Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Singapore High Court Ruling

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom you revert the Singapore High court ruling, as reported in the newspaper article as not a reliable source. What is the concern here? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

anyone can make a copy that looks like a newspaper, so the picture itself published in the church's newsletter is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a WP:RS. if it is the real newspaper story, then it is a violation of copyright and WP:ELNEVER applies to the newsletter, and you would need to cite the actual newspaper that published it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And that doesnt even get into the fact that the article from the newspaper doesnt make one mention of the Yeakley work and so placing the newspaper clip in that fashion is a gross violation of WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that is helpful, I will try and track down an original of the newspaper article. Also you will note that it was not placed in response to Yeakley himself but rather the claim that "people everywhere are calling this group a cult" which seems a stretch since this High Court made the opposite ruling.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Since there was a High Court ruling on this issue of the ICOC church(es) not being a cult, should this not be included in the article to keep a NPOV?

Case Details:

SINGAPORE HIGH COURT - SUIT NOs 846 and 848 of 1992 Judges LAI KEW CHAI J Date 29 AUG 1994 Citation [1995] 1 SLR 115)

What would constitute as sufficient verifiability to include this ruling?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, the article in question has nothing to do with Yeakley or his research about personality changes. Thus, if the article in question is to be mentioned at all, it shouldn't be mentioned in this section. Doing so, to repeat, is a violation of WP:OR. At best, you would have to either create a new section that discusses the Singapore case, or mention the article in a way that doesn't violate WP:OR. But again, that's presuming you gain access to the article itself. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 (talk) As stated earlier, there are two issues here. One, Yeakley's 25 year old research findings, which are under question based on more modern psychological research into personality changes (as per discussion above). Two, is the issue of the ICOC being accused of being a "cult" by some counselors mentioned by Yeakley and Thornburg. So the High Court decision that the ICOC is not a cult does pertain to those accusations. To deny that would be presenting one opinion and perspective and would lack a NPOV.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, if you have research that questions Yeakley's research, then, yes, by all means insert it here. But the information you've provided does no such thing. Again, information about personality changes as such from some random Web site does not constitute criticism of the Yeakley research. You violate WP:OR by inserting it here, since nowhere does the information mention the ICOC, let alone Yeakley. Because it lacks such information, you're presenting your own original research. Likewise with the image of the Singapore-based article you referred to: while it does mention an ICOC church in Singapore, it has nothing to do with members' alleged personality changes or Yeakley's research in general. Hence, your use of it here, again, violates WP:OR. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 (talk) Somehow you seem to be missing the distinction of two separate issues being discussed here. Let me try again:

• ISSUE 1 - The validity of Yeakley's research on personality change using MBTI
• ISSUE 2 - The accusation made by Thornburg and Yeakley's counselor friends/colleagues that assess the ICOC churches as being a cult, in their opinion. They are free to hold that opinion and it should be included in this article. However it does not come across as presenting a NPOV if we do not present the findings of a Singapore High Court ruling against the opinions of Thornburg etc...and stating that the ICOC is not a cult.

So from my side, I will try and find a more reliable source than a photocopied newspaper article. If any of you know where such things from the 1990's can be found, any advice would be appreciated. I do not work at a university and therefore don't have easy access to such archived material.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, the following is from WP:OR: "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)". Your statement included within "ICOC Controversy on Some Colleges and Universities" that "A High Court ruling does not support Thornberg's assessment, in fact stating the very oposite to be true" violates WP:OR. Applying a court case that has nothing to do with BU, let alone then dean Thornburg, to this section represents original research on your part. If you want to include the bit, you need to 1) confirm that the newspaper in question published the article, and then 2) put the reference in its proper place, which is certainly not the section pertaining to ICOC controversy on colleges.

Your addition to the section "Member's Personality Changes" also violates WP:OR. The work referred to makes no mention of the ICOC, let alone Yeakley's research about it. Not to mention, as TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom said, "The content is referenced to sources that are not discussing the subject of this article and being used to advance a position which is not explicitly made by the reliable sources. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Writing for Wikipedia is not like writing papers for school or an editorial for a newspaper or publishing a book or research paper where you are encouraged to take disparate bits of information, line them up in a way that supports a hypothesis. You CANNOT do that at Wikipedia. What you need to is find people who have already done that and gotten their analysis published by a reliable source. We then aggregate the ideas that have already been vetted by publishers. Thats it. We make no claims, nor place items in a way that suggests or leads a reader to anything other that what has already been published. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I get it, that makes sense. Thanks for the patient instruction.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom I have found an archived copy of the newspaper article, in the Singapore National Library, where the High Court of Singapore ruled that the church was not a cult and "expert witnesses" testified to that end. Would this be sufficient for WP:V?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

it is possible that it could be used, but again, a ruling by the Singapore court about a church in Singapore would need to be presented solely as that and not in any way be seen to be making a comment about the broader church. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom You say in the article there may be UNDUE weight given to the Singapore High Court ruling. I worded it very specifically to say it is a ruling based on that church. Surely your point of UNDUE could equally be applied to Yeakley's section. His research was conducted on ONE church. Why would the Singapore court ruling be any different?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Continuing Discussion on Yeakley Research

The original dispute over whether Yeakley's research may be directly cited in this article has come to a close given discussion on the dispute resolution board. We may want to continue this discussion, however. Like JamieBrown, I, too, will be away for the next week. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

'Gospel Advocate' was ruled as NOT being a reliable source, since it did not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by Wikipedia policy, however since there are reliable sources that refer to Yeakley's research, it would be preferable to use those sources, which we in fact can do. So let's use those sources.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct, JamieBrown2011. It was ruled that Yeakley's research may be directly included and cited in the article. We're supposed to have continuing discussion as how to best represent the research. You cannot change things willy-nilly.-Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123, the section has been changed in accordance with the resolution on the DRN. It was advised that we can include Yeakleys research as long as it was represented by reliable sources. The DRN mediation concluded that Gospel Advocate was not a reliable source but the journal articles were. It appears that this has been done sufficiently by JamieBrown2011 and I would like to close this discussion. Please assess your emotional involvement here. It is an encyclopedia and the edit is a very reasonable compromise on the lengthy discussion. You have your material included and it has now been revised to a more reliable level of accuracy. JamesLappeman (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the section back to edits before today. The edits JamieBrown2011 and JamesLappeman are not in accordance with the ruling of the dispute resolution board. Once again, the board ruled that direct citations to the Yeakley research are permitted because a number of high quality sources refer to them. As for how to best cite the material, we may have an ongoing conversation. That doesn't mean changes to the article without attempting to resolve the disputes on the talk page. I won't permit biased edits. As an example of such bias, see edits regarding Yeakley's criticisms of the ICOC methodology. You include his praise but delete his criticism. You can't have one without the other. If edits continue to be made in such a biased manner without resolving the dispute first on this talk page, I'll place a request for comment and appeal to outside authorities. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche123 The moderator specifically said that 'Gospel Advocate' was NOT a reliable source because it does NOT have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. However since Yeakley's research was cited in other reliable sources then those would be preferable sources to use for his research. So that is why those sources are now being used in the article. The only reason that I didn't remove all the Yeakley quotes is oversight. You will note that there was both a paragraph of Praise and Criticism left behind. In future edits I will not make that mistake.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be some dispute over the decision by TransporterMan of the Dispute Resolution Board regarding whether Yeakley's research may be directly referred to in this article. In what follows I'll explicate my understanding of the decision. One of the earliest relevant quotes by TransporterMan, I think, is this: "if it can be shown that Yeakley's research (not the book in general, since there appears to be material in the book other than Yeakley's research) has been referenced or discussed approvingly or relied upon in high-quality reliable sources then that too may be an indicator of reliability sufficient to allow the book to be used directly". Since multiple high-quality sources discuss Yeakley's research approvingly, following the above quote, this is an indicator that the research is sufficiently reliable to allow Yeakley's text to be used directly. Another relevant quote follows: "if the Yeakley study can be reliably sourced — and the sources he's cited above may or may not be enough to do that (and I'd like your comments on that subject) — it certainly seems to me on first blush (and thus subject to additional consideration and discussion) to be significant enough to the topic of the article to be included if, again, it can be reliably sourced". Because the study has been reliably sourced, as per the prior quote, the study may be included. The last relevant quote, in my mind, is as follows: "I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". As I read TransporterMan he says that Yeakley may be used directly in this article as a reliable source. Reliable third party sources (for example, Norton) are preferable so long as they "cover enough territory". I'm not sure they do cover enough territory, however. I may be wrong on this, though. If you think I am, please point me in the right direction. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 (talk) Why don't you provide the quotes from the other "reliable sources" otherwise we can just go with this one:

Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC). He asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling. Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader.

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Give me a day or two to read over the Yeakley and the secondary sources. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There appear to be at least three things wrong with JamieBrown2011's above recommendation. First, it fails to properly introduce Yeakley and his study. Second, it's plagiarism since Jaime lifts a direct quote from an article without using quotation marks. Second, it doesn't seem to "cover enough territory": Yeakley's research, or so he contends, suggests that the ICOC is changing the personalities of its members. The secondary literature Jamie lifts the quote from, presumably, doesn't mention this because it's not primarily concerned with the ICOC. Also, I presume that Jamie's failure to mention the second paragraph from the Yeakley text about how psychologists and counselors or who treat ex-ICOC members see the ICOC is because he plans on deleting it. This is unacceptable in my mind. Again, the ruling of the dispute resolution board was that Yeakley may be directly referred to in the article, especially if the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground.

I propose that the following be included:

In 1988, Researcher and psychologist Dr. Flavil Yeakley conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members over extended periods of time (Gasde article citation). A majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions (Norton Langone citation (p 39) and Gasde article citation (p 58)). After completing the study, Yeakley (Yeakley citation) concluded that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" . These are the same personality changes, Yeakley notes, found in "highly manipulative" sects, "not generally found in other churches of Christ or in various mainline denominations" (Yeakley citation).

After publishing the results of his research in 1988, Yeakley reflected on developments within the ICOC and concluded that "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult".[79] -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a few problems with the above recommendation by Nietzsche123.

• On the DRN he mentioned a number of high quality sources in order to state his case. The only one fully quoted verbatim has been the one by JamieBrown2011 above. In order for us to make an accurate decision on the wording we need see all the material. Nietzsche123 you said that you would get the quotes for us, it seems that you have opted to look at them personally and make a unilateral conclusion. Why is this? Remember that there are some sensitivities here due to the nature of 'Gospel Advocate' as a publisher of Yeakley's work (WP:BLP#Reliable sources) and that one of the key points on the DRN discussion was WP:USEBYOTHERS.
• Also your choice to include personal opinions from the "Editors Update" of the book (not quoted in journals) is problematic as Wikipedia says: "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books" WP:RSOPINION. The things that you have chosen to include are not related directly to Yeakley's psychological research and have been published by an organisation that was declared unreliable on its own. Lets look at the journals.
• On another note, as for you recommendation above you may notice that it is 250 words long. The section on the founder is only 175 words, the section on the origins of the church only 169. This doesn't seem to phase you (WP:UNDUE).

Please furnish us with the actual journal quotes verbatim so that we can assess them and come up with an adequate, well weighted quote for an encyclopaedia article.JamesLappeman (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, I'm confused by what you say. The burden isn't on me to furnish quotations from secondary sources to replace the direct quotations from Yeakley. Remember: we're permitted to use direct references to the Yeakley work, especially if secondary sources don't cover the territory that the Yeakley references do. The burden is on you to show that the secondary sources cover the territory. I've pointed to the relevant passages, as I read them, from the Langone and Gasde works. Where they cover enough ground, I proposed that we use them instead of Yeakley. But where they don't cover enough ground I included some from Yeakley in my proposal. In the event a secondary source is found that covers all the territory Yeakley does, I'm fine with using it instead. Jamie didn't quote from the secondary source; rather, (s)he plagiarized it by lifting it directly. When possible, we shouldn't lift direct quotes but rather summarize them; this is an encyclopedia, after all. You can look at the secondary sources and see if my gloss seems right to you (I've provided the page numbers already). The paragraph in my proposal referring to psychologists in the Boston area comes from Yeakley himself (who is also the editor of The Discipling Dilemma). Again, we're permitted to included references to his work, especially if the secondary literature don't cover it. This article has many sections that need improvement. Rather than randomly applying WP:UNDUE, let's focus on getting sections right section by section. There's a lot more that could be added to the founder section.-Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

-Nietzsche123 (talk) YOU were the one who argued persuasively at the DRN that there were reliable 3rd party citations and Quotes of Yeakley's research because 'Gospel Advocate' was ruled as NOT a reliable publisher. The moderator sends us back to the talk page to discuss the 3rd party quotes/secondary sources to see if they 'cover enough ground' and now you refuse to provide those quotes, (not everyone has access to those journals you referenced) so that other editors interested in this article can assess them. NOT cool. Also we don't have to find a source that covers "all the territory Yeakley does" that is ridiculous! Just a reliable source that covers "enough" territory.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 the goal is reliable, concise and well weighted. Your counter points are very defensive. Every time we try to suggest a revision you stand your ground and argue around the suggestions. You accused JamieBrown2011 of quoting directly instead of summarising but then you add large quotes yourself. Of course the fact that your article is almost twice as long as the section on the founder is an issue (why are we even discussing this?! look again at your defensive reasoning as opposed to seeking consensus). On the DRN we were discussing the need for high quality sources due to the problems with "Gospel Advocate" as a publisher and are now wanting to see these sources that you claim to have (and we cant access) and now you decide that they "don't cover enough ground" without letting us decide together. What does that mean? WP:BURDEN is a serious matter when it applies to WP:BLPGROUP and your unilateral decision making is not in the spirit of Wikipedia here (especially when core content policies of WP:BLPGROUP have all been questioned). Please stop avoiding and put the quotes or links to the journals up on this talk page.JamesLappeman (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 and JamesLappeman, I'm confused by what you both say. I already placed an RFQ as to how to interpret WP:BURDEN. The burden is not on an editor to provide access to an article he or she cites; rather, the burden is on other editors who wish to view the source to gain access to that material. Any work published by CSJ is available for free on the internet. As far as the Norton sources go, you should be able to access the text from a library. Again, it's not up to me to provide access to a text. (And I probably don't have the time to type up the paragraphs Langone discusses Yeakley in Norton to this talk page.) TransporterMan at DRN recommended that we continue to discuss how to best word citations to the Yeakley text, whether they come from the text itself or second parties. That's what we're attempting to do now. JamieBrown2011 made a recommendation as to how the wording should go; then I recommended how I think the wording should go. In my eyes several important bits of information are left out of the secondary literature. That's why I cited Yeakley directly. I haven't "unilaterally" decided anything; so I'm not sure what you're talking about; same goes for the alleged "defensiveness"; feel free to elaborate on that accusation. Let's make sure to get the facts right: I accused JamieBrown2011 of plagiarizing since he lifted a paragraph from another source without using quotation marks. I'm sure he didn't mean to plagiarize; but he did. My students make similar mistakes all the time. While I did use several quotations myself, they're about Yeakley's conclusions concerning controversial opinions. In my mind, how the three studies were administered to BCC members may be summarized using the Yeakley and secondary sources. Personally, I'm not comfortable summarizing the conclusions Yeakley draws from the studies. One could apply WP:UNDUE to almost any part of this article. So rather than arbitrarily applying it here, let's concern ourselves with getting the wording right in this single section. We can worry about other sections later. As I said, the bit on McKean could probably use some lengthening (as could other sections).-Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 The recommendation from the DRN was to preferably use the reliable secondary sources, because 'Gospel Advocate' was ruled as not being a reliable source with "no evidence of fact checking required for Wikipedia". You seem to be trying your best to avoid that. Only if the other more reliable sources are inadequate should be event attempt to use stuff from 'Gospel Advocate'.

I would like to suggest we also use a reference from the Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, book on page 219 where they quote Yeakley as saying:

"The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm".

We could combine this with the Journal quote already mentioned above (with quotations marks) and that give a NPOV overview of Yeakley's research without the sensationalism of the sections Nietzsche123 is trying to force into the article. Particularly concerning the requirements of BLPGROUP.

I do agree that WP:UNDUE does apply here. A one time study conducted in 1985 and published in 1988 by an unreliable publisher is getting a ridiculous amount of space here. Also @Nietzsche123 justifying current bad editing by claiming there is bad editing in other parts of the article is defensive and not constructive. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the direct quotes Nietzche123 and JamieBrown, I think this summery below could work. so here it goes:

In 1985 a Church of Christ researcher Flavil Yeakley conducted research by giving the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC). The research required them to respond as they would have responded before their conversion, as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and as they imagined themselves in five more years. Nearly all sampled respondents chose to change their scores across the three versions. Yeakley concluded that the direction of these changes was towards the personality of the leader While this research has been cited in a number of anti-cult journals, Yeakley concluded that the data in this study did not prove that any certain individual actually changed personality in an unhealthy way. It did, however, appear to prove that there was a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influenced a conformity to group norm .

any thoughts? JamesLappeman (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman & Nietzsche123 I think this is a very good summation. It uses the high quality secondary sources recommended by the DRN. It covers enough ground and gives a fair summation of Yeakley's research without using the contradictory statements in the current edit. One additional suggestion is to include the use of Yeakley's title suggested above by Nietzsche123 "Researcher and psychologist Dr. Flavil Yeakley". And one small query, why include "church of Christ researcher"? Is that really necessary? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 you know more, was he a psychologist? from the CV you put up is seemed like he had a psychology degree but not sure if that qualifies? I hear you on the Doctor though.how about: "Researcher Dr Flavil Yeakley"? I'm keen on keeping "Church of Christ researcher" just because it gives some context. He wasn't an independent. thoughts?

JamesLappeman (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, your continued toning down of a controversial fact about the ICOC in the LEAD of the article violates WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Notice how you started to tone down the remark weeks after The Red Pen of Doom it in the lead to begin with. The bit originally read as: "In 2000, it was called "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus" for its "aggressive proselytizing to college students". Now, this is a prominent controversy; so it should be included in the LEAD. Your rewording--"In 2000, it was described as "[a] fast-growing Christian organization known for aggressive proselytizing to [US] college students" and as "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus"--violates WP:LEAD since it a) tones down the controversy and b) adds material that's not an essential part of the controversy. The full quotation is discussed later in the article; so there's no need to repeat it in the LEAD.

@Nietzsche (Since you have covered a number of different issues in your post I will try and answer them in each section. If you find that distracting I will move them to a whole separate section of responses) '"In 2000, it was described as "[a] fast-growing Christian organization known for aggressive proselytizing to [US] college students" and as "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus"' defines the topic, establishes the context, summarises the most important points and more importantly is a concise and direct quotation from the newspaper article.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You also continue to edit the section title of the paragraphs on Yeakley's research in question. Before the dispute began the section has always read as "ICOC members' personality changes". Since the ruling of the DRN board you've changed the title repeatedly. Now, one would think that you'd at least wait until the dispute is resolved on this talk page before you change the title of the very section we're discussing. Once I change it back you claim that you're trying to portray a NPOV, which is bologna. We all see that you're trying to tone down the controversy. Then you try to justify your title change by insisting your wording was the way the title read before the dispute arose. Now it appears that you've realized your mistake, but instead of accepting the original wording, you are now insisting that Yeakley never said he concludes that the BCC is changing the personalities of its members. This of course false: the quote where he says this has been in the article for months.

@Nietzsche Wikipedia encourages: '"Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral."' By entitling this section '"Yeakley's research of the Boston Church of Christ"' it achieves this.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia also states regarding "SECTION TITLES" Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy. Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes. Thus, sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate. Hence the change to the title on ICOC on Universities section. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your above gloss on the DSN ruling on whether Yeakley may be directly cited in this article is only partially correct: while the board ruled that The Gospel Advocate Company is not a high quality source, it also ruled that citations to Yeakley's text The Discipling Dilemma are permissible. While it also stated that high quality secondary sources that cite the Yeakley text are preferable to the Yeakley text itself, where the secondary literature doesn't "cover enough ground", Yeakley, the board ruled, is fine to cite. In the above I've pointed out where I believe that the secondary literature fails to cover enough ground. I'm not trying to "avoid" any part of the ruling of the DSN. If anyone here is trying to avoid it, it's you. If you think high quality secondary sources do cover the ground I've specifically pointed to above from Yeakley, then show me. If not, stop the personal attacks. It's getting tiring: be constructive instead.

Why do you think we should include the bit from The Boston Movement? Nowhere in the recommended wordings by you or me so far does it give the impression that Yeakley thinks he's "proved" anything. What he says is that his research shows that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" (pp. 20-21). Basically, he conducted a study where over 900 BCC members changed their personality types on the MBTI. He concluded from the study that the BCC is "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways". If you or JamesLappeman think this gloss is wrong, show me why. I also resent your use of 'sensationalism'. Point out one instance where I've "sensationalized" something. I'm interested in giving accurate descriptions, not toning things down to portray the ICOC in a more positive light, as you consistently do.

I'm still flabbergasted by how anyone could reasonably think WP:UNDUE applies here. We're talking about four sentences! This is an encyclopedia. We as editors have the responsibility to provide good information to our readers. Taking a sentence or two to introduce a study that's already been ruled by the DRN as admissible to this article is laughable. Further, it's been pointed out time and time again that this article is in need of major improvement. That's what I'm interested in doing. Again, rather than arbitrarily apply UNDUE here, let's work on fixing each section.

I'm not in favor of JamesLappeman's summary for a number of reasons. I'm not aware of anywhere Yeakley is referred to as a 'Church of Christ researcher'; plus, it obfuscates the fact that Yeakley is a scholar. Additionally, the use of 'anti-cult' has no place in an encyclopedia; plus, it's outright false: numerous publications refer to the Yeakley research, not just CSJ. Most importantly, JamesLappeman's summary is misleading. While Yeakley admits that his research doesn't "prove" that the BCC was changing the personalities of its members, he concludes that the BCC does in fact change the personalities of its members. Finally, it also leaves out important bits from the Yeakley text not mentioned in the secondary sources, namely: the bit about Boston counselors assessment of the BCC. Remember, direct citations to the Yeakley text are permitted, especially if the secondary sources "fail to cover enough ground", or so ruled the DSN.-Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with @Nietzsche here that 'anti-cult' is unnecessary. The secondary sources on the other hand do seem to cover enough ground as shown by the above edit by@JamesLappeman with nearly 150 words describing the study and the outcomes from reliable secondary sources. None of these secondary sources have the contradictions of 'Gospel Advocate' ("this study doesn't prove that peoples personalities are being changed in unhealthy ways" but... "peoples personalities are being changed in unhealthy ways like in other manipulative sects" ...what?? ) Let's go with the reliable secondary sources as recommended by the DRN.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well lets just start with his credentials and we can take this a step at a time. What shall we call him Nietzsche123? I have a well published source that calls Yeakley "A leader among the traditional Church of Christ and one of the Boston Movement's chief critics". Now I decided not to use it because I didn't want this section to be too emotive. What would you like to call him? how about Dr. Flavil Yeakley then? (simple compromise) JamesLappeman (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am supportive of the "Dr Flavil Yeakley" title. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do agree that the fact that Yeakley is a Church of Christ minister is relevant; I'm just not for also implying that this fact clouds his research. In light of this, how about using 'Dr. Flavil Yeakley, Church of Christ minister and Professor at Harding University"? After this introduction we could refer to him in the section merely by using 'Yeakley'.

I fail to see how Yeakley contradicts himself in his text published by The Gospel Advocate Company. He contends both that 1) his research suggests that the BCC changed the personalities of its members and that 2) his research doesn't prove that the BCC changed the personalities of its members. This is like saying that the fossil record suggests that the theory of evolution by natural selection is true, but the fossil record doesn't prove it. "Prove" or "proof" are very strong words that (responsible) academics tend to shy away from because so little can actually be proved. While re-reading the Yeakley bit in The Boston Movement (referred to by Jamie) I came across a description of Yeakley's credentials associated with the MBTI (see p. 213). He's won several awards for "outstanding research" using the MBTI.

As far as where I think the secondary literature fails cover enough ground, see my above points. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm Nietzsche123, was he a Harding Prof at the time of the research or he is one now? next question before we get onto "enough ground": You put that the research was done in 1988 but I thought he did it in 1985? JamesLappeman (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think of that. Let's see. He started professing at Harding only in 1990. From 1984 until 1990 he was "Researcher-in-Residence and Director of the Church Growth Institute at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas". As I understand it, he began his studies on BCC church members in 1985 (see page 24 of the text). They lasted until 1987 (see page 35 of the text). The text, The Discipling Dilemma, was published in 1988. Someone else added the "In 1998," bit to the paragraphs now in the article (maybe it was Jaime?). In light of this, how about we use 'Dr. Flavil Yeakley, Church of Christ minister and professor,' to introduce him? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with 'Dr. Flavil Yeakley, Church of Christ minister and professor,' unless there are any more objections. About the date, could we put 1985?

Now on to the next issue. The current article has the following section from the source's LATER ADDED PERSONAL EDITORIAL NOTES taking up almost half:

After publishing the results of his research in 1988, Yeakley reflected on developments within the ICOC and concluded that "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult".[78]

I may be mistaken but this appears to be original research? WP:OR It was added AFTER publication which must impact reliability and makes statements that are unverified:

• How many cities is "virtually every city"?
• How many psychologists?
• What does flooded mean (5? 10? 20? 200? 2000? 20 000?)
• how many cities is "several cities"?
• What makes up "all other groups put together"?
• Could we see the "unanimous" list of these "professional counsellors"?

Nietzsche123 Including this as almost HALF of your article section is a problem. I am going to remove it until you have explained your rationale more clearly and we have consensus. WP:BLPGROUP cant have you inserting a section that in essence makes the above claim without a LOT of reliability which this certainly does not. JamesLappeman (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this is an instance of WP:OR. Again, per the discussion on WP:DRN we may cite Yeakley directly, especially if the secondary literature doesn't cover enough ground. So I'm going to revert your edit to the article's page since you lack justification in removing it. Consensus should be formed prior to the paragraph's removal, not after the fact only to add it back in. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 I'm not sure how familiar you are with referencing but just because someone's research has been cited by other people that does not make everything that they have to say on a given topic reliably sourced. I certainly wouldn't get away with that in my own faculty. His MBTI tests were referenced in a few journals and we have agreed that his research may be used. Please re-read my explanation for taking out the above section (It really will be a waste of everyones time to take this DRN). There are violations of WP:NPOV WP:NOR and you are expected to be sensitive when writing on WP:BLPGROUP and should err on the side of keeping it off until proven reliable. on the DRN it was agreed that you can use Yeakley but your choice of content is poor and interpretation of TransporterMan's ruling is irrational. In light of the DRN and the above points I contend that this is a reckless post and I question your judgement in wanting to keep it. JamesLappeman (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the statement until Nietzsche123 can provide reliable sources to justify its inclusion. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Restoring_deleted_content I ask you not to revert until it is settled on the talk page. JamesLappeman (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we finalise and find consensus on the wording from the reliable secondary sources?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

How about:

In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor Flavil Yeakley conducted research by giving the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC). The research required them to respond as they would have responded before their conversion, as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and as they imagined themselves in five more years. Nearly all sampled respondents chose to change their scores across the three versions. Yeakley concluded that the direction of these changes was towards the personality of the leader . He also concluded that the data in this study did not prove that any certain individual actually changed personality in an unhealthy way. It did, however, appear to prove that there was a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influenced a conformity to group norm .

Can we go ahead with this? JamesLappeman (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I find at least two things wrong with JamesLappeman's summary: (1) it obfuscates the fact that Yeakley contends his research suggests that the BCC changes the personalities of its members and (2) it ignores the second paragraph in the original rendition about counselors in the Boston area. Concerning (1), again, Yeakley contends both that a) his research suggests that the BCC changed the personalities of its members and that b) his research doesn't prove that the BCC changed the personalities of its members. This is like saying that the fossil record suggests that the theory of evolution by natural selection is true, but the fossil record doesn't prove it. "Prove" or "proof" are very strong words that (responsible) academics tend to shy away from because so little can actually be proved. Concerning (2), I've returned the deleted text. Yeakley isn't guilty of WP:OR. Editors can be guilty of WP:OR when they take secondary sources and use them to support a position not intended by the sources themselves. DSN ruled Yeakley as a suitable source to directly cite, especially if secondary sources fail to mention the germane material. The secondary sources fail to mention Yeakley's discussion of counselors in the Boston area. Being that Yeakley has shown to be reliable and that the material isn't mentioned in secondary sources, I've returned it.

In light of all this, I propose the following: In 1988, Researcher and psychologist Dr. Flavil Yeakley conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members over extended periods of time (Gasde article citation). A majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions (Norton Langone citation (p 39) and Gasde article citation (p 58)). After completing the study, Yeakley (Yeakley citation) concluded that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" . These are the same personality changes, Yeakley notes, found in "highly manipulative" sects, "not generally found in other churches of Christ or in various mainline denominations" (Yeakley citation).

After publishing the results of his research in 1988, Yeakley reflected on developments within the ICOC and concluded that "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult".[79] -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche we were sent back to the talk page to see if the 2nd party reliable sources "cover enough ground", you continue to try and avoid that fact and force the unreliable 'Gospel Advocate' material into the article. I know the Gospel Advocate stuff is more sensational in nature: "Dangerous cult" & "spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement" & "highly manipulative sect" but as by now you should have realised weighty claims require high quality sources on Wikipedia. None of the reliable 2nd sources make these kind of extreme claims and give a far more balanced description of Yeakley's research. I would think that as editors we would be leaning towards the more reliable and less extreme given the requirements of WP:BLPGROUP.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, since after 4 days there is no further objections, I am going to place the reliable 2ndary sources into the article and remove the 'Gospel Advocate' quotes. If Nietzsche has further objections we can continue this debate.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, while we were sent back to the talk page to discuss the Yeakley material, we were tasked with how to best word the entry in the article. I have indicated where the secondary sources don't cover enough ground in my eyes. If anyone's avoiding anything, it's you, for failing to point out to me where the secondary sources do cover the ground I perceive that they lack. I've returned the Yeakley references to the way they were before this dispute arose until this dispute can be settled.-Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 reading through Wikipedia policies it seems the WP:BURDEN is on you to argue your case for the necessity to include the unreliable 'Gospel Advocate' material before we settle on including it in the article. Yet, you insist on keeping it in the article. (I know you originally inserted this material and argued that 'Gospel Advocate' was a reliable publisher...but the DRN has shown that GA does NOT have any evidence of fact checking required for Wikipedia) Thus far, apart from the more sensational nature of the stuff from 'Gospel Advocate' there appears to be no encyclopaedic value in what you are proposing. The reliable secondary sources cover the study Yeakley conducted, explain it's purpose and outcome, and notably do not make the kind of extreme comments that we find in the 'Gospel Advocate' rendition. How is chosing the more extreme claims from the less reliable sources consistent with Wikipedia policies to present and NPOV and fit within BLPGROUP sensitivities? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Since @Nietzsche deleted the rendition of the secondary reliable sources (without any Gospel Advocate material) from the article I have included it here:

In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor Flavil Yeakley conducted research by giving the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC). The research required them to respond as they would have responded before their conversion, as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and as they imagined themselves in five more years. Nearly all sampled respondents chose to change their scores across the three versions. Yeakley concluded that the direction of these changes was towards the personality of the leader . Yeakley was quoted by Giambalvo in his book on "The Boston Movement" saying: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm".

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, while the DSN board ruled that The Gospel Advocate Company was by itself an unreliable source, it ruled that the Yeakley material by itself was a reliable source (because it was referred to by several high quality secondary sources). Specifically, the DSN board ruled that we may directly cite the Yeakley material, especially if the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. In addition, it ruled that we (the editors in question) should word the entry based on consensus on the talk page. In the event we fail to come to a consensus, it advised that we go back to the DSN for further advice. We agreed not to make changes to the article without consensus on this talk page. So I'm not sure I understand on what basis you now would like to make changes without consensus.

I have some problems with your above proposed rendition. Again, I find it misleading: while Yeakley is careful to qualify his findings to say that his research doesn't prove the BCC is changing the personalities of its members, he contends that his research does suggest this. This is my proposed rendition:

In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members over extended periods of time (Gasde article citation). A majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions (Norton Langone citation (p 39) and Gasde article citation (p 58)). After completing the study, Yeakley (Yeakley citation) concluded that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" . These are the same personality changes, Yeakley notes, found in "highly manipulative" sects, "not generally found in other churches of Christ or in various mainline denominations" (Yeakley citation).

After publishing the results of his research in 1988, Yeakley reflected on developments within the ICOC and concluded that "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult".[79]

Where the secondary literature covers enough ground, I've included it in the above instead of referring to the Yeakley material directly. But I also included some material from the Yeakley source itself since I think the secondary literature fails to cover it. If you think the secondary literature does, please show me; and I'll be glad to reference it instead of Yeakley directly. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 since you seem insistent on continuing to keep using Gospel Advocate material and inserting the appendix of that book, it seems we are going to need to go back to the DRN to resolve this. Maybe you can explain to the DRN why the secondary sources do not cover enough ground, because your arguments do not make sense to me.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I found this but I don't know how to include it in the article

I found this report on the International Churches of Christ by Fox News: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/FoxFilesSmall.wmv

I think this should be included in the article some how. Qewr4231 (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in International Churches of Christ

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of International Churches of Christ's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Redigging the Wells":

• From Restoration Movement: Hawley, Monroe E (1976), Redigging the Wells: Seeking Undenominational Christianity, Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, ISBN 0-89137-513-9 {{citation}}: |format= requires |url= (help).
• From Restorationism: Monroe E. Hawley, Redigging the Wells: Seeking Undenominational Christianity, Quality Publications, Abilene, Texas, 1976, ISBN 0-89137-512-0 (paper), ISBN 0-89137-513-9 (cloth)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the error, thanks AnomieBOTJamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologetics Index as a source

The Apologetics Index website is not a reliable source. An editor inserted the following piece under the 'Beliefs' section:

Critics, like Apologetics Index, are quick to point out that the ICOC's beliefs deviant from the Christian norm, and therefore refer to it as a 'cult' in the sense that theologically speaking, it "misrepresents the Bible's teachings regarding grace, baptism, and salvation".

The problems are as follows:

• Apologetics Index is a biased site. If you go to http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.html (the editors source) it is titled: "International Churches Of Christ:

Who They Are, What They Do, How To Answer Them". Already in the title this expresses a bias towards a single viewpoint WP:RSOPINION WP:NPOV.

• The site claims: 'The publishers operate from an evangelical, Christian point of view'. In order to claim that the ICOC is deviant and a theological 'cult' and misrepresentative of the bible is a strong claim and not well enough sourced for WP:BLPGROUP
• The website / blog even has an article on the ICOC titled: 'Compares ICOC leader Kp McKean with a mafia boss...' WP:RSOPINION WP:NPOV

Given the weight of the claim and the quality of the resource I'm removing this with immediate effect. JamesLappeman (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

New discussion on membership

revealdotorg In using publicly accessible materials, I compiled membership statistics of the ICOC over the last 20 or so years. You can log into Delphi Forums as a guest to view. http://forums.delphiforums.com/ICCdiscussion/messages?msg=26415.9

This is just data, there is no interpolation or interpretation. Feel free to reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revealdotorg (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Church Identification and Beliefs: Beliefs section

This section quotes David Platt and Francis Chan. The author of this section makes it sound as if David Platt and Francis Chan support the International Churches of Christ's beliefs. This appears to be erroneous. From what I can tell, Platt and Chan are not involved with the ICOC and are ministers of churches that are not part of the ICOC. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

To All Editors of This Article: http://www.icocinfo.org/?f is used as a reference for many statements/parts of the article. http://www.icocinfo.org/?f is a dead link!!!

To All Editors of This Article: http://www.icocinfo.org/?f is used as a reference for many statements/parts of the article. http://www.icocinfo.org/?f is a dead link!!! Please do not keep using http://www.icocinfo.org/?f Qewr4231 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop removing the [citation needed] for dead links

"Congregations 620[5]" Link number 5 is dead. Link #5 goes to http://www.icocinfo.org/?f Qewr4231 (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

[citation needed] Reference 37 goes to a dead link: "Not Found The requested URL /Headlines/061208_McKeanStartsNewMovement.aspx was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request." Qewr4231 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

[citation needed] Reference 45 goes to "File Not Found" Qewr4231 (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Cooperation Church information can be found at: http://www.icocco-op.org/churches/ Pascal ref (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The information about church membership may be incorrect because the source that supports it is dead and does not exist. The membership data is unreliable.

Source number #5 does not exist.

Members 2008 - 88 000, 2012 - 100 000 [5]

^ a b c "Data and Analysis". ICOC Info. International Churches of Christ. 2006 April. Retrieved 2007-07-09.

This source goes to: http://www.icocinfo.org/?f

This is a dead link; no source.

Qewr4231 (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

2006 to 2009 data is at http://www.icocco-op.org/content/view/100/8/ Pascal ref (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Other Dead Links

Reference 1: Classification Christian Restoration Movement,[1] Christian fundamentalism which goes to http://www.restorationunity.com/content/view/108/28/ goes to a page that says 404 (Page Not Found) Error. Therefore this information may be erroneous or unreliable. Qewr4231 (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Link fixed as mentioned above Pascal ref (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference #4

Reference #4 is used to support the following: "At the end of 2009, the ICOC claims to have about 92,524 members in 574 churches in 145 countries.[4]"

Reference #4 is also used to support the following: "HOPE Worldwide, Co-operating Churches of Christ, DPI Books [4]"

Reference #4 is also used to support the following: "A new leadership structure based on "service teams" now provides global leadership.[4]"

Reference #4 takes me to: http://www.icocco-op.org/

Need to add the correct path: http://www.icocco-op.org/content/view/100/8/ Some browsers truncate the URL if copying and pasting into WP. Seems that happened to whoever cited the original refs Pascal ref (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that this is an ICOC website, I find no information about DPI Books on this page. I do find a video about Hope Worldwide. It would be nice to link to a page that talks about DPI books.

DPI is easy to find : http://dpibooks.org/ Pascal ref (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

DPI books can be found here www.dpibooks.org JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I also found some other news and links to more news articles on the ICOC; however, I see no statistics about church membership on this page. It would be great if Reference #4: "At the end of 2009, the ICOC claims to have about 92,524 members in 574 churches in 145 countries.[4]" goes directly to web page that has membership data and statistics. Qewr4231 (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference #8

I don't understand Reference #8: "The International Churches of Christ is a body of co-operating[7] religiously conservative, and racially integrated[8] Christian congregations, an offshoot from the mainline Churches of Christ.[9]"

Reference #8 takes me to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_California

I'm not sure what the University of Southern California has to do with the ICOC being " . . . religiously conservative, and racially integrated . . ." Qewr4231 (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Qewr4231, for going through all these links! Every time you find a link in error, you should replace the incorrect link with: , where September 2013 is this month's date. Then, you should try and replace those incorrect links with correct citation information. If, in a week or so, you nor other editors fix the links, I would delete the content, since it's not properly referenced. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Link fixed Pascal ref (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Qewr4231 (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Qewr4231, I think it's great that you're going through this article and trying to flag the dead and incorrect citations. But you're doing it wrong: you leave in the incorrect citation. What you want to do is replace the incorrect citation with this: "" (without the quotations, that is, without the " and ". -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just doing the best that I can. Perhaps you can do better. There are so many dead links used as sources for this article. Qewr4231 (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Qewr4231, here's a link from WP with instructions on how to deal with dead links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dead_link. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dead Links Still Exist in This Article

The following is a dead link that offers no proof of anything:

^ 36. McKean, Kip (1994 February 4). "Evangelization Proclamation" (PDF). International Churches of Christ. Retrieved 2007-07-09.[dead link]

The Link goes to some website called "Portland Church Page not found." Qewr4231 (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The following is a dead link and needs to be fixed or deleted:

^ 51. List of Churches agreed to and committed to the Plan for United Cooperation.

Qewr4231 (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the dead linksQewr4231 (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Source material does NOT need to be on the web if there are proper citations to identify the work (unless the source was not published on paper and it only existed on the web - in which case you can try and find it on the Wayback Machine or web archive). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if whoever supplies the source would just update the source to prevent dead links. The person who did the edit and posted the source has the responsibility to keep that source current and alive. Otherwise, if you can't source material properly, then please don't insert that material into the International Churches of Christ article. Qewr4231 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The official website of the International Churches of Christ?

The official website of the International Churches of Christ is listed as: http://www.disciplestoday.org/

I thought the official website for the ICOC is: http://www.icocco-op.org/

??

Qewr4231 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Reliability of Disciples Today

This article makes at least four references to the ICOC's own newspaper, Disciples Today. Unfortunately, this source doesn't appear to be reliable: 1) it's not a third-party secondary source but rather the ICOC's own newspaper, 2) I don't think it has an established record for fact-checking and accuracy, and 3) I don't think it has an editorial board. I understand that we're going to be trying to replace these non-third-party sources with reliable third-party sources. And I also understand that, other things, equal, it's okay to refer to the newspaper of the religious sect that a particular WP article is about for uncontroversial information. I'm worried, however, about the Disciples Today references in the Aftermath section. Clearly, it is to the ICOC's advantage to portray the McKean resignation and its aftermath in a manner that increases the ICOC's own credibility, decreases McKean's. Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Wikipedia ICOC article should be used to portray pro-Kip Mckean or anti-Kip Mckean viewpoints. The Wikipedia ICOC article should be informational and unbiased. There are so many dead links used as references in this article. I have no idea who publishes Disciples Today other than the generic answer The International Churches of Christ. I have no idea where Disciples Today gets its facts and information from. Also, the Kip Mckean website and the International Christian Churches website need to be informational based and unbiased.

While I realize that the International Churches of Christ is a good source on the International Churches of Christ, the problem is that the International Churches of Christ is too biased. It appears that the International Churches of Christ do not want negative factual information, whether it is true or not, to be published. No organization wants a bad image.

That said, ex-members and ex-leaders in the International Churches of Christ such as myself are probably too biased against the International Churches of Christ and do see it as a cult.

Regardless of biases and opinions, one fact remains: The Wikipedia International Churches of Christ article contains a lot of dead links that are used as proof. The article also contains a lot of source material that is clearly not neutral and is intended to make the ICOC look good or look bad. The ICOC websites are not unbiased third party sources. And the critics may not be unbiased third party sources either. Yes third party but may not be unbiased. Why is it so hard to find simple facts on the International Churches of Christ that is just facts without any bias or false information? Qewr4231 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing the accusations against McKean from the Aftermath section of this article. As discussed above, the only source for the accusations is from Disciples Today, the ICOC's own newspaper. Clearly, it is to the ICOC's advantage to portray the McKean resignation and its aftermath in a manner that increases the ICOC's own credibility, decreases McKean's. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Since "Disciples Today" is the official newspaper of the ICOC, unless there is reasonable evidence available to doubt the authenticity of the claims, the information is admissible here. WP:ABOUTSELF JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, nice work on finding WP:ABOUTSELF; I never read it before. But I don't think it applies here. Aboutself implies that this article about the ICOC may use a SPS about itself (in this case, Disciples Today) only if five conditions are met. Unfortunately, the material from Disciples Today seems to violate two of those conditions, namely: 1) "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim", and 2) "it does not involve claims about third parties". The material from Disciples Today makes several exceptional claims, where an exceptional claim is a claim that makes "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" or contains "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest". Basically, there seems to be a conflict of interest in relying on an ICOC SPS for information about why McKean left (or was asked to leave) the organization. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, you are going to need to elaborate, what is surprising or exceptional about what specific claims? Who is contesting those claims?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The material from Disciples Today is about a third-party, namely: Kip McKean. So it doesn't seem like we can use it for that reason. Plus, the material makes several exceptional claims about McKean's character: that he is prideful, arrogant, gossips, disrespectful, jealous, ungodly, selfish, short-sighted, unrepentant, divisive, etc. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche is correct. Cannot be used to make claims about third parties, particularly living people. (And if it wasnt clear, at least Nietzsche is contesting the claims by his objection to them here on the talk page and the removal from the article.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Stories of ex-members of the ICOC

Unanswered Prayers: The Story of One Woman Leaving the International Church of Christ A straight-A senior at Georgetown went to a Bible-study group. But the promise of heaven wound up turning her life into hell. By Drew Bratcher http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/unanswered-prayers-the-story-of-one-woman-leaving-the-international-church-of-christ/

Another story of suffering and pain leading to a member leaving the International Churches of Christ: http://afkleymann.tripod.com/activist.htm

Yet another story: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/02/10/international-churches-of-christ-a-personal-story-of-control/

An Alphabetical Index of Stories about ICC Recruits, Members, Family, and Friends: http://www.reveal.org/library/stories/index.html

Qewr4231 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a new Wikipedia page, one that also links from the International Churches of Christ Wikipedia page, devoted to ex-members of the International Churches of Christ. It seems that lot of International Churches of Christ members leave the ICOC because they think it is a cult. Qewr4231 (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions About Sources

This part of the article has source 11: "It is a network of over 600 churches spread across some 160 nations, they consider themselves non-denominational.[11]"

When I go to source 11 it is listed as: ^ New York City Church of Christ 'About us' in the Internet Archive

Source 11 goes to: http://web.archive.org/web/20080325065212/http://www.nyccoc.net/home/whoweare.htm

This page goes to an article written in March 2008 talks about who the New York City Church of Christ is. It looks like the article is referring only to the New York City Church of Christ and not the entire International Churches of Christ? And how do I know whether the New York City Church of Christ is part of the Churches of Christ or the International Churches of Christ? Qewr4231 (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Qewr4231. It was previously pointed out by a number of editors that this page has way too many citations from the ICOC. When possible, we need to cite third-party secondary sources. The other editors also recommended that this article be nuked to nothing and started from scratch with reliable sources. I'll work on doing that when I have the time. Until then, I'm in favor of replacing the unreliable sources with reliable ones. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nietzche123

Nietzche123 and Qewr4231 are wrong in their assertion that the article has invalid sources. WP:VERIFY clearly states that

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This is obviously the case with the ICOC which does a better job than most other church organizations of posting its membership data. Really, there is no other way to gather info on church membership other than from a self-published source.

This article also contains numerous third-party neutral sources referenced throughout. The discussion of 'nuking' the article is not appropriate and revels the editors bias in simply tearing down instead of building a solid NPoV page.

As mentioned repeatedly, membership data for the ICOC is available at:

Pascal ref (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your are wrong in your assessment. Claiming a high membership number is "unduly self-serving". We would need a third party to assess any the validity of any claims made by the church in this regard. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps then all of the WP:CHURCH pages would need to be removed because all religious organizations self-report. Not sure why you are singling out the ICOC and asking for third-party verification. Even the Southern Baptists, who have 'estimates of 16 million members' themselves view outside verification of membership as meaningless

The best and most accurate source of membership numbers in the ICOC is the ICOC. There is no claim the ICOC is making about its membership other than the simple membership numbers themselves. Pascal ref (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Source number #5 does not exist

Members 2008 - 88 000, 2012 - 100 000 [5]

^ a b c "Data and Analysis". ICOC Info. International Churches of Christ. 2006 April. Retrieved 2007-07-09.

This source goes to: http://www.icocinfo.org/?f

This is a dead link; no source. Qewr4231 (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Membership info for the ICOC can be found at http://www.dtodayinfo.net/Dtoday JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference #1

Reference 1: Classification Christian Restoration Movement,[1] Christian fundamentalism which goes to http://www.restorationunity.com/content/view/108/28/ goes to a page that says 404 (Page Not Found) Error. Therefore this information may be erroneous or unreliable. Qewr4231 (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Link goes to a WP page on Restoration Movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement Pascal ref (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference #4

Reference #4 is used to support the following: "At the end of 2009, the ICOC claims to have about 92,524 members in 574 churches in 145 countries.[4]"

Reference #4 is also used to support the following: "HOPE Worldwide, Co-operating Churches of Christ, DPI Books [4]"

Reference #4 is also used to support the following: "A new leadership structure based on "service teams" now provides global leadership.[4]"

Reference #4 takes me to: http://www.icocco-op.org/

While I acknowledge that this is an ICOC website, I find no information about DPI Books on this page. I do find a video about Hope Worldwide. It would be nice to link to a page that talks about DPI books.

I also found some other news and links to more news articles on the ICOC; however, I see no statistics about church membership on this page. It would be great if Reference #4 ("At the end of 2009, the ICOC claims to have about 92,524 members in 574 churches in 145 countries.[4]") goes directly to a web page that has membership data and statistics. It takes a little work to find the membership data and statistics page. Qewr4231 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Data on the ICOC membership numbers can be found at: http://www.icocco-op.org/content/view/100/8/ Pascal ref (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference #8

I don't understand Reference #8: "The International Churches of Christ is a body of co-operating[7] religiously conservative, and racially integrated[8] Christian congregations, an offshoot from the mainline Churches of Christ.[9]"

Reference #8 takes me to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_California

I'm not sure what the University of Southern California has to do with the ICOC being " . . . religiously conservative, and racially integrated . . ." Qewr4231 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Must be a typo. References to the ICOC as racially diverse, : http://www.disciplestoday.org/north-america-caribbean/usa-southeast/item-1722-fox-news-features-racially-diverse-memphis-church http://www.disciplestoday.org/commentary/perspectives/item-664-25-years-of-glory-reflections-on-diverse-culture-of-the-chicago-church-of-christ http://www.disciplestoday.org/icoc-cooperation/teachers/teachers/item-4482--why-do-the-nations-rage-theme-for-international-teaching-seminar- Pascal ref (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources?

I haven't checked through all the reference sources yet, but I do believe that in general the sources which are among the best sources out there are other reference works, and, presumably, the works included in their bibliographies. At least one recent reference work, Religions of the World, ed. J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann, 2nd ed., ABC-Clio, 2010, ISBN 978-1-59884-203-6, contains a decent article on this topic, and I can check to see if I can find any others in the next few days. They might not have articles as long as we might like in some cases, but they tend to be regarded as good indicators for content and weight of content in our own articles, and in some cases. Let me check a few others over the next few days and I can try to list others here as well. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, John Carter. I've asked my library to set this text aside for me. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Lead section & supposed ICOC cult status

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

---

To all editors, I would like to invite open discussion on the topic of supposed cult status of the ICOC. I have deleted a section in the opening paragraphs of this article siting WP: UNDUE & WP: BLP GROUP as reasons. The statement was attempting to infer that the ICOC in the past had been labelled a cult by some researchers & observers. The problem I have with this is that the references (18-22) sites supposed practices of the BCC (Boston Church Of Christ) in the mid 1980's. To place this in an article pertaining to the ICOC which is now a global entity of approximately 600 churches in 120 nations in my opinion, adds undue weight to what can be considered an 'older' (1980+) minority view of ONE church (granted its founding church) that forms part of the ICOC. Further, in my opinion, this violates WP: BLP GROUP in that this research, although plausible pertaining specifically to the BCC in the mid 1980's, cannot reflect the discipling practices, evangelism etc. of this organization on an international scale. Thoughts/Comments? Psmidi 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psmidi (talk • contribs)

Psmidi , thank you for discussing this on the talk page. There are several reasons to include the bit you deleted. 1) The portion you deleted is a long-standing portion of the article that probably should not have been deleted in the first place without consensus. 2) Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Excluding the fact that some observers, researchers, and ex-members call the ICOC a 'cult' is a prominent controversy. 3) The sources cited to support the claim are reliable third-party sources. 4) Neither WP:BLPGROUP nor WP:UNDUE are violated by including the passage since reliable third-party sources are used. Because of these reasons, I am returning the deleted portion with immediate effect. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User: Nietzsche123 thank you for your comments. In response to your reasons as to why the section should be included under the lead portion of the article: 1) The portion shouldn't have been inserted in the article IN THE FIRST PLACE without consensus. To infer that an organization is a cult from research done on only one church within that organization 20+ years ago is a stretch at best. 2) As per your ref. to WP: LEAD the policy also has this to say: "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many read only the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view..." With regards to the ICOC being a cult and this topic being a prominent controversy, on what facts do you base this? Again your references are to a study or studies done on ONE CHURCH in the ICOC over 20yrs ago. Are their any reliable sources you might have siting the ICOC's 'cult status' on an international scale? In response to your 3rd & 4th reasons, this paragraph in the lead section, in my opinion, clearly violates WP: UNDUE & WP BLP GROUP because of the undue weight it places on one congregation out of possibly 600. With this in mind, I've deleted the portion again until other editors can can 'weigh in' on this debate. I'd like to kindly request you not to add it again until we've received further comments. Psmidi 09:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psmidi (talk • contribs)

Psmidi, thank you for posting; but I think there are several problems with your position. 1) The portion was inserted into this article with consensus. If you read the article's talk page, you'll note that this bit was added a few years ago by Xiaphias with the consensus of 4-5 other editors. Unfortunately, it was removed in the last year or so without reason. 2) Listed to support the claim are multiple high quality sources that contend some ex-members, observers, and researches deem the ICOC a cult. I worry that your removal of this portion betrays WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The portion in question contains a significant view that has been published by reliable sources. 3) The removal of this portion seems to violate WP:LEAD, which asks for important points, including prominent controversies. 4) It doesn't appear that you have read the references. While one does refer to merely the BCC, the other sources refer to multiple ICOC churches and the entire congregation itself. Because of these reasons, I've returned the deleted portion with immediate effect. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, no doubt the reasons previous editors removed this section is because of the numerous problems with it. As you well know by now 'Gospel Advocate' is not a reliable source and re-inserting it in here after the DRN ruling is simply bad form. The requirements of LEAD are already met in the paragraph mentioning the controversy from the article in the US News and World Report. By you simply repeating that reference and controversy is repetitious and violates UNDUE. COAT also applies here. I agree with Psmidi that maybe you should work towards forming consensus. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Does mentioning that some ex-members, observers, and researchers deem the ICOC a cult violate LEAD or BLPGROUP?

After receiving unanimous consensus amongst other editors through an RFC back in December of 2007 Xiaphias rewrote this article in response to a concern that the article failed to portray a NPOV. Amongst the changes that version of the article had, was the following statement (in the LEAD) (here is a link to Xiaphias's entire rewrite: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Churches_of_Christ&oldid=177642271#cite_note-fox-6.

In the past, its aggressive recruitment tactics, high commitment expectations of members, and use of "discipling" partnerships have caused some researchers, observers, and ex-members to label the organization a ‘cult,’ and it has been sanctioned or banned by 39 college campuses and the country of France.

This statement was deleted in the past year or so without justification. I re-inserted it this past Sunday only to have two editors remove it citing the above reasons. I believe that WP:LEAd requires us to cover significant controversies, which this is. I also believe that the references given, especially the first four, are RS. Please note that when I re-inserted Xiaphias's statement I replaced two of the sources that went to dead links with the sources from US News, Boston Globe, and The Discipling Dilemma(); and I also replaced "aggressive recruitment tactics" with "focus on evangelism". That is, the statement I re-inserted was:

In the past, its focus on evangelism, high commitment expectations of members, and use of "discipling" partnerships have caused some researchers, observers, and ex-members to label the organization a ‘cult,’ and it has been sanctioned or banned by 39 college campuses and the country of France.

-Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche: There are a number of problems with this section proposed for the Lead:

• There is already a summary sentence in the lead that covers the US News & World Report article, so by you proposing to re-use it again in the lead is both repetitious, unnecessary and would likely violate UNDUE. In fact, I see you are proposing to cite and re-use this same article three times in the lead section.
• By you proposing to use 'The Discipling Dilemma', by Flavil Yeakley is also highly problematic. This book is published by "Gospel Advocate" which is a husband and a wife publishing company producing primarily Sunday School curriculums for the Churches of Christ. There is no editorial board and Gospel Advocate shows no evidence of fact checking necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia. This source violates WP:WEIGHT by using low quality primary sources to make weighty claims against a BLP GROUP.
• The Boston Globe article is primarily about US Universities and the Boston Church of Christ. The ICOC had it's genesis in the Gainsville Church of Christ where Kip McKean and many of the ICOC church leaders were converted and trained, the Boston church then served as a headquarters for the ICOC from 1979-1989. Thereafter the LA church of Christ was the headquarters from 1989-2002. From 2003 till present day the ICOC does not have a headquarters and is a network of 632 affiliated churches in 155 countries. . Thus using articles describing US Campuses and the Boston church of Christ to describe the entire worldwide ICOC would likely be regarded as WP:COAT
• Once I have had a chance to read through the Telegraph Blog you have referenced I will give my thoughts on that. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Telegraph Blog you referenced keeps returning a "Error 404 - Not Found."

I am busy reading through your Langone reference. Will post thoughts when completed.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In my zeal to edit the links and properly put in the [citation needed] I may have accidentally deleted some important information and/or part of the article Qewr4231 (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Psmidi and JamieBrown2011 are doing the same thing that TransylvanianKarl has done in the past which is to delete third party sources and any criticism of the ICOC as a cult. The truth is that criticism about the ICOC exists and a lot of Biblical scholars are calling the ICOC a cult. To delete any third party sources and criticisms of the ICOC seems like something an ICOC member would do. Sure, organizations don't want bad press; however, the ICOC is generating a lot of press both positive and negative. 14:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Qewr4231 (talk) Thank you for apologising for deleting properly sourced material from the article, we all make mistakes. I encourage you to read WP:RS so you can understand why both criticism and praise from Self Published books/websites/journals, Blogs, and-the-like are insufficient for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Psmidi 15:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I found this at WP:RS . . .

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

Are the International Churches of Christ websites "reliable, published sources?" Do the International Churches of Christ websites "make sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in the sources are covered" by the sources?

Are the other references "reliable, published sources?" Do the other references "make sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in the sources are covered" by the sources?

Who is a reliable source on the International Churches of Christ?

Qewr4231 (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

I'm curious about this "Neutral point of view." I would assume that all International Churches of Christ websites are biased in favor of the International Churches of Christ because all websites produced by and for an organization are biased in favor of the organization. The International Churches of Christ websites used in the International Churches of Christ Wikipedia article do feature a lot of opinions made by International Churches of Christ members and leaders and other organization staff.

The third party websites also feature a lot of opinions against the International Churches of Christ. (By the way, in my own research, I have yet to find a third party article or source that has a positive point of view on the International Churches of Christ. Most, if not all of the third party articles that I have read on the International Churches of Christ call the International Churches of Christ a cult.)

Is there any neutral third party source on the International Churches of Christ in existence?

Qewr4231 (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, thank you for your comment. Notice that the material was added in 2007 with the unanimous consensus of all editors commenting on the RFC. It was later removed without justification. So returning it, in my mind, shouldn't be an issue. If you would like to remove it, it seems that you would need a consensus to do so. The Fox Files report, US News article (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/articles/000313/archive_021162.htm), and Boston Globe article all refer to the entirety of the ICOC, not just a church or two. In his article Langone uses the terms 'Boston Church of Christ', 'BCC', 'Boston Movement', 'International Churches of Christ', and 'ICC' interchangeably, that is, synonymously. His research takes into account ex-members from multiple ICOC churches throughout the US. While the publisher of Yeakley's text, 'The Discipling Dilemma', was deemed unreliable, the two editors from the second DRN stated that it was fine to directly cite Yeakley's text if reliable secondary sources cover the same ground. So having Yeakley here doesn't seem to violate BLPGROUP. And I don't think having both this statement and the statement from US News--"In 2000, it was described as "[a] fast-growing Christian organization known for aggressive proselytizing to [US] college students" and as "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus"--in the LEAD is an example of UNDUE: remember, the LEAD is supposed to cover prominent controversies (so long as they're cited by RS). You're correct to note that the ICOC is now a bigger movement than it was since these sources were published. But adopting a NPOV means that we should "represent[...] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". To not include this material, in my mind, would violate NPOV. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have second thoughts about UNDUE. Having both 1) "In 2000, it was described as "[a] fast-growing Christian organization known for aggressive proselytizing to [US] college students" and as "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus" and 2) "and it has been sanctioned or banned by 39 college campuses and the country of France" in the LEAD does seem to be pushing it. Leaving out statement (1) in the LEAD seems fine to me. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a large amount of literature and scholars pointing to the International Churches of Christ being a cult. Why would so many Biblical scholars, ministers, and literature sources all seem to agree that the International Churches of Christ is a cult? Qewr4231 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If you like I can compile a list of comments by famous and credible Bible scholars that say the International Churches of Christ is, in their opinion, a cult. I bet I can get a list of at least 100 famous and credible scholars that say the International Churches of Christ is, in their opinion, a cult. That is if you want proof that many credible and famous Bible scholars say the ICOC is a cult.Qewr4231 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, I am glad you recognise there is a problem with UNDUE in your proposed edits, however, unsurprisingly I disagree with what you are choosing to remove. By choosing to remove 1) and replace it with 2) you are choosing to highlight something primarily concerning US universities, and something rather odd that the ICOC is banned in France. Yet they currently, and apparently very openly, have churches in Paris and Lyon. [1]. I think WP:BURDEN would require you to produce multiple, high quality sources to make such WEIGHTY claims in the LEAD, which requires "carefully sourced" material.

• Your Langone reference is proving an interesting read, will post tomorrow on that.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I must admit that I'm confused by your reasoning. Both statements (1) and (2) (above) refer to the ICOC's activities on US college campuses. If you'd like, we can amend (2) to: "and it has been sanctioned or banned by 39 [US] college campuses". Nice catch on the France bit. Neither the US News article nor the Telegraph article (that can be found here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/colinrandall/3618801/Family_battle_between_France_and_Canada/) state that France banned the ICOC. So we should of course remove that claim. The material that I propose be returned to the ICOC article (to replace statement (1) above in the LEAD) is as follows.

In the past, its focus on evangelism, high commitment expectations of members, and use of "discipling" partnerships have caused some researchers, observers, and ex-members to label the organization a ‘cult,’ and it has been sanctioned or banned by 39 US college campuses.

-Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP warns against weakly verified claims about living people. While there is debate as to the neutrality of the word "cult", to infer that leaders in the ICOC are "cult leaders" violates WP:BLPGROUP and is not supported. If editors would like to include some of the "cult" references made in strong sources then it needs to be done in a balanced way (with two sides equally represented) and not in the lead section. I suggest all of you look at WP:NPOV again as there seems to be two sides pulling apart instead of together in order to find consensus. JamesLappeman (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche123, with all due respect, I am genuinely shocked at your reckless editing habits and your glib response "Nice catch on the France bit". YOU have on a number times inserted into the lead section of the ICOC main page article that the ICOC is banned in France, only to find out now that you NEVER even read the references you were using to justify your edits!!! The policy for the WP:LEAD section requires "carefully sourced material" and even though you have quoted sections from that policy page you make little to no attempt to be careful with your sourcing and reading of these sources.

• Your relentless POV PUSHING is irresponsible and totally against Wikipedia guidelines WP:CPUSH. I am somewhat surprised that you continue to edit in this manner even after you and I were recently warned by the Administrators Notice Board of a possible topic ban. [2] As I mentioned on that board, I would be happy to walk away from this page, except you continue to use this ICOC page as your personal WP:SOAPBOX and attempt to maliciously malign this WP:BLPGROUP with just about every edit you make. Reading through your multiple low quality sources is time consuming and it appears other editors have yet shown the interest to do so. And if you reply with "it was a mistake" argument, you have made that excuse too often already for it to be believable anymore. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been off of the page for a few weeks but having read through the recent material I concur with JamieBrown2011 on Nietzsche123. There are a number of violations that are affecting the page. I do agree that the ICOC page must be honest about its criticisms but it must be neutral and factual. The page is clearly a work in progress and Nietzsche123 you appear to be seriously overstepping the line. JamesLappeman (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have to concur with both JamieBrown2011 and JamesLappeman. Nietzsche123 in this instance has clearly violated WP: NPOV. To date there are no sources (that I'm aware of) supporting the claim that the ICOC has been banned in France. Psmidi

JamieBrown2011, cut the personal attacks already. They're getting tiring. I don't know how many times I've said this, but let me say it again. Back in 2007 this article was rewritten with the unanimous consensus of all editors responding to the RFC. The article was rewritten due to some editors pushing a POV in favor of the ICOC, eliminating anything that even smelled like objectivity, let alone criticism. Much of that material is now gone. What I did was simply attempt to reinsert some of the material that was in the LEAD. How dare I! The gall you have to accuse me of POV PUSHING when you've been told by both TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom and I that using the ICOC's own Disciples Today as the sole source to make claims against McKean's character violates BLP and yet you continue to rely on it in the International Christian Churches article, undoing the edits of others while leaving in the material that violates BLP. I also encourage you to read WP:CIVILITY: "Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. Discussion of other editors should be limited to polite discourse about their actions. Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project." Yeah, I guess it was an example of my "relentless POV PUSHING" to call an RFC on this matter instead of simply undoing edits without discussing on the talk page. Yeah, I guess I "attempt[ed] to maliciously malign this WP:BLPGROUP" by returning a portion of the lead that was agreed upon with unanimous consensus. Your accusations are not only baseless, they're annoying. So, again, I ask that you leave them off this talk page. Notice that you haven't attempted to address my proposed change of the material above. I'll include it again.

In the past, its focus on evangelism, high commitment expectations of members, and use of "discipling" partnerships have caused some researchers, observers, and ex-members to label the organization a ‘cult,’ and it has been sanctioned or banned by 39 US college campuses.

To not include this statement, in my mind, violates NPOV: "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The sources are all from third-parties. All besides Yeakley's text are high quality. And Yeakley's text, again, we may cite if reliable third-parties cover the same ground. Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, no one is attacking you personally. Wikipedia expects all the editors to follow it's policies and editor conduct is an important part of that process. When you continuously flaunt those guidelines it negatively affects the process. Inserting false and dishonest content from sources you don't even bother to read is unacceptable conduct on your behalf. Psmidi pulled your edits onto the Talk page to discuss and he opened this thread yet you continued to insert these false and maligning "Banned in France" accusations. Excusing yourself by dragging up 6 year old RFC edits that have in the normal Wikipedia process been corrected for their obvious inconsistencies and poor sourcing doesn't make it any better.

On your proposed section for the LEAD, there are still a number of problems:

• The US News and World Report article already has a summary section in the LEAD. It currently stands there and doesn't require you replacing it with the wording you are proposing that comes from an edit you found dating back six years where the editors involved didn't bother to check if the sources did indeed say what they claiming they said.
• Yeakley's text has no place in the LEAD section as it is an unreliable primary source with no evidence of fact checking, I am planning on taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard for them to rule on this.
• Since the Boston Globe article is again primarily about the ICOC on US campuses, I certainly think it deserves being included in the current section in the article on the "ICOC on US Colleges" but whether it should be included in the LEAD is questionable and one imagines that is why previous editors removed it.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, person S engages in a personal attack of T if S attacks T's person, character, instead of what T says or writes. When you write that I have 1) "attempt[ed] to maliciously malign this WP:BLPGROUP with just about every edit [I] make", 2) that I have been "relentless[ly] POV PUSHING", and 3) that I "continuously flaunt [WP] guidelines", you attack my person, not what I write. I'm glad to see that you're, for the most part, getting off the personal attack wagon, in your recent comment, mostly criticizing what I say and not my person. You're right to note that editor conduct is important at WP. Your claim that I inserted "false and dishonest content" is misleading. While it turns out that none of the sources supported the claim that the ICOC was banned in France, the sources do support the claims that a) some observers, ex-members, and researches deem the ICOC a cult and b) that the ICOC has been banned on 39 campuses. You have no evidence for claiming that "the editors involved [with the RFC back in 2007] didn't bother to check if the sources did indeed say what they claiming they said". So let's not attack them. And if I'm guilty of "unacceptable conduct" for not verifying that the sources support the France claim, you acted in an even more unacceptable way for not bothering to read the sources and just deleting material that was added with unanimous consensus.

• Again, I'm not proposing to have statements (1) and (2) be included in the LEAD, just (2). So there would only be one mention of the ICOC being banned from US college campuses.
• On what grounds do you deny that a text may be used in the LEAD?! While the publisher of Yeakley's text--The Gospel Advocate Company--was deemed an unreliable source, this in no way implies that the text itself has no evidence for fact-checking. As you should know, Yeakley does a meticulous job covering his bases. Again, while we may not use the Yeakley text as a stand-alone citation, we may cite it when high quality third-party sources cover the same ground. Why wouldn't this apply to the LEAD?
• Previous editors removed the material I'm attempting to reinsert for no good reason. You make it sound as though the material was deleted by the effort of objective editors. If you read the talk page, however, it's clear that the material was deleted by biased editors (for no reason) over a period of time when there weren't more careful editors giving this page attention. The Boston Globe piece is about the entire ICOC, not just a church or two. In it, observers call the ICOC a 'cult'. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123I'm somewhat surprised by your response to JamieBrown2011 criticism of your editing practice in this instance. In your initial response your tone was sarcastic and somewhat venomous. This communicates further to me that you're not editing from a NPOV. As you are aware, the lead section is an important aspect of the article and "needs to be carefully sourced" WP:LEAD. This is why we have to be extra cautious as editors to properly source material that offers our best attempt at a balanced NPOV for the lead. I removed the section from the lead that you inserted including the claims the ICOC is banned in France and called for a discussion on this talk page and yet you TWICE re-inserted those false and misleading claims into the article without giving the consensus building process any time to progress. It is almost as though you are pursuing a personal agenda here. WP:CPUSH does seem like a valid concern here with you. Psmidi 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Psmidi, please sign your posts on the talk page by using four tildes after you're done writing. It gets difficult to track what you say without your signature. I'll be the first to admit that my first reply was sarcastic; but I'm not sure what you mean by 'venomous': feel free to elaborate. While you're correct to note that the LEAD needs to be properly sourced, my proposal is properly sourced. Heck, all but the Yeakley source are by themselves reliable third-party sources. Remember, adopting a NPOV means that we cover the claims of what reliable sources say about a topic. So you haven't provided any grounds for not reinserting the proposed material. While I did reinsert the disputed material twice over your objections, I described my reasoning clearly on the talk page before doing so. That's what we as editors do. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I lack a NPOV. Again, the material was inserted with unanimous consensus back in 2007. It should not have been removed without a consensus. So I ask you to reassess your accusation that I engage in WP:CPUSH. Furthermore, the disputed material did contain one unjustified and therefore misleading claim that the ICOC was banned in France. But it contained no false or misleading claims. Again, what about my current proposal of the material do you object to? Do you deem a source unreliable? If so, which one? (Remember, we're allowed cite Yeakley so long as reliable third-parties cover the same ground.) Or do you contend that the claims aren't represented in the sources? If so, which claims? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.billygraham.org/articlepage.asp?articleid=4099

Here is what Billy Graham defines as a cult:

"Whenever any group claims that they, and they alone, have all the truth about God, then an alarm bell should go off in your heart and mind. Christ alone is "the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6), and His followers are found within countless denominations and churches.

Cults tend to have several characteristics in common (one of which I just mentioned: They claim they alone have the truth, and everyone else is wrong). Cults also often have a strong leader who demands total and absolute obedience; some cults even require their members to cut themselves off from their families. Another characteristic of many cults is that they reject the Bible, or claim their founder's writings are also divinely inspired." Qewr4231 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

News reports about the International Churches of Christ 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

Qewr4231 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Qewr4231 I suggest you do a bit more research on the nuances and complexity of labelling a church a "cult". I think the Wikipedia page cult will be of use to you.JamesLappeman (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

to Qewr4231 and Nietzsche123 there is a difference between tabloids, blogs of angry ex-members and university newsletters (who are at liberty to say whatever they want) and an encyclopaedia. The use of these sources as a means to "bomb" the page with accusations is a time consuming and tiresome exercise. Please re-read through some of your contributions to the talk page and you may see what I mean. Your case for preventing NPOV has resulted in a pendulum towards NPOV violations in another sense. JamesLappeman (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, thank you for getting us back on track, disputing the material itself. None of the sources I included are "tabloids, blogs of angry ex-members and university newsletters". Of course these wouldn't be reliable sources. (As I learned that the hard way with university newspapers.) None of the above three news reports that Qewr4231 mentioned are any of those, either. So what specific objections do you have with the proposed reinsertion of the disputed material? If you think a source I included is not reliable, which one? What about the claims: do you think that they're not supported by the sources? If so, which claim? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Qewr4231, thank you for the news reports. I'll give them a listen and a watch over the next few days. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To mention just a few more problems with the proposed section for the Lead; @Nietzsche incorrectly claimed that the church is called a cult in the Boston Globe article, that is misleading, in the article no one actually calls the church a cult, the closest we get is Thornburg saying "everyone else call this group a cult", but he doesn't mention anyone by name or who these "everyone else" people are. For Wikipedia, we likely need to do a little better than that!JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, thank you for the specificity of your comment. It's not misleading to say that The Boston Globe article supports the claim that "Some ex-members, observers, and researchers call the ICOC a cult', since the article mentions a reliable observer--Dean Thornburg--who says the following of the ICOC: "They're a destructive religion - everyone else calls them a cult - and they're the only group about which I would say that unambiguously". And he continues: "They are destructive to freedom of thought, freedom of movement, and freedom of activity. They cut kids off from their families, and their method of recruiting and keeping kids in qualifies as first-rate mind control". Heck, the title of the article is even: 'Campuses ban alleged church cult'. If we adopt a NPOV, it's clear that the Globe article supports the claim in question. JamieBrown2011, you mention that you have "just a few more problems" with the proposed section for the lead. What are your other specific problems? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Too strong for LEAD section, an individual opinion of this nature could at best go in a sub-section on the Boston CC or campus criticism JamesLappeman (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

[[User:JamesLappeman|JamesLappeman], you'll have to be more specific. The Boston Globe article clearly supports the statement that some observers, ex-members, and scholars deem the ICOC a cult. The Boston Globe is a reliable source that has a reputation for both accuracy and fact-checking. Dean Thornburg surely qualifies as an observer. Do you contend that the Globe article itself doesn't meet WP:RS? Or do you contend that Thornburg isn't a qualified observer? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

On the Langone study there are multiple problems too. Only 40 supposed BCC people responded to the mailed in questionnaire and Langone had this to say about which churches they belonged to:

• "What name did the group use?"  Twenty-one subjects listed no name; 3 listed Boston Church of Christ.  The others listed the following:  Dekalb Church of Christ; Antelope Valley Church; Historical and Literature Society; Central Christian Church; "No name, only a nondenominational Bible study"; Christian Student Center; St. Louis Church of Christ; The Atlanta Church; "Call Street Church of Christ - then University"; Dekalb Church of Christ; Campus Advance; OHANA; Campus Advance; Campus Advance; "Campus (something) I can't remember."  Several of these names may be the local BCC name.  Others appear to be unrelated to the BCC/ICCC name and, therefore, may have served as a "front" name.  Unfortunately, the DDD did not ask if subjects initially did not realize the group they joined was the BCC.  Future research should correct this oversight."
• Was future research done? Did they correct the errors of only actually having 3 confirmed BCC members in the study? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I'm going to repeat what I said above because it's relevant here. In his article Langone uses the terms 'Boston Church of Christ', 'BCC', 'Boston Movement', 'International Churches of Christ', and 'ICC' interchangeably, that is, synonymously. His research takes into account ex-members from multiple ICOC churches throughout the US. When one conducts a research study of this kind, you have to assume some sort of good faith, at least what church the ex-members say they are from. Langone sent out a questionnaire to 228 ex-members; of the 228, 40 responded. The 40 respondents were from multiple ICOC churches around the country. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, as you can see they weren't. Many of the 40 respondents were actually from other churches not related to ICOC churches. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't see that. As Langone makes clear, some of the respondents were from ICOC churches with a front name, like "Campus Advance" or "...Student Center". The ICOC has be been criticized for its use of front names for its activities on college campuses. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That is ridiculous! Langone does not "make it clear" that some of these these respondents were from "ICOC churches with front names." The ICOC has never been accused of using front names for any of their churches. As you acknowledge, the only accusation that has been made is that their campus ministry clubs sometimes use other names, like many student clubs do. However Langone's research was supposedly on ex-members of the ICOC churches. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, it's not "ridiculous". See the following from Langone (which you already quoted): "Several of these names may be the local BCC name.  Others appear to be unrelated to the BCC/ICCC name and, therefore, may have served as a "front" name". I encourage you to read The Boston Movement, which contains the stories of ex-members of the ICOC. Some of them claimed to have belonged to ICOC churches with a "front" name. As far as campus ministry groups go, it's not at all common for a group to hide the name of their denomination from their recruits or members. You've got to be kidding there. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• • In coming to the RFC, I knew nothing about this church. To be honest, I don't know much more after looking at the article. The lead of this article is definitely unbalanced. The cult stuff is already covered in a criticism section. To have it in the lead violates of NPOV. It really reads like there is an effort to portray this church in a negative light. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Elmmapleoakpine, It has been extremely difficult to provide editing with Nietzsche123 and Qewr4231 who have proven their interest in painting a negative POV. A peruse of the page history will give you a picture of some discussion. There has been good progress in getting some of the "angry ex-member" blogs removed as reliable sources. Nonetheless, instead of trying to get the page to be clear, concise, balanced and coherent, it has been a distraction to deal with their constant fight to bomb the page with controversy. JamesLappeman (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman Why are there SO MANY ex-members calling the ICOC a cult? Why are SO MANY people leaving the ICOC? Why do major news organizations call the ICOC controversial? Why does the ICOC generate so much criticism and controversy? Why are so many people calling the ICOC a cult? To be honest, it seems like some of the editors here want to get rid of all mention of the controversy and criticism that the ICOC has been creating for years and years. I am not fighting to "bomb the page with controversy." I am begging the editors to include a controversy and criticism section in the article and to not get rid of it completely. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, I must say that I'm a little confused by what you write. How is the LEAD to this article at all unbalanced? It contains a notable controversy cited by a reliable source, which is in accordance with WP:LEAD. There is no criticism section to this article; perhaps you mean the ICOC's activities on college campuses? Regardless, that's a balanced section, containing criticisms and the ICOC responses when the articles give them.

-Nietzsche123 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the last line of the lead references controversy about proselytizing. That should be in a criticism section. It is really disorganized and very hard to follow. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, I must disagree. First, WP discourages criticism sections of its articles. Second, LEADs are supposed portray prominent controversies. While the article may be disorganized and hard to follow, we're trying to improve it. Any suggestions you have would be most appreciated. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that the reference to the controversy be moved from the lead to a criticism section. Here is my reasoning. The relative weight of the cult claim is at best to difficult to gauge. Therefore I don't think it belongs in the lead. Take the Barak Obama article: There scores of reliable sources that would allow you to accurately say "His dark skin color, arabic middle name, Kenyan father, and Indonesian grade school education have led many accusations that he is hiding the fact that he is a illegally elected, muslim socialist." (I deliberately construct this sentence similar to the one that is being argued over here.) The statement I constructed is accurate and widely reported in almost ever single major news outlet. There are no doubt many people who would support and argue for that in the lead of the Barak Obama article. My point is that the relative weight of a controversial claim is very subjective. Therefore I do not think this claim belongs in the article. I would be happy to my part in creating a neutrally worded criticism section. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC) -- Just one other thing. France is so passionately and institutionally secular, religious things are banned right and left, from hijabs to crucifixes. The fact that something is banned in France should weigh lightly in a gauging the strength of a controversy. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine what you say makes a lot of sense. Just for your information, the editor proposing that stuff about "banned in France" never actually read the source he was using to justify it's inclusion, when we read it we found there was nothing in it to justify those claims. There is definitely some SOAPBOXING going on here. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, currently there is no mention of the ICOC being a cult in the LEAD to this article. There was once such a statement that was added with unanimous consensus. Unfortunately, it was unjustifiably deleted by editors without a consensus, in violation of WP policy. Again, WP discourages criticisms sections to their articles; so we don't want to add such a section willy-nilly. Your analogy between the claim that the ICOC is a cult and the claim that President Obama wasn't born here is inapt. A religious group is not a person. I encourage to read the sources and watch the documentaries mentioned earlier in support of the proposed statement. A significant portion of ex-members allege that the ICOC is a cult. A number of observers and researchers do as well. WP requires that we report prominent controversies in a balanced way. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche1123 I think the analogy is apt. I am not comparing the ICOC to Barak Obama. I am comparing the contention that it "IS" a cult with the contention that Barak Obama "IS" a secret Muslim, Illegally Elected, Non-Citizen. I do not think that the relative weight of either set of claims warrant them being in the lead of either article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, I'm getting the impression that your idea of adopting a NPOV would be just to turn this page into an advertisement for the ICOC. It doesn't violate NPOV when we portray prominent controversies cited by reliable sources. Rather, it's in accordance with NPOV. Have you read the sources to the proposed re-insertion? If so, whats specific criticisms do you have for the proposed re-insertion? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Elmmapleoakpine, as per your thoughts above I know that this page doesn't have a neutral criticisms section. I think its a good idea. Would you be interested in working with some of the editors on setting this up? The page is still very messy and maybe this could help neaten things up? JamesLappeman —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to help. I am not familiar enough with this subject to contribute a great deal, but I will certainly help with it being neutrally worded. It would help to leave a note on my talk page too. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman and Elmmapleoakpine, I've said this a few times now, but I'll repeat: WP discourages criticism sections. See WP:NPOV: "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias". So we can't have a "criticism section". Rather, when portraying a controversy we need to express "positive and negative views[...] from reliable sources". -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new section of LEAD

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

---

The above section was getting too muddled. So I went ahead and created a new one. This is the proposed text:

In the past, its focus on evangelism, high commitment expectations of members, and use of "discipling" partnerships have caused some researchers, observers, and ex-members to label the organization a ‘cult,’ and it has been sanctioned or banned by 39 US college campuses.

So you deleted my post because it violates WP:SOAPBOX. The truth should be told about the International Churches of Christ. Some users seem determined to keep the ICOC Wikipedia entry flowery, fluffy, and positive so as not to say anything negative about the ICOC even if the negative material is the truth. Qewr4231 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It would replace the following:

In 2000, it was described as "[a] fast-growing Christian organization known for aggressive proselytizing to [US] college students" and as "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus".

Notice that source (27) is new. I have not yet gone through Qewr4231's ABC News report on the ICOC. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I posted the following above- In coming to the RFC, I knew nothing about this church. To be honest, I don't know much more after looking at the article. The lead of this article is definitely unbalanced. The cult stuff is already covered in a criticism section. To have it in the lead violates of NPOV. It really reads like there is an effort to portray this church in a negative light. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, most of these many references have already been discussed in the above section that is covering your proposal, and the problems with them already expressed. Creating a new section like this to discuss already discussed material in the higher section is not appropriate. Also your proposed sentence is one of the worst examples of WP:CITECLUTTER, WP:OVERCITE and WP:REFBLOAT JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, thank you for your comment. I feel as though I'm in a bind. On the one hand, you say that I don't have enough reliable and weighty sources to support the statement that I'd like to re-insert into the LEAD. On the other hand, you complain that I have too many references, citing WP:CITECLUTTER (which, by the way, is the same policy as WP:OVERCITE and WP:REFBLOAT). So which is it? I've addressed every one of your points above. Of course it's appropriate to create a new section if the previous gets too cluttered; give me a break. Again, what specific problems do you have with the proposed re-insertion (that haven't already been addressed above). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 - you must be kidding. Are you seriously doing this again? JamesLappeman (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, I assure you I'm not kidding. Again, what specific problems do you have with the proposed re-insertion (that haven't already been addressed above)? I have provided a reference list below; so there's really no reason not to read the sources. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please just let the truth about the ICOC be told. Qewr4231 (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Article Clean Up and Consolidation

The article reads much like the talk page: An argument.

I have added a criticism section to the article and moved some items there as a start. I also made some changes to the section on Kip McKean. Since there is already an article about Kim McKean. This section should be smaller. I acknowledge that what I have done is a start, but little more. I hope it is constructive and I welcome other people's participation. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine, I think your edits are helpful. I agree this should be less about McKean and more about the church group itself. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, while I also agree that your edits are helpful, see WP:NPOV: "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias". So we can't have a "criticism section". Rather, when portraying a controversy we need to express "positive and negative views[...] from reliable sources". I noticed that you removed a portion of the LEAD concerning the ICOC's controversial activities on college campuses and placed it in the criticism section. I'm undoing your edit since LEAD requires that we portray prominent controversies in a balanced fashion, so long as they're from reliable sources. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this talk Elmmapleoakpine, historically Nietzsche123 has used some terrible sources to paint a very negative picture of the ICOC. Recently he has chosen his sources more discerningly but actions like you just experienced has led to him being warned for unproductive edit practices. I would really like to focus on making the page more readable. The history section could use some more detail (without going overboard). I think organisation and beliefs can go above affiliated organisations? I agree with you that a random news report (read it) on ICOC members causing problems on some campuses because of active proselytizing shouldn't go in the LEAD but you wont have much success discussing that with Nietzsche123. I think that there have been a number of criticisms of the ICOC that need to be mentioned (including its proselytizing practices) and if I just had some space I think I could work them in a balanced way (in the article or a criticisms section). Nietzsche123 can I ask you to give us some space to re arrange the page and work on the criticisms for a few weeks and then you can comment and help us make changes? JamesLappeman (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

James Lappeman, in my opinion, if you were to go out and poll people on the International Churches of Christ most would either (1) not know what it is, or (2) say it is a cult and have a negative view of the International Churches of Christ. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, let's stick to the issue at hand. While I'm all for improving the quality of this article, we can't have a section just dedicated to controversy or criticism. WP:NPOV forbids it. Refer to the previous two times I already cited the relevant portions of the policy. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay Nietzsche123 point taken. Please give me three uninterupted weeks to try and clean up the page WITHOUT a criticisms section. after that you can freely comment and help make adjustments? Qewr4231 (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, I will make no such agreement. I also plan on making some revisions to the article when I can make more time. I would not ask you to forfeit your editing privileges while I was editing. If there's an edit of yours that in my opinion violates WP policy, I'll let you know, as I expect you to do the same for me. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Who has a neutral point of view on the International Churches of Christ? The leaders and members of the International Churches of Christ are pro-ICOC. Most people outside of the International Churches of Christ are anti-ICOC and see it as a cult. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:VALID neither the current members nor the exmembers. It is external third parties. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche123 I read the WP:NPOV section about criticism sections. Thank you for pointing that out. I disagree however about your revert to my edit in the lead- mostly because the sentence as it is written is throw away. it refers to "on campus" what campus where? It is a select factoid that prejudices a reader. BTW- Why didn't you revert my creation of the criticism section but only the lead? Qewr4231 I would say that I have a neutral view of this church in that I know very little about it and had never heard of it prior to coming to the RFC. Calling something a cult is inflamatory and very subjective. All I have seen are sources that say that say some unidentified third party calls it such. I am not saying they are not there, I have not read any so far. It seems to be in the wider world (outside this article that while that view exists, it cannot be called the majority view. JamesLappeman I am also neutral on Nietzsche123- please don't make a characterization of another editor without providing evidence. I am not planning on taking sides. If I can be of REAL use on this article- please let me know. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, I didn't revert your creation of the criticism section because I didn't want to be perceived as aggressive in my editing. I also thought that someone else would have changed it back. Regardless, I'll revert it now. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Nietzsche123 I have taken some time and researched the ICOC coverage in the media and it seems like most of the critical coverage is 13 to 14 years old. Unless I am missing something more recent. I think at a minimum it would be appropriate to state that the criticism of the group proselytizing is in the past. For example: "The ICOC has been the subject of criticism in the past for aggressive recruiting". Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, the bit from the lead is currently:

In 2000, it was described as "[a] fast-growing Christian organization known for aggressive proselytizing to [US] college students" and as "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus".

It is already prefaced by "In 2000". The statements in the section on the ICOC's proselytizing on US college campuses is also prefaced by the dates of the articles from the Boston Globe and US News. Does that address your concern? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 I don't think so -- What is the point of giving a specific date for the US News and World Report article? I don't think that is consistent with WP:Lead unless the article is about an event. By leaving a date in there, it lends Undue weight to that coverage. I simply think saying the Past instead of a particular date is more neutral. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, I'm not sure that I agree that prefacing a sentence with a specific date lends undue weight to that sentence. Regardless, I of course agree that the article should be as neutral as possible. And if having the specific date lends undue weight in others' eyes, I'm all for fixing it. So I'm fine with replacing the term 'In 2000,' with 'In the past,'. What do you think about that? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, you are right in saying much of the media criticism is quite dated. One quick question, there is another reference in here that uses ex-member testimony exclusively as criticism of the church, do you think ex-member testimony is appropriate for Wikipedia? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 Ex-member testimony is valid if it is in a reliable source. If someone makes a YouTube video- no. If they are quoted in a reliable secondary source maybe if adequate context is created for it. The main point in my view is how much weight is given to criticism. The article for them most part occurs like a battle ground between opposing POVs. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Right now my personal view is that the criticism- especially the "cult" contention is overblown. Regardless, the "cult" contention is entirely subjective and should deserve a sentence at most. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Kip McKeanʼs Theology: Still Winning in the Cincinnati Church of Christ By a former member of the Cincinnati Church of Christ. First Edition - July 4, 2011 http://www.reveal.org/library/theology/kipwinningincincy.pdf

Enjoy the Silence: Evaluating the International Churches of Christ ten years after the Henry Kriete Letter. http://www.reveal.org/library/history/enjoythesilence.pdf

The International Churches of Christ(ICOC)and International Christian Churches(ICC) http://www.reveal.org/tracts/tract1.pdf

30 years, the Boston Church of Christ /International Churches of Christ http://www.reveal.org/library/history/icoc_30years.pdf

HOPE worldwide Financials http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/09/hopeworldwide-financials/ http://www.icocinvestigation.com/Documents/Chambers%20Affidavit%209%20Nov%202004.PDF http://www.icocinvestigation.com/Documents/Nashville/Confidential_Letter.pdf

Admissions of ICOC Leaders http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/07/administrators-manipulated-by-evangelists/

Coercion to Give Money http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/08/coercion-to-give-money/

Deceit and Insincerity http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/08/deceit-and-insincerity/

Apology Letters http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/07/apology-letters/

Property Owned by Church Leaders http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/08/property-owned-by-church-leaders/

Sin List http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/08/sin-list/

Is the International Church of Christ a Cult? #341 Living Waters / The Way of the Master http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WxDhr1bJQA&list=PLTvC_JCS-wM9ypzvBV3hIXbJQE7J1Eotk

International Churches of Christ: A Personal Story of Church Control http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/02/10/international-churches-of-christ-a-personal-story-of-control/

ICOC Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCOOI2G_u78&list=PLTvC_JCS-wM9ypzvBV3hIXbJQE7J1Eotk

Qewr4231 (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Qewr4231, as you are no doubt aware from previous Talk Page discussions, Reveal.org and Icocinvestigation are not regarded as Reliable Sources for Wikipedia. WP:RS . Reveal offers on their Self-Published website "email us in your story and we will publish it for you." You could, in theory, literally make up something and send it in for publishing. For Wikipedia we require slightly higher quality sources than these. I hope this helps. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine In response to your earlier comment about ex-member testimony and "cult" accusations, do you have any suggestions as to which should be included and which shouldn't? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think any of what Qewr4231 is useable as a reliable source. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason that I posted these articles and videos is to show and prove that a lot of controversy and criticism about the International Churches of Christ does exist. To exclude any mention of this controversy and criticism would be leaving out important information in my opinion. The criticism and controversy does exist and is factual meaning that people are calling the ICOC a cult and the ICOC is creating controversy. To dumb down the article with no mention of the criticisms against the ICOC would be wrong. I own a whole set of encyclopedias in book form. When the encyclopedias talk about religion they also have sections devoted to controversy and criticism. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Qewr4231 your bias against the ICOC is holding up the process of "organizing and simplifying the article" (see the heading). @Elmmapleoakpine is trying to assist the article reorganization from a NPOV. I would like to restate some of your comments from 2 weeks ago:

• "If the International Churches of Christ are regarded as a cult by most people outside of the ICOC, then let that be known in the article."
• Devoted ICOC members and leaders will see everything that the ICOC does as benevolent and good due to brainwashing."
• "People that leave the ICOC (ex-ICOC) see the ICOC as a cult. People outside the ICOC and Christian leaders and ministers outside the ICOC see the ICOC as a cult."

You are proving to have trouble with your own NPOV and your comments to my suggestions above therefore carry little weight. Elmmapleoakpine, as a neutral party please could you comment on the above sections.JamesLappeman (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, I am not only talking about my bias against the Interntional Churches of Christ. I gathered many videos and articles to prove that criticism of the ICOC does exist. Controversy and criticism does exist. Again, if JameBrown2011, JamesLappeman, and Elmmapleoakpine haven't taken a look at each and every one of the links/articles/videos that I provided, I will post them again for you to look at below. Criticism of the ICOC does exist and should not be excluded from the article. There should be a Criticism and Controversy section.

Kip McKeanʼs Theology: Still Winning in the Cincinnati Church of Christ By a former member of the Cincinnati Church of Christ. First Edition - July 4, 2011 http://www.reveal.org/library/theology/kipwinningincincy.pdf

Enjoy the Silence: Evaluating the International Churches of Christ ten years after the Henry Kriete Letter. http://www.reveal.org/library/history/enjoythesilence.pdf

The International Churches of Christ(ICOC)and International Christian Churches(ICC) http://www.reveal.org/tracts/tract1.pdf

30 years, the Boston Church of Christ /International Churches of Christ http://www.reveal.org/library/history/icoc_30years.pdf

HOPE worldwide Financials http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/09/hopeworldwide-financials/ http://www.icocinvestigation.com/Documents/Chambers%20Affidavit%209%20Nov%202004.PDF http://www.icocinvestigation.com/Documents/Nashville/Confidential_Letter.pdf

Admissions of ICOC Leaders http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/07/administrators-manipulated-by-evangelists/

Coercion to Give Money http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/08/coercion-to-give-money/

Deceit and Insincerity http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/08/deceit-and-insincerity/

Apology Letters http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/07/apology-letters/

Property Owned by Church Leaders http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/08/property-owned-by-church-leaders/

Sin List http://www.icocinvestigation.com/2010/08/sin-list/

Is the International Church of Christ a Cult? #341 Living Waters / The Way of the Master http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WxDhr1bJQA&list=PLTvC_JCS-wM9ypzvBV3hIXbJQE7J1Eotk

International Churches of Christ: A Personal Story of Church Control http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/02/10/international-churches-of-christ-a-personal-story-of-control/

ICOC Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCOOI2G_u78&list=PLTvC_JCS-wM9ypzvBV3hIXbJQE7J1Eotk

The reason that I posted these articles and videos is to show and prove that a lot of controversy and criticism about the International Churches of Christ does exist. To exclude any mention of this controversy and criticism would be leaving out important information in my opinion. The criticism and controversy does exist and is factual meaning that people are calling the ICOC a cult and the ICOC is creating controversy. To dumb down the article with no mention of the criticisms against the ICOC would be wrong. I own a whole set of encyclopedias in book form. When the encyclopedias talk about religion they also have sections devoted to controversy and criticism.

By all means simply the Controversy and Criticism sections, but do not exclude these sections completely or reduce them to one sentence. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Other videos that talk about the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) 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

Inside Edition (http://www.insideedition.com/) Investigates: Is the International Churches of Christ a Cult? - ICOC - NYCOC (1994): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywU5PsZs-9U&feature=youtu.be

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=y7MdnavPmkw&feature=youtu.be

Qewr4231 (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)