Christ By Tal Davis http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/02/10/international-churches-of-christ-a-personal-story-of-control/ The Wartburg Watch 2013 http://www.gotquestions.org/International-Church-of-Christ.html What is the International Church of Christ (ICOC), and what do they believe? by S. Michael Houdmann Qewr4231 (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I will find some criticisms of Kip Mckean's new movement the International Christian Churches and post them in the near future. Because media and Christians outside of the ICOC/ICC consider these organizations to be cults, it's important to have a controversy and criticism section. If many, many, many news organizations and many, many, many Christians outside the ICOC/ICC call Kip Mckean a cult leader then they can't all be wrong. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, feels like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:LABEL, Qewr? A component discouraging labels of "cult" was submitted to the Manual of Style as far back as 2011. If the article already addresses allegations of "cult" that might already be more than is appropriate. Further, our main goal is a neutral point of view, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you are interested in adding criticism of the church, we need to 1) be sure the criticism comes from reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject and 2) it seems we would also need to provide balance in the form of accolades. We do this for movies, and TV articles, and US presidents, and there's no reason I can think of why we wouldn't treat this church the same way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Links About Kip Mckean

1. Kip McKean and his International Christian Church is it a cult? https://biblebasedmindcontrolcults.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/kip-mckean-and-his-international-christian-church-is-it-a-cult/

2. http://www.cultwatch.com/icc.html

3. 10 Things Concerned Parents Should Know About Kip McKean and the ICC http://www.exicc.org/2014/10/concerned-parents-kip-mckean-icc.html

4. Kip McKean and his favored elite--"Living Large" The ICC takes in many millions of dollars each year, which is derived from the often sacrificial giving of its members. But is all this cash flow really responsibly used to "advance the 'Kingdom of God'?"

http://www.culteducation.com/group/983-international-church-of-christ/10112-kip-mckean-and-his-favored-elite-living-large.html

5. Kip McKean, Cult Founder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zXkt-ZbdVQ

6. Their defense of NOT being a Cult! http://www.letusreason.org/OCC22.htm

7. Aging “cult leader” Kip McKean attempting comeback http://www.cultnews.com/2006/10/aging-cult-leader-kip-mckean-attempting-comeback/

8. Witnessing to Disciples of the International Churches of Christ http://www.equip.org/article/witnessing-to-disciples-of-the-international-churches-of-christ/#christian-books-2

I can continue posting hundreds if not thousands of links that talk about Kip Mckean being a cult leader Qewr4231 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can present a neutral and impartial paragraph that has cites to reliable sources discussing the church as a cult then please propose it on the talk page. That means;

• no emotive phrasing
• nothing from blogs, fringe websites or random youtube videos. When presenting controversial information Wikipedia needs to be 100% certain of its accuracy and veracity. It needs good reliable sources.
• no sources that don't specifically mention the International Christian Church. You cannot combine sources to make them demonstrate a conclusion not specifically within either source.
• nothing that is presented as being what "everyone knows" or what is clear to you personally. Everyone doesn't know, and what you think is irrelevant.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is my paragraph:

The ICOC has been the subject of much criticism while Kip Mckean was its leader. The Seattle Times, a newspaper based in Seattle, Washington that has won nine Pulitzer prizes, featured an article on the Seattle Church of Christ calling the Seattle Church of Christ too controlling. Church's Practices Criticized -- Seattle Church Of Christ Too Controlling, Some Say Even the New York Daily News has reported that critics of the International Churches of Christ are calling the International Churches of Christ manipulative. A CHURCH OF CHRIST OR CULT OF CASH Critics slam group as manipulative A Lawsuit was filed against the International Church of Christ in 2005 by Jack and Kay Pelham in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that the International Church of Christ has a pattern of "widespread fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit in the solicitation of funds through coercion and false advertising." Further, the Pelham's claim that funds marked as charitable donations to the poor were diverted and used by high ranking ICOC leaders as personal income. Pelham Lawsuit Last, but not least, there are the admissions by ICOC leaders themselves:

“Appearances and real issues of greed have now caused thousands to stumble and question our spirituality.” Henry Kriete Letter — Spring 2003 Henry Kriete on the greed amongst ICOC leaders

“Financially over-extending the church” Toronto Apology Letter — April 9, 2003 Toronto Church of Christ Letter

“Also in regard to finances we want to apologize to you for the fact that money was not always spent wisely.” Boston Apology Letter – March 16, 2003 Boston Church of Christ Apology

“Not protecting the churches in San Diego and the Southwest. These churches have been incredibly sacrificial. We have sent hundreds of people as well as millions of dollars to support missions and ministries around the world. However, our churches have been hurt so that others could be built up. We have lacked people and funds for our teen, campus, singles and other ministries.” Guillermo Adame Letter – Monday, April 14, 2003 Guillermo Adame Letter

“The sin was compounded by what were at times unreasonable budget increases that should have been prevented by better planning.” Los Angeles Apology Letter — Feb 28, 2003 Los Angeles Church of Christ Apology Letter

“Coercive giving is practiced, wide-scale. Of course there are may sincere and generous disciples who love to give, but the fact remains, our entire scheme for collecting the contribution is not based on the heart, or about love offerings, or true concern about the spiritual impact our system of ‘getting’ has on the rank and file Christian. That is not what is most important. Accountability, intense scrutiny and follow up and man made pressures are the order of the day. When a Christian is cajoled into a ‘multiple’, tracked down for their tithe, categorized on official spreadsheets for everyone to know so that sector leaders ‘can be on top’ – all to maintain budgets that we have created, this is coercive.” Henry Kriete Letter — Spring 2003 Henry Kriete Letter

Kip Mckean has now left the ICOC and started his own church called the International Christian Churches, but many people say Kip Mckean has not changed at all since his days as leader of the Interntional Churches of Christ. The evidence speaks for itself. As leader of the International Christian Churches Kip Mckean purchased a luxury condo worth $650,000. Kip Mckean owns a condo worth $650,000 According to the company that manages the luxury condos www.azzurra-delrey.com, the combination of maintenance fees and property taxes alone would be close to $3,000 per month. A former leader in Kip Mckeans International Christian Churches had the following to say:

"By this method, I can responsibly estimate that Kip and Elena McKean together cost the church somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000 per year.

Which, for business leaders, would not be unreasonable.

And yet for the church Jesus established, completely, utterly out of line . . .

While living in Los Angeles and attending the church, I managed to get by just fine while earning less than $40k a year, giving close to 25% of my income to the church, paying down thousands in student loans and saving up other thousands in my rainy day fund. (All without a penny of assistance from government, family, friends, or anyone else.)" Ex leader in the International Christian Churches

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation for removal of content

JamieBrown2011 has asked me to explain in more detail my removal of content in this edit. The content sounds to me like a review of a movie called Kip McKean. That is, I'm not really aware of other biographical articles where we critique someone's behavior like that. "Joe Fakename, an entertainment writer for the New York Times describes Mel Gibson as being 'a hypocrite who funds charitable causes, but after a drink can flip and become a raging psycho.'" Do we know for a fact that McKean didn't practice discipleship? And why would this content belong in an article about the church? The history section needn't be centered on McKean and his problematic leadership. We have a different article about him, which isn't to say that I think the content belongs there. My instincts could very well be wrong on this—maybe I'm not interpreting it correctly, but those are my thoughts. Since this article doesn't see much traffic from editors, if you disagree with my perspective, you can always ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and if others disagree with me, I'll happily yield. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb, you are certainly a more experienced editor than I, but my thoughts were; it was an attributed quote to an author of numerous books, rather than a blanket statement. You also mentioned there was a specific way to link to published books, can you advise? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly not going to stonewall change if someone else has a contrary perspective. My concern is that another editor, Qewr has been on a campaign to besmirch McKean's name for four years, and I think it's worth being cautious about the content that goes in. Which isn't meant to impugn your motivations, rather, to point out that we need to maintain a neutral point of view. As for the citations, the best way to cite anything is to use the built-in citation toolbar. It looks like this:

You would select "cite book" and a window will pop-up with a bunch of fields to fill out. (You don't have to get all of them, only the most important ones like Last/First, Title, Page(s), publisher, etc.)

Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb, yes I am aware of Qewr's many attempts to malign McKean and both the ICC and ICOC churches. He also uses the Talk pages as his personal SOAPBOX. In fact that is why i removed some of his content above on this talk page under WP:SOAP. You restored it but compressed it. Again since you are more experienced with these things i deferred to you, but truthfully didn't understand it.

PS - Thanks for the help with the referencing. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sho nuff. You'll notice that I've reverted my edit. I figure if someone else has a problem, they can do something about it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is now great!!! Whoever edited the article did a good job. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The ICC Now Giving Out College Degrees

According to this article: http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=4079b9aedce8dac0c97a6d22d&id=7dbd658967&e=d625a62aed

Graduation Commencement of the International College of Christian Ministries!

At the Graduation, 90 Bachelor of Arts in Ministry Degrees, three Masters in Ministry Degrees, and one Doctorate in Ministry (D.Min.) were conferred! The Explanation of the European Degree System by Tim Kernan was quite informative and concluded with the concept that the ICCM is in essence the "seminary" of the SoldOut Movement.

Qewr4231 (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Asian Ministries

Does the ICC have Asian ministries? Qewr4231 (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Qewr4231, why don't you phone the ICC and find out? Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing specific changes to articles as you've been told numerous times, not for general chatter about the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Qewr4231 (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous Data Within the Article

This is put forth in the first part of the article:

"Beginning in 2006 with 800 members as a split from the International Churches of Christ (ICOC), nine years later the ICC released figures of a worldwide membership of approximately 3000.[3]"

Reference number 3 leads to:

http://www.disciplestoday.org/commentary/perspectives/item-49-kip-mckean-starts-the-international-christian-churches

Nowhere in this article does it say that the ICC membership is or has grown to 3,000 members. Qewr4231 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed This (or this) is the relevant reference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Moving Forward

To all whom intend on reading this; moving forward my intentions are to restore neutrality, an academic focus and organization to what seems to be a muddled series of headers/paragraphs. After I compile a series of references on new data, I would like input on how we can maximally focus on the ENCYCLOPEDIA STYLED ACADEMIC approach to creating this page. While this page needs to be accurate, I do NOT want this to be an E-battle between former and current members.( As it feels like now). I may take some time to complete this. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Coachbricewilliams28, for the record, I have no involvement with the church, former or otherwise. I'm only here in my capacity as a wiki gnome and to make sure that we're adhering to established editing principles. If you need a place to work and to practice your Wikipedia markup, you can always use your sandbox, which can be created at User:Coachbricewilliams28/sandbox. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb , That's excellent. If reasonable, I would like to create a mock version of the information I feel is most reasonable to be included and removed to create an academic based page void of feelings and sentimentality. Once I create this page, is it possible to post it in my sandbox and let it be viewable by you first? Thank you for your time. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look, though religious articles are not my specialty. JamieBrown2011 might have some thoughts as well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to help here. Like @Cyphoidbomb, I have no involvement in the church, but have become a Journeyman Editor [[1]] working on Restoration Movement articles. How about you Coachbricewilliams28 do you have any Conflict of Interest or involvement in the church? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

While I have experience in both the ICOC and the partially accurate splinter church in discussion (ICC) I feel that my systematic and academic approach to life will MORE than prevent me from having a Conflict of Interest or editor bias. I'll progressively work on this article and then once complete will find a means of contacting you on here. The reason I have an interest outside of the natural desire to inform the public as an instructor is that I have additional sources to improve the quality of the work here. Between this and my other credentials, I should have noteworthy contributions to wiki in the future. Thanks again for your time guys. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I am interested to see what you come up with Coachbricewilliams28. Will you also be working on the ICOC page and/or the Kip Mckean page? Qewr4231 (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Coachbricewilliams28 are you still working on this? Qewr4231 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Qewr4231 Yes I am. Forgive me for being so sidetracked. I actually re-compiled all the data I wanted to use in this page overhaul. There is some new information I feel adds to the academic feel of the page. I will gradually construct a rough template for the data and I'll allow the wiki gnomes around me which truly understand the coding side of things to couture it as they see fit. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:06, 22 Feb 2017 (UTC)

Qewr4231 & JamieBrown2011 After much delay, I feel that my sandbox is adequately set to be reviewed by you. Please check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coachbricewilliams28/sandbox and tell me where I can improve. Additionally, if this is of approvable quality, I wouldn't mind editting related content in time. IE: Icoc/Kip McKean/Restoration Churches/ and related theology. Within my sandbox I hopefully had a radical tone shift from the original. What compelled me to edit this initially was the evidence of someone clearly editing then injecting sentimentality and feelings into an "encyclopedia." The manner I composed this page was to restore the page to a neutral AND academic tone. There were numerous non-academic jabs seemingly taken at individuals despite the article being about a church. Several links are cited by another church (okay to a degree when related), outdated figures or merely dead now. Additionally, while it is important to note that this church’s founder has his roots in the Coc, then Icoc, the Icoc is NOT a true parent church. They are different in a large number of ways and the founder wasn't a member for some time before the icc's inception. Lastly, The comparative aspects of this article were removed because it doesn’t add to the academic nature of the article entitled. I’m on the fence about citing the anti-icc blogs (so I omitted them) because they are not updated, maintained or academic in nature. Excessive spam was found on the pages that actually did have content within the past 3 years posted. With a Class C level article, less is more. Thoughts? Formatting ideas? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams, thanks for your efforts at trying to improve this article, however using Blogs and websites written by the ICC and it's members and whitewashing out all the criticism the ICC has received for its practices hardly comes across as encyclopedic in nature. Your first attempt at this reads much more like an advert or promotional material for the ICC. You may want to read some of the Wikipedia policies before proceeding. I hope this is helpful feedback. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 Unfortunately that is what I was trying to avoid. So then, should I create a "criticisms" tab? I ask not because I think this is reasonable since I know the accuracy of those blogs but because I'm not sure what can be done to give a "balanced" feel to the page. What other sources can be used aside from information from ICC affiliates? I ask this because it's not like the New York Times is writing about them. One thing however is certain, I'm aware of the whitewashing policy but since I have experience in both the Icoc (semi-parent church) and the Icc, I don't see it as whitewashing to merely remove slander with no foundation. I hope that makes sense. Advice on what should be added or removed? ps- If there is a way to TAG me so I'll see the updates on your reply that would be great. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 [ secondary ping due to mishap on the last one :D ] Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 Qewr4231 Cyphoidbomb Afternoon wiki'edittors! This is just a friendly alert that I still am in need of some advice on the subject. I do NOT want to move forward without seeking your advice first since I trust your judgment on the matter. I don't want to seem devisive hence my patience. My changes to this article (drafted in my sandbox) are in need of input. While I "feel" I avoided whitewashing or an advertisement vibe, my "feelings" on the subject are irrelevant. If you have advice on how I can neutralize this article without having to add information that is a digression or from an outdated google blog that would be great. One thing however I am certain of, the information is incredibly outdated. Additionally, I'm not too sure what other sources can be used to avoid using church-based sources in excess. Even the former/current article did this so I'm not sure why this idea may be opposed in my sandboxed revision. [I did a post-writing review of my statement and found that 27 of 27 citations were church created sources] What portions or categories should be added? Lastly, I found a sources for a "the vision for the future" as to the direction the Icc is taking. I likened this idea to the formatting the Icoc has. I noticed a TON of church-based sources there too so I'm beginning to believe this is acceptable. Thoughts? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Coachbricewilliams28 To be honest I don't think you should be surprised at the lack of editor interest in your plan. You have written the entire page from your perspective. You removed all the criticisms of the church claiming they are "outdated" even though the church is barely 10 years old. In the same breath you extensively use resources written by Ron Harding, which through a simple google search reveals he is not only a member of the church but actually a PAID EMPLOYEE of the church! And yet you do not even raise a question over those sources!! Do you see the glaring problem here...??.I will let the other editors chime in, but in my opinion you are not going to generate a lot of support for this. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 I think I understand your position better now but I have some follow-up thoughts. (#1), By outdated, I'm moreso going after the idea that several of the things formerly cited have newer pages discussing similar or updated material. In the realm of science, 10 years old isn't so bad if the material is peer reviewed and the newest data set available so I'm satisfied with older ---but accurate--- information. Many things in the old article like the tithes and offering setup, the disfellowship of Victor Gonzales, the renaming of the Icoc churches, & the rate of those leaving vs coming are all either written in a negative tone or outright incorrect. The link citing the rate of members leaving the church was to an article written by another church deflecting the challenge that their church is struggling to grow as well. It felt like I was reading an argument vs an article. While that part I don't mind, I don't see it as academic or needed to discuss the figures of how many people are leaving or coming in. One of the links was dead discussing the banning from a university. Since that university is a religious one, it makes sense they wouldn't allow another church to march in their territory unchallenged. To cite this with no explaination postulates that the Icc students on that campus did something directly wrong vs just stepped on toes. No newer update on this could be found so I deleted it. (#2), Virtually every citation on the old page is from a paid member of the church if it isn't a criticism link so I don't see an issue with this carrying over to the sandboxed version I made so long as it is accurate. Now if there was a third party citation in existence, I'd naturally use that. The Harding papers are used because he is the editorial staff writer of the church, so it seems logical that he would be the spokesman on paper for them much like Al Baird was for the Icoc in the 90's. It's not that I don't raise a question on his writing, it's that the things he writes about aren't particularly controversial. If in his paper, he says they are planting a church in Hong Kong in 2017, I don't see the need to verify this with secular sources since it isn't a scientific statement. Should I though? (#3), Lastly, again,the criticisms tab being in there is a good idea and even having it's own category but the question remains "what material is reasonable to go into the article?" Are google blogs with slander and spam adverts laced within reasonable? I ask because that is the former article's content in part. Whitewashing is not my intent, but merely truth seeking with a more organized formatting. On that note, I saw negative material from other churches about them; I would like that to remain if the criticisms tab stays. I understand this isn't exactly the most exciting page, but I would like some practical feedback on how to re-word things if you feel that it is written "from my perspective." All I did was look up the newer sources to the current material and semi-replicate the Icoc page. The tone of the old page is clearly written in a backhanded manner with in my opinion, intent to deceive. My goal is to have the look, sound and feel of the Icc page to look sound and feel like the International_Churches_of_Christ page. Thank you for your time & practicals Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello wiki editors! Due to the time lapse between replies and the general lack of interest in the subject, I have modified my original sandboxed version to reflect the comments in previous replies as best I could. I will detail below the ideas I went ahead and acted on. If there any ideas to make this better, feel free to respond. A lot of time and effort was put into the detail of this version to assure accuracy so if anything is seemingly off, let's come to a consensus to modify this frame work vs. revert to this partially-accurate version I felt compelled to edit. Thanks for your time!

Updates:

- A more detailed and accurate version of the church's origin.

- A newer data set of attendance (and the citation )

- A newer data set of congregations (and the citation )

- A more neutral description of McKean's actions

- A more neutral description of church practices

- Added proper information regarding church practices (fiscal and in service)

Additions:

- Individualized the 5 core convictions. (note: I felt this was critical because it is the fundamental difference between them and their former affiliate) with references

-Completed their worship schedule components based on what I could find

-Included Mercy and CR information.

- Added in the requested Criticisms tab with additional content not previously references to give a broader scope.

Omissions and reasoning:

-The reference to the former member being manhandled by his father after he wanted to leave due to his lack of a promotion to world sector leader isn't necessarily adding to the academic content of the article. Since I was present for the event, and this didn't occur in the manner he emotionally described, I omitted it since it is hearsay.

-The statistics of what percentage of members changed churches in 2015 seems out of place. Not only this, but it was painted in a negative comparative light against the Icoc without any figures of reference. If this is to be cited, the Icoc fallaway rate should be mentioned as well. Since the original writer of the previously used citation is in a church that is not growing as forcefully, this seems more contentious than informative. To me, this is a vastly unimportant number since both churches are growing.

- Statements Kip made about how many churches from the Icoc aligned themselves to a neutral name to hide in the ambiguity of the Churches of Christ then the subsequent rebuttal by Michael Taliaferro are misleading. The Icoc didn't fully change their names as much as modify the phrasing to passively realign with the mainland church of Christ. Not only is this unrelated to the Icc but it is painted in a light to discredit Kip who the article needs to focus less on.

- Comparing the churches remnant theology to that of a 7th day Adventist church. I very likely will add this into the page once I find reasonable citations from with the SDA and ICC. This is indeed a practice.

- The mentioning of the BNU banning of the Icc. Not only was the article link used bad but not further information can be found on the topic. The BNU however is a religious university so it's banning of conflict of interest groups seems reasonable.

Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams, there are numerous problems with your approach. Your editing reads like a PR firm wrote it. It is clear the there is a serious COI here. My suggestion before entering into an editing war and possibly getting banned from Wikipedia is go and read the WP COI section before continuing. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 Please believe me and Wp:AGF when I say the following: I have thoroughly read the WP:COI page. In fact, I've triple-read that, along with WP:NPOVN to prevent sounding like I have bias, Wp:Advocacy to avoid injecting personal beliefs, WP:WIN to avoid any potential emotions if things don't go the way I "feel" they should, Wp:Disruptive_editing so I certainly don't get banned, Wp:Socking so I don't do anything dishonest, Wp:Meat so I don't ask others to join in to fix what I feel is wrong.

This page isn't about me so it isn't personal; this page is about a church. In the end, I'm not so concerned about the matter that I will lose sleep however I felt compelled to come and clean up the Icoc and Icc pages because they are indeed misrepresented. I first noticed this about 3 years ago but was intimidated by the coding aspect of this. I want to make something clear: There is no Wp:COI here. I'm not being paid to do this, nor do I have any bias. In the end this page will contain whatever the admins see fit despite accuracy. It is merely my hope that I will be seen as trusted based on my experience with these churches vs. a PR firm guy. I still don't understand the depth of that statement nor how come the ENTIRE page was reverted. The statistics, updated links, internal programs, slander, belief section, and more was grossly inaccurate. That's not a statement from my POV, but merely how it is. Why those portions weren't maintained is baffling.

Again, please Wp:AGF and believe that the outcome of this really doesn't benefit me in the least but the hours of research and writing I've done to get this far should at least be recognized by updating the older information. The page cannot ethically stay as is. Reading the current page sounds like a fiction novel at times. Additionally, I added in a consolidated and much more thorough "criticism" tab with non-church references. Again though, I ask, what SPECIFICALLY can I do with the sandboxed version to make it admin-appropriate? Thank you for your time fellas. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams, trying to rewrite the entire page yourself is never going to be accepted. Whitewashing out ALL the criticism of the church, as you can imagine, shows a compromised POV. Then later, when challenged on it, putting back in a watered down PR spun "criticisms section" is hardly demonstrating a NPOV. You do not need to be paid by the church to have a conflict of interest: COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 I highly disagree that the crit section was watered down. I included things that weren't even mentioned before too and with quite the detail. If you clicked the citations given, you'd see what I mean. The majority of the article is still lacking appropriate organization. Would you be objected to the format I wrote it but including in the criticisms in their original formatting? I'm not bothered BY the criticisms, I'm bothered by their misplacement. I'm not bothered by the article categories, I'm bothered by the omissions of depth within. Thoughts? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Once I have some free time, I'll be elevating this article to the dispute forums to get more input and advice as to HOW I can add in the newer articles into this page so it isn't as lacking in accuracy and depth. In the meantime, I want to update at least the intro and info box. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 I saw that for the most part you approved of my subtle edits. I'd love to speak to you sometime to perhaps probe a bit as to why certain things are appropriate vs not ideal so I can be more like-minded with you in the future. Additionally, would you prefer this page have the criticisms within each section, or one large one at the bottom as my old sandbox illustrated? Thanks for the thoughts. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams, properly sourced, factual editing is welcomed. Clear POV pushing is not and a violation of Wikipedia policies, like where you removed properly sourced content of criticisms of the church and replaced it with criticisms of McKean when he was a part of a completely different church group!!! This is a clear attempt to whitewash the page and why there is a COI evident in your editing. I am glad you have stopped that now, let's hope it doesn't return in later edits. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 Sorry again , white washing was never my intent, merely how I came off. . Unfortunately, you seemingly still believe the depth of the criticisms. (which is understandable from a 3rd party perspective) but somethings simply didn't occur as described. It's unfortunate in a A vs. B argument, negativity is leaned in favor of. I improperly assumed my lack of affiliation combined with my witnessing of the events described made me impartial (but now I know I guess not). Regardless, can you give me solutions for these things below and how it is appropriate to work them out:

There still are some big issues with this page's criticisms I need help reconciling with. Can you assist with these when you have a free moment? I'll do the leg work, I just need your advice.

#1- The data discussing how many come and go in the church is misleading. While 369 baptisms is true for 2015 and 337 leaving is true, what is unmentioned is that 58 of those people returned to the church and another 81 from the Icoc left their church to join the Icc. Additionally, the 337 that left AREN'T all the 369 new members. One recent addition was JOHN & EMMA CAUSEY who were major leaders in the Icoc. It's all over the Caicc.net page. The current article makes it truly seem like people are fleeing the Icc but in reality, people flee the Icoc for the Icc. The citations used (#8-11) were all editorials BY THE ICOC trying to counter the situation to save face. My Idea: If I provide us with the FULL 2017 figures, can these Icoc articles about the Icc and their related nonsense be tossed? Should the addition of John Causey be added to the page if they are as high profile as my initial reading indicates?

#2- In the same section, I couldn't help but notice that the writer is trying to connect the 2008 Portland International Christian Church's return to the Portland International Churches of Christ WITH the departure rate in the LA in 2015. This was grossly unrelated. While Portland should be mentioned, I need to make some calls and find out WHY the Portland church returned to the Icoc as a collective because it isn't in the citation.My Idea: Keep Portland info IF a citation WHY they left exists.

#3- Under Beliefs and Practices it says: "Each member is expected to give 10% of their income to the church. Additionally there are three "Special Contributions" during the year which each member is expected to give 25x his normal weekly contribution.[16]" No where in this article does it state tithes of 10% are a requirement (nor is this true) Additionally, the missions offering is a TOTAL of 25x an offering with the funds being raised through various fund raisers as a church. The wording suggests members are paying a whopping 75x a offering which simply isn't the case. My Idea: Since this figure changes each year based on needs overseas, the event itself is notable but the $ amount is irrelevant to mention so I should change it accordingly. Under Meetings and Ministries, again it mentioned the missions (special) contribution. This makes no sense and is outdated. My Idea:This 2nd part needs to be cut and the first rephrased to reflect what actually occurs. I can make a few phone calls to determine this.

#4- Under "Relationship with other churches" It cites "McKean also states that "most ICOC churches changed their names to align with the CoC", whereas only 5 of the 650 churches actually did so" What actually occurred is that the churches themselves dropped the "international" part of their names globally and conformed to the Church of Christ modality. see --> http://www.dtodayinfo.net/ For example the "Phoenix International Churches of Christ is now the Phoenix Church of Christ. NOT to be confused with the Phoenix Church of Christ of the Coc as seen here: http://churchzip.com/statedetail/US/AZ THIS is what Kip was referring to. My Idea: Possible cut? Since it is so ambiguous should it even be included? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 On a smaller, less important side note, I separated the "Tenants of the Church" from the "Relationship with other churches" section and added depth. It looks nicer now. I hope the typo in the history page didn't through you off.Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Coacbricewilliams, I am happy with your changes in separating relationships with other churches & tenants of the church. In answer to your other questions above, NO you cannot change information simply because you do not agree with it. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we do not conduct original research, we reference sources. The other thing I would caution against is presenting a dishonest picture on a public forum like this, you do realize that members of your congregation can come a read the things you claim like "I have no affiliation to the International Christian Church". Think about it. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@JaimeBrown2011 I had no "original research" , hence my near doubling of citations. Additionally, please don't suggest I was being dishonest. If that seems to be the case, ask questions because you clearly have misunderstood. I never said , "I have no affiliation to the International Christian Church" but if you ctrl+f you can see specifically what situation and corresponding reference I was discussing.

I'm likely going to resign myself to future edits since there isn't a real vision for depth or accuracy in place. It genuinely bothers me that the dishonesty laced within the article is being seen as reasonable. Thank you for your help and input along the way though man. This was a great learning experience nonetheless. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@JaimeBrown2011 @Coachbrcewilliams28 I have been following this discussion. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and not a pro or con argument collection. If someone can create a neutral article I am all for it. Qewr4231 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Qewr4231 , then what can be considered a reliable source? I'm aware of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, but the fact of the matter is is that this article is not neutral, nor accurate based on the things I've addressed thoroughly up above. I understand that this seems to be more of a combative scenario of opinion matters, but it's really not. Only one of the circumstances Illustrated is factual. Either the way that this article is outlined is accurate, or the way that I have rewritten it is accurate. This isn't an argument between two six year olds on a playground, the middle ground isn't the most likely scenario and that unfortunately is what seemingly has occurred. This is the reason for my backing away, is that there is no support for truth despite the sources I've provided. If this particular church has an arm of publishing yet their articles being published aren't seen as good enough to be cited than everything else needs to be called into question. I'm starting to see why this article was put up for consideration to be deleted so many years ago. This church now has over 80 locations, with approximately 5500 members and yet lacks a Wikipedia page of consistency. That seems rather inappropriate. But I can't blame them for not caring what Wikipedia says, when their actions over the last 10 years speak for itself. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@JaimeBrown2011 @Coachbrcewilliams28 I don't know what goes on with Wikipedia articles anymore. I am not allowed to make changes to any Kip Mckean, International Churches of Christ, or International Christian Churches article because I am a former member of the International Churches of Christ during Kip Mckean's leadership. My POV is not neutral. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual and neutral. Coachbricewilliams28 what prompted you to want to edit the International Christian Churches article? Qewr4231 (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Qewr4231 , In short, dishonesty bothers me. As a man who attained 4 degrees heavily focusing in science, I believe that things aught to be: observable, reliable, repeatable and measurable. That being said, this wiki page doesn't reflect those four traits when researching this church, nor the former mother-church Icoc. Their page is inaccurate as well but more closely moderated for some reason. The McKean page is a joke and the restorationist pages are missing newer data. Regarding THIS page, anyone who dismisses my above detailed concerns [ Skewed perspective on those leaving, fiscal appropriation, the entire relations with other churches section is false & even the church numbers are wrong ] isn't looking objectively at the data I presented. I cannot begin to express how little I think about the accuracy of this page but when I hear things about how Harvard endorses wiki, I think to myself, "Why postulate wiki is accurate on deeper subjects such as quantum mechanic theories when they cannot even be objective regarding a blip on the radar church movement?" If those who have overlooked my 4 concerns illustrated in detail above truly knew me as a person, there would be no question as to it's validity but since we are all ScreenNames amongst text boxes, I truly understand the hesitation to take my word for it. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbrcewilliams28 Are you a member of the International Christian Churches? If you are a member, your POV may not be neutral. As a former member of the ICOC from 1992 - 1997, My POV is not neutral therefore I don't edit any Kip Mckean page, ICOC page, or ICC page. Qewr4231 (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Qewr4231 This is the part that is making me struggle greatly; I am not interested in a POV. I am ATTEMPTING to restore this page to a factual basis. As I've stated REPEATEDLY, the history section was WRITTEN BY someone with a non-neutral POV (a blogger who left the church). It is a skewed perspective on those leaving without consideration of WHY or WHERE they went. The fiscal handlings is contradictory even within the article & the entire relations with other churches section is false. This page is so flawed even after me helping here even the church numbers are inaccurate. 70.177.4.90 (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbrcewilliams28 unfortunately that is not true, no ex-member blogger wrote any section of this article, in fact a number of Wikipedia admins/editors have been part of the process. The problem is you being an active member of the church have consistently tried to write out of the article any criticism of the church you do not like or do not personally believe to be true. This is why Wikipedia policies do not allow COI editing. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@JaimeBrown2011 Oh forgive me. Let me rephrase; the portion of the article I am referring to may have been composed by a non-member, but the source of the information was a non-member. My issue is that I know why the person left in detail, why they wrote what they wrote and more importantly, why it's inaccurate. This isn't a matter of things I personally "find not to be true." This is a matter of factual statements/circumstances. Also, I'm starting to believe you aren't reading my ideas, merely skimming them. My 2nd revision included a HUGE "controversy" section vs this spackled half-truth methodology used currently.

My Primary 4 issues with this page

Again, this page has issues. The data discussing how many come and go in the church is misleading. While 369 baptisms is true for 2015 and 337 leaving is true, what is unmentioned is that 58 of those people returned to the church and another 81 from the Icoc left their church to join the Icc. Additionally, the 337 that left AREN'T all the 369 new members. One recent addition was JOHN & EMMA CAUSEY who were major leaders in the Icoc. It's all over the Caicc.net page. The current article makes it truly seem like people are fleeing the Icc but in reality, people flee the Icoc for the Icc. The citations used (#8-11) were all editorials BY THE ICOC trying to counter the situation to save face.

In the same section, I couldn't help but notice that the writer is trying to connect the 2008 Portland International Christian Church's return to the Portland International Churches of Christ WITH the departure rate in the LA in 2015. This was grossly unrelated. While Portland should be mentioned, I need to make some calls and find out WHY the Portland church returned to the Icoc as a collective because it isn't in the citation.

Look at the practices section under history it says "Each member is expected to give 10% of their income to the church. Additionally there are three "Special Contributions" during the year which each member is expected to give 25x his normal weekly contribution." This is an annually dynamic goal based on need internationally. It isn't a requirement to be paid, but is a freewill offering to assist overseas missionaries out of love. Many give more because Christians are to give according to means, not quotas. This was back in 2016, but the 2017 goal is completely different. This needs to be rephrased to reflect it. Additionally, these funds are raised through a variety of events and charity functions. Phrasing it like that is not only more accurate, it's neutral. The way the page states it makes it feel like some kind of hostage scenario. Then 2 categories later with no citation, this: "Once or more times a year there is another contribution, the "Special Contribution," which is typically a multiple of 15-21 times the regular weekly contribution. This "Special Contribution" is taken up to fund missions and additional ministry expenses. Great emphasis [ why great? based on what? the writer's feelings? ] is placed on each member reaching his or her goals of regular and sacrificial financial giving." So which is it? ....The answer is, both are incorrect. Also, the wording suggests each member gives 3, 25x offerings which isn't correct either. In 2016, it was a TOTAL of 25x, not 75x. A quick search of the Cacicc website reveals the financial admins contact info and that is the source of the above info.

Additionally, the portion utilized under citation #18 is completely wrong. Look at the source, then look at the directory of churches. The writer is completely overlooking the fact that they did rename to realign with the CoC. A basic google search exposes this subtle fact. I detailed this already once above. What actually occurred is that the churches themselves dropped the "international" part of their names globally and conformed to the Church of Christ modality. see --> http://www.dtodayinfo.net/ For example the "Phoenix International Churches of Christ is now the Phoenix Church of Christ. NOT to be confused with the Phoenix Church of Christ of the Coc as seen here: http://churchzip.com/statedetail/US/AZ THIS is what Kip was referring to. Keep scrolling, look at the info under the meetings and ministries. See all the double written information? Why not delete the section that is less aesthetically pleasing?

You can view me as not having a neutral POV, (I truly understand that part ) but what you cannot do is say that this page is neutral. I'm not trying to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS, but I am attempting to reconsile this page to reality prior to 3rd party sources being able to affirm the 1st party claims from the church. This page is loaded with Icoc cites and material written by ex-members with an agenda. I really do not care what this page says IF IT IS TRUE......it's the agenda laced fallacy that I am scorning. 70.177.4.90 (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the ICOC, ICC, and kip Mckean pages should be deleted? These are controversial topics that are causing strife here at Wikipedia. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What comment are you responding to, exactly? There are plenty of articles at Wikipedia that cause strife. Wikipedia doesn't censor articles solely because they cause strife. Ever edited in anything related to Israel, Palestine, India or Pakistan? Gamergate? That's where you'll find strife. In these articles there's basically you and two other people. No strife. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm considering this the MOVING FORWARD PART DEUX:

So how to we reconcile that ALL 43 refs are authored by either the church itself or the Icoc? Just for kicks, I looked at the Icoc citation area. Same issue. ~8 +/- were non-church affiliate publishings which is better but there are still 87 total. Is a norm on Wiki?

Additionally we still have the following issues to address [ Skewed perspective on those leaving, fiscal appropriation, the entire relations with other churches section is false & even the church demographics are slightly outdated ]

Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I heard a term thrown around in the deletion discussion : "Presumed Accuracy." If that's an acceptable practice, let's make this a standard and move forward. 70.177.4.90 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

70.177.4.90 who are you? Qewr4231 (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I made two small changes. One, to the church figures. Another to the "practices" section to eliminate the confusion as stated above with the 11-25x X 3x =75x nonsense. It's a variable figure and the citation illustrated the breakdown well so I outright quoted the article to prevent further confusion. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's been a bit since I stopped on this page but I found and read a few things leading me to come back and make some minor edits to the page. See the revision history notes section on what I added/deleted. If you have any questions or concerns, let me know Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams, as you know POV pushing is not allowed on Wikipedia. You may want to read those policies before proceeding, particularly important for you being an active member of the ICC. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011 , You must be joking. You literally reverted EVERYTHING that was changed. If you think that something is a POV issue, edit that and that alone, NOT THE OTHER STUFF WITH IT.

I updated the number of countries they claim; is that POV issue?

I revised the headers and categories for easier reading; is that a POV issue?

I added information about worship services and removed bad links; is that a POV issue?

I rearranged the ministry and association section because the info was correct, but misplaced; is that a POV issue?

I "clarified" a sector about a former member as to why he left and cited it twice, is that a POV issue?

I see you removed a ton from the see also section. I guess linking to the 1st century Christianity is a POV issue even though that's the goal of every RC.

This is really odd man. You ask me to review policies, yet you clearly are against even legit information. It's like "black-washing" ( for lack of a better term ) is a focus. If accuracy was really a goal on this page, something would've been added over the past month since the "keep" agreement.Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams, using PERSONAL blogs of PAID staff members of the ICC as RELIABLE sources is the joke here!JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, so despite the fact that 95% of all the citations on the ICC page and the icoc page are exactly as you say ( personal blogs or church affiliated sourced) you don't refute any of the other citations except for the ones I post.

Suspiciously your actions are counterintuitive to our former consensus. There was an agreement that the idea of presumed accuracy was to be utilized on this page until secondary sources are more prevalent, yet you are disregarding our previous conversations in the deletion thread just two months ago. It's really hard to keep this page accurate when someone like you is constantly undo-ing everything despite the accuracy of the citations being used. It baffles me to think that you can't even trust a published document discussing updated Church demographics. There's no benefit to lying on something this insignificant. If they claim they have 88 locations across 35 nations, who cares. Just trust it, and move on man. Stop undo'ing reasonable edits.

Your behavior is causing me to believe you have some sort of unspoken non-benevolent motive. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coacbricewilliams, instead of continuing to violate Wikipedia editing policies and making personal attacks WP:PERSONAL why don't you try to imagine on what planet blaisefeumba.wordpress.com & spiritualpornography.com could even possibly be considered as Reliable Sources!!! WP:RS JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@JaimeBrown2011 , Is that really ALL you got out of my series of issues with your multiple unfounded-undo'ings??? Do not see that you are the ONLY one in this corner? After the escalation for consideration to delete was finalized as keep then the secondary agreement was that we were to hold a Presumed Accuracy regarding opinion/self published sources until 3rd party citations exist. Citing the very page you used against me WP:RS is silly because it validates what I am saying!

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. " WP:BIASED

Since we are supposed to be using Presumed Accuracy & the sources used DO NOT all have to be unified in view point, your removal of my last entries providing the otherside of the story is unfounded.

Another wiki policy my recent update followed was WP:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

-----The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. -----------------------------------------[ Check ]

-----It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). ------[ Check ]

-----It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. ----------------------------------[ Check ]

-----There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. ----------------------------------------------------------------[ Check ]

-----The article is not based primarily on such sources. ----------------------------------------------------------------[ Check ]

Jaime, you might be claiming to follow wiki-policies, but you cannot claim that you are allowing both sides of the story. You are intentionally filtering out anything refuting the position you prefer. WP:NPOV is screaming your name in my head because of how blatant you are being.Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams, you are now inserting commentary into the page that has NO SOURCE WHATSOEVER. Please go read WP:NOR before you earn yourself a topic ban! When you start making personal commentary about Gonzales or Reed without ANY sources, it is so clear that your edits are just a public relations exercise. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@JaimeBrown2011 , First off, thank you for your more detailed editing. The fact that you didn't blankly wipe reasonable material helped my heart toward you.

--As for the NOR issues, forgive me. I was unaware that my statement about non denominational Protestant growth was original research any more than this phrase which remains in the article, "Not only churches are distancing themselves from the SODM, members themselves leave in large numbers." When I read this phrase it comes off silly because it is completely subjective. While yes at first glance that does seem like a high number of people that come and go from the church, if you look at the churches demographics annually, you will see if they grow at a rate of 3 times higher than the average non-denominational church, so claims that people leave in large numbers might be adequate but it to maintain neutrality I saw it beneficial to add that they arrive in higher numbers thus explaining why they have gone from a splinter group to nearly 6,000 in just a decade. While it is true, four of the original churches in Portland did rejoin the international Churches of Christ, countless others joined. Haiti is a good example along side, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Cambodia, & Phong Pehn. I was merely hoping there would be a balance of sources.

--Regarding the commentary on Vic/Gabe, it was sourced but I discovered a flaw in my method/source as it was not in the original blog so thank you for catching that. We can omit that one in the future despite accuracy.

--Lastly, how do you suggest we handle the 5 of 650 icoc churches changing their name topic? I honestly was thinking this should be deleted because it is not only slightly off topic, but it's not true. Literally a 15 second browsing of DT.org can clearly illustrate the icoc's shift to blend in with the persecution-less and highly ambiguous CoC name. While I completely understand why that counter blog was created, it doesn't seem worded in a way that speaks truth as much as it just deflects from it.

--I would genuinely appreciate your help with that last one. Thanks man. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Come on @JaimeBrown2011 Let's stop editing and be like-minded here first. If you were a disciple before the split, then you know what Kip was referring to regarding the name change. Not the whole thing, but just the one word to phase into ambiguity. Let's drop that whole statement since it just makes the icoc look bad. That's not my objective. As someone as devoted to the media and cyber ministry as yourself, there's no reason to do to the ICC page what Karl and other anons did to the Icoc page. Perhaps we could talk on the phone. Seriously.... Let's get unified here. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams, you seem a little confused, at Wikipedia we do not decide what we would like the article to say, this is not a school newspaper. Wikipedia links to sources who have already made the statements. The statement "5 out of 650" is made in the article that was referenced before you deleted it. You cannot remove sourced commentary because YOU do not believe it to be true. If you can find a properly sourced quote that refutes the statement, then feel free to add it.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@JaimeBrown2011 , I have no problem with you using information directly from sources. What I do have a problem with is you extrapolating content outside that source and then citing another source that fulfills it without the source itself having both pieces put together. For example, you quote Kip in saying that the churches have changed their names, but the site does not say that. All the site says is 5 out of 600 change their names for a variety of reasons. I want the source for the kip statement as well. When you find that source, if you actually quoted correctly you will see what he is referring to in context is when the icoc dropped the international from their titles. Since the second part doesn't matter unless the first part is cited, until that point I'm dropping the entire section. I will keep the small bit about icoc growth because I find that encouraging despite it being off-topic in the relationship tab. I'm going to become a stickler from here on out in regards to the citations that you are using because I have caught four or five that aren't directly stating what is being written on the page. I'm seeing a lot of personal conclusions versus Source material very similarly to what you proved I did (by accident) regarding Vic. On a side note, I don't have as good of a camera as you, but I will probably upload some photos to the ICC page to mimic your icoc efforts. I'm curious what kind of camera are you are using, those are some great shots.Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@JaimeBrown2011 Oh and one more thing. I like the idea of the remnant pulling being in the relationship section. I have a citation discussing Cory Blackwell, Blaise Feumba and John Causey shifting from icoc to ICC. I'll likely omit the doctrinal reasons why to avoid a POV issue though. Blaise recanting his position is big and a valid point to include. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Coachbricewilliams28 you need to chill out. As an ex-member of the ICOC my POV is not neutral. As a member of the ICC your POV is not neutral. I have no idea if JaimeBrown2011's POV is neutral or biased. As I have had to learn, Wikipedia is trying to be an independent encyclopedic quality website and not opinion based. I don't make edits to the ICC or ICOC articles themselves. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The Money section. Is there any proof as to where all the money given goes? The money section has only one link which really does not prove anything. It's not properly sourced. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I will not be discussing Jaime's POV at this time , on this talk page.

The idea of presumed accuracy is being used to support the idea of tithes and offerings with the more specific days being cited. The idea of giving is considered a mainstream practice in protestantism so if a citation is truly desired, I suppose the FP link can be added again. The "proof" you request is found in non-published but public documents the icc is open to share but it is not common practice. If something more controversial or specific occurs, I can email to get a cite. I hope that makes sense Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Things have been calm the last 3 weeks. We should keep it this way. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:Lead

JamieBrown2011 Help me understand how you could possibly in the same day (under the pretense of "presumed accuracy") say the good news email is "very questionable" yet have no issue using a citation to blog written by a former member that was thoroughly shown to be nonsense? ( Google this---> Living-in-the-Book-of-Acts-1.pdf by Mike patterson ) Consider the icoc page. It's 95% self sourced with tons of icoc hotnews / discipleship media sources. I'm literally imitating your model of formatting on the ICC page from your Icoc framework. That being said, there is no , The icoc has issues section in your lead. Let's be real; so long as any church contains human beings, it will contain opposition. I don't see that as an academic justification to talk about it in the manner you seem to be pushing. That would be like the Dallas Cowboys' Wikipedia having a subheading about Redskin's fans who don't like Gerry Jones. It's useless fluff unless something reasonably controversial occurs. Which might I add, never has in the icoc or ICC. The HK letter to borderline so I accept its existence in the icoc page. After reading WP:Lead, I see this: Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. This is hardly what occurs in the article. I'm not avocating the wiki article contains this nonsense because that is all it is. If you honestly think this article is appropriate to be cited, there certainly needs to be some more citations on the icoc page of this similar flavor. I don't see this as appropriate because you've cleaned up the icoc page well without whitewashing but if this truly is the direction you would like to go with the icc page, there are plenty of remnant with things that could be cited about the current icoc but is it truly fruitful? John Causey has written plenty since leaving the Icoc. For the sake of academics, a discredited blog written by a former member hardly is LEAD worthy. By all means though, help me understand your pov. Maybe it does. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@CoachBriceWilliams, since WP policies state the LEAD should contain notable controversies, if you don’t like this one, why don’t you suggest another? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@ JamieBrown2011 Sorry for the delay. I had a crazy test this week to study for. Back on topic; that is in essence what I was trying to avoid for now because it doesn't make sense to mention this subject. WP:LEAD is clear, such a headline denoting a controversy must be extrapolated on in the body. That being the case, the writer of such a headline would need to include reasonable sources in the body. Sourcing a hate blog toward the icc and/or icoc in the LEAD makes no sense. Not only are these "former members" deceitful and contradictory to one another, but their writing is laced with an agenda based on their theological beliefs. Consider the [living in the book of acts blog.] Members of the church called this individual on his sin, and he left. Sure , he had a long winded blog about his side, but that too was rebuffed in the link cited above. ( consider prov 18:19 ) The writer of that blog is anti-Icoc too. Now to the exicc page. It's written by a current atheist who publicly maligns the way (Acts 19:9) of not just the icc or icoc, but Christ. His page is littered with spam links, hatred and hasn't really been added to in 3 years. One of the blogs exicc contains mentions a leader who was in the icc from the inception but a quick google search can reveal the depth of his financial greed. Even his facebook alludes to such a desire. With the fiscally conservative nature of the icc, it's no wonder he left/was disfellowshipped.

Additionally, the sentence used is already suspect. "One of the greatest concerns ( of whom? Atheists? those who hate both the icoc and icc?)about the church have been raised by former leaders; a corporate structure ( vague term since even the icoc is corporate in structure, just different ), high turnover of members ( compared to what? Certainly not the Icoc or mainstream protestant churches. The Icc has grown 3-4x faster than the icoc since it's inception by all my research) , intolerance ( of what? Sin? Greed? unrepentant hearts? ), questionable doctrines ( such as, discipling relationships?) and forced financial giving. ( forced how? no one in the icc has ever been disfellowshipped for not giving benevolence or missions by my research. If referring to tithes, then consider the greed required to not give no matter what church one is in.) " Again, I don't think this can be reworded because no matter what is said, it fails to be beneficial or academic to the page. It's essentially poorly documented slander at this point that should be deleted. It would be no more "beneficial" of speech ( Eph 4:29 ) than placing large block quotes of text from Gordon Ferguson's book about the Icoc lack of growth figures. It doesn't benefit the Icoc, Icc or the kingdom. Recall, I am modeling THIS page after the icoc page so it doesn't make sense to have such a section on the Icc page if not appropriate on the Icoc page. If this section was REQUIRED to remain, the most neutral means of writing it would be: "Former members have raised unconfirmed concerns toward the church over leadership structure, member retention, intolerance of sin and financial giving. Current church member leaders have rebuttaled their claims stating, "many leaders who have left God’s movement simply didn’t get what they wanted, and then changed their “convictions” to appease their conscience and validate their wants that were supposed to be given up at baptism." To be real, changing it to this, is still worse than just deleting the idea since neither is beneficial to academics or God. Ask yourself, with all the former Icoc leaders now in the Icc, is this really the direction both pages should go? Subtle jabs aren't disciple-like, nor is this section. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@CoachBriceWilliams, you seem quite confused by a few things. One, the role of an editor at Wikipedia is to follow the policies, you don't slander people on a public forum like this, calling them names because they are a critic of your church. Secondly, simply because an employee of the ICC writes a response to the critic, that doesn't mean his criticism is "debunked"!! As editors we should certainly post the churches response to the criticism, but you don't get to whitewash their criticism because you claim these people are "atheists" or "bitter" or that you stalked them on Facebook. Finally, as per my request, you are free to suggest other controversies to be placed in the LEAD. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 Wait, if I am in sin, let me know. How is what I said slander or name calling? "slan·der n. 1. communication of false and malicious statements that damage the reputation of another. 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone." I called no one an atheist; I quoted the writer himself of the blog. He is a self proclaimed atheist. Additionally, you used the word bitter, not me. No where in this talk page did "bitter" come up. Next, why do you use such negative phrase like, "stalked them on Facebook?" Stalking is a criminal activity. Am I really a criminal because I am aware of what a former friend said on facebook? Really? This isn't about having a whitewashed icc page, it's about the accuracy of the content. You are citing absolute nonsense where the Bible itself clearly refutes. You seem so hard-pressed to get ideas from an spam-bot loaded, atheist written blog, in the LEAD, in the name of "policy" but you have virtually whitewashed the icoc page. You come off as someone with an agenda. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@CoachBriceWilliams, you are right you didn't call them "bitter", in the three paragraphs above you called them "deceitful" and "greedy", ahhh that is much better...NOT!! This is highly inappropriate and if you continue, you will likely get banned from editing, so I suggest you stop.

Otherwise, I tidied up your edit removing your personal commentary according to [WP:NOR], where you cannot add personal conclusions not found in the source.

Finally, for the third time, feel free to suggest other controversies for the LEAD section. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 Those were quotes.....not my direct feelings.....Additionally, That was not an OR-Violation, merely a clarification that the statements aren't confirmed. I see your position, just don't agree. I'll leave your edit alone for now. And no, I won't be adding Gordon's data to your Icoc page. It's mere existence is sad enough in a publishing. Lastly, I will not be adding controversies as there are none from a source worthy of mentioning.

I'm just disappointed you would rather push your sentiment than be unified with a disciple. That is possible WHILE following WP policy. I'll be praying for that. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Escalation or Deletion Needed,Dec 2017

I've noticed that between nominations for deletion, no neutrality has been found. Additionally, since the last one, little has changed of consequence regarding the known issues. This page is not of critical importance therefore doesn't generate enough traffic to promote the wiki gnomes needed to balance it. That being said, the ICC's Cyber Ministry Team is heavily considering the deletion of this page along with the Kip McKean one due to the aformentioned disunity. I'll update you once those men reply and come to an agreement. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC

You, CoachBriceWilliams28, or the ICC do not own any page on Wikipedia's site. All Wikipedia entries are owned by Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is own by you or the ICC then it's okay for the ICC to make the rules, but I am guessing that Wikipedia is not owned by the ICC. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Q , You seem to be missing the point of their objection to this page. I hope things are clear now. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Again. Wikipedia owns this page. The ICC Cyber Ministry Team does not own this page. Qewr4231 (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Q , The reason this page is so disputed isn't because ownership is misunderstood man. It's that this page's primary authors are former members who don't even believe in the Bible or current Icoc members. Rather than "keep the bond of peace through spirit" they'd prefer to tear down. Why do you think I was so open to deletion of this page?!? It's because of this nonsense. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Who are the former ICC members or current ICOC members that have written this page? Qewr4231 (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Q, a browsing through the history section can provide you with that information. :) Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Who owns Wikipedia? Qewr4231 (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Q, I've answered that in the past. Google it if you forgot. Take your rhetoric elsewhere as I am not interested in your sentiment. Besides, virutally everything has been addressed since Dec 2017 so this tab can be archived. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)