Jump to content

Talk:New Creation Church/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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.

Controversy Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

The controversy section appears to be a doctrinal dispute, i.e., some theologians disagreeing with others. I cannot fathom how this is at all appropriate for Wikipedia. There's a quote from a Mrs P W Ling. Who is she? How is what she said at all notable? I really don't see how this section can be salvaged but I'll give it some time before acting boldly. The salary part might be OK as it appears to include notable and reliable sources. SQGibbon (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed a reference that pointed to this Talk page. I also removed the quotes from Mrs. Ling and Ms. Urquhart as they do not appear to be notable at all. SQGibbon (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the references to Rien van de Kraats it is clear that he is not notable and certainly not a reliable source. The paragraph about his criticisms should be removed. SQGibbon (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And then the paragraph that uses http://www.internetbijbelschool.nl as a source is also written by one person who clearly has a religious agenda and appears to not be notable at all. So all the the criticisms over content and style on this page are from two obscure, non-notable, clearly biased, unreliable sources, advancing what are clearly their own biased opinions not backed up by any kind of reliable source? Why is this stuff here? SQGibbon (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Once the critical paragraphs are gone then the one defending the NCC have no context and should go. SQGibbon (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's been two weeks since I first brought this up. Since there is no apparent disagreement I deleted the section. SQGibbon (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Church's payroll & leadership under Joseph Prince section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

"In 2009, he was reported in The Straits Times to be earning in excess of SGD500,000 a year.[18] During the same time period he was the Chairman of the church’s board while on the church’s payroll, an arrangement that was not in line with the revised and updated recommendations contained within the Code of Governance as objectivity and indepedence could be compromised[19][20] issued by the Charity Council of Singapore on 26 November 2007, which encourages the separation of these two positions. The Church stated that it believed that the senior pastor being ‘ordained by God to lead the church...is the best person' to head and guide the board.[21]

The Commissioner of Charities (COC) has acknowledged that for religious charities, it is not always practical to “require the separation of spiritual leadership from leadership of the board”.[22][23]"
--> The two last paragrahphs of the [| Joseph Prince] have similar links with the the information under controversy and criticism [| Senior pastor's salary]. I think these paragraphs from the Joseph Prince section should be taken out. Pls advise before I will decide to delete them one week after today. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

>SQGibbon: a source is also written by one person who clearly has a religious agenda this is incorrect. Please look at it carefully before jumping to conclusions. I am reverting your edit and will report you if you do it again.

I've removed the content sourced from Rien van de Kraats again. As stated above by SQGibbon, the writer is not a notable source and not representative of any significant group. See WP:Fringe and WP:Notability. Their "publications" are only on their own site and circulated among their small group of members, not to mainstream media and publications, and does not fit the criterial for WP:RS either. if you feel that the source does pass WP:RS though, please use noticeboard at :WP:RSN to do so. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I read through all of it quite closely and I stand by everything I said and my deletions. And I still think the rest of it should go. These other sources are opinion pieces from a non-neutral newspaper. That newspaper, Nederlands Dagblad, is a Christian paper with an admitted bias (read this). Also, I waited two weeks to delete anything, during which time absolutely no one chimed in. If you disagree with my edits then you need to bring it up here for discussion and make your point (which you completely failed to do). Finally, it's best not to threaten other editors, please read wp:civil. SQGibbon (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thats a valid point. In that case even if the section stays it should be made obvious the nature of Netherlands Daily's background and bias. I also note that some of the sources quoted were in fact editorials and not news reports. Another thing to note is that some of the sources given would not be acceptable by wikipedia standard, as the site claims the content is from some Dutch newspaper[[1]] without naming the paper Zhanzhao (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe that "some Dutch Newspaper" is Nederlands Dagblad. Here is a link to their "dossier" on Pastor Prince [2] which I think you'll find is the source for all those articles. Here's the thing, even if some of these are not clearly marked as opinion pieces there still is no controversy here. It is a doctrinal dispute between two Christian groups. I looked at the articles for Lutheranism and Methodism (chosen somewhat at random — I know they have doctrinal disagreements) and nowhere does it mention that they disagree with each other. That some people disagree with NCC theology is not notable unless that disagreement leads to physical protests or some other objectively verifiable results reported in some reliable source. Even as biased as Nederlands Dagblad is, it does not appear to report anything that is notable enough for inclusion here as a controversy. I do find it interesting that Pastor Prince is even known at all (even has followers and detractors) in the Netherlands which might possibly warrant mention in the article. But as a controversy? I don't see it. So unless IP 203 or anyone else comes up with something compelling within the next day or so I'm going to delete it all again. SQGibbon (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
In that case the section would be more suitably names as Doctrinal Differences/Comparison. But would that justify as a subsection by itself, seeing that it is just a collection of discussions making no mention of which denomination/facet of Christianity it is that NCC's doctrines are being compared to.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
While that name would be more appropriate I don't think that section in its current form should be in the article. If there are some specific doctrinal points the NCC maintains separately from other Charismatic churches then that might make for a good section but then it wouldn't be a controversy and wouldn't contain information about people who disagree with them (again, looking at other denominations as a guide here). It would just be a list of doctrines. The article really needs that information since it currently tells us very little about what the church professes but that's a whole different thing than what we're discussing here. SQGibbon (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So again, I'm going to remove the rest of "Content and Style of Preaching" controversy stuff unless someone has anything else? SQGibbon (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been over a week so I deleted it. SQGibbon (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Place of worship (funding)

Several points about this. 1) Why is this funding issue notable? 2)Who cares if the "internet community" erupted into a wild frenzy? Who cares how the members of two online forums reacted? How is that notable? 3) Sentences from this section were lifted directly from that newspaper article thus are copyright violations.

In short, dubious notability and copyright issues. SQGibbon (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of contents which are supported by reliable sources on the basis of copyright violations is not contructive. A better way would be to rephrase them instead of removing them. Funding made headlines in local media on how quickly it managed to raise large amount of funds- more appropriate to be under controversy section. Reactions and how the church is perceived generally in the country may be included. Direct reference to forums to substantiate general public sentiments may not be necessary. Better to find reliable source for this. I'd suggest to fix them instead of simply removing contents that are still informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.16.20 (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

References that point to forums should be removed. That there might be better sources is interesting and I welcome anyone's attempts to find them. In the meantime leaving bad sources in the article just in case someone, some day finds better sources hurts the article. SQGibbon (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

SGGibbon- please be specific on the copyright issues so we know what needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.16.20 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The copyvio stuff was only part of the problem, if it had been the only problem then I would have fixed it myself. The bigger problem was notability and the only fix for that is removal. Since you didn't address that issue I'm reverting. SQGibbon (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

::Actually the incident would be considered quite notable as the reaction of the online community did trigger a response by a top government official over the incident during Parliament(or Congress in the States) session. I would suggest that the info be included, but with the following conditions

a) edited to avoid copyvio, and also
b) to make the language more neutral and matter of fact.
The use of "erupted in a wild frenzy" should be avoided anyway as it is sensational language that should be avoided here in Wikipedia.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Zhanzhao, fancy meeting you here! Interesting about the government reaction but you know I have to ask is there a source for that? And while we're at it, the only source that was supplied for the online reaction was from a blog post on Asiaone News so we still need a good source for that as well. That post did garner a large number of comments but to include that in the article ourselves qualifies as original research. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi SQGibbon. My focus has always been Singapore articles in general plus whatever I get my hands on (mainly films and 3D animation). Anyway back to "business", it looks like I was mistaken about the government official, he was mention only as an example of another separate issue. However, I'd like to instead note that the article was not a blog but instead it was an opinion news piece by one of the journalists from My Paper. That still does not make it suitable for inclusion here though: See the part about opinion pieces here [[3]]. I stand embarassingly corrected. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It did read better than the average blog post but I was unable to figure out all the ins-and-outs of the website before making my comment. The question now is, does the funding section now belong in the "controversy" section since there's no source saying that it was controversial? SQGibbon (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation for Joseph's residential address and specific car

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

As of 3 June 2010, the edited information said that Joseph and his family lives in a "good class bungalow in Singapore's district 9 (Bukit Timah) and drive a Rolls-Royce Phantom." --> Is it appropriate to display this information? More personal information being disclosed is not a good idea. Pls advice. Kimberry352 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This whole info has been disclosed by the Straits Times. The whole of Singapore already knows. There is no where to hide... Ahnan (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
But according to the [| Straits Times], it was said that Joseph "lives in a classy condominium in District 10 and drives an expensive European car." In my view, it is not necessary to add in the description of his residential address and car. But it's optional to let the whole of Singapore know about this information. Revealing excessive personal information is very risky. Kimberry352 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine to revert back to what was said in the newspaper. This entry has been debated couple of years ago and was decided to remain here. People have the right to know how money donated to the church is being used. Ahnan (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is about the church and not the pastor. His home address and other details are completely inappropriate here, and conflict with WP:BLP policy about doing no harm. That you may have a source is one thing; not everything sourced is appropriate for WP. We know where Bill Gates lives, for example but the address is not in his article, nor should it be, and it certainly would not belong in an article on Microsoft.Bielle (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
there is a difference between a Pastor running a church vs Bill gates running MS. In NCC's case, people are donating their hard earned money to the church. It's important to let people know how the pastor is using their money. In the case of a church, the linkage of the pastor and the church is very close. Ahnan (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for the advice. Since Joseph's brief residential information was added in this wiki page, I guess it may be okay to say the district of Singapore. As for the specific name of the car whom Jospeh owns, I am unsure if it is appropriate to describe this car under the NCC wiki page. I think both NCC and Joseph Prince should be separated.Kimberry352 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if you have a separate entry of Joseph Prince, it's important to reveal how tithe money donated to this church is being used by the pastor to buy classy home and cars. We are not passing judgment here. But at least we are revealing such info for the public so as to help them make up their minds if they would still want to donate money to such a church. Ahnan (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Microsoft.Bielle. Additionally, even noting that he drives an expensive car seems more like trivia than encyclopedic (and was probably an example of POV pushing at some point). SQGibbon (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No! As said, it's not a trivia. We are doing justice be providing relevant info to the public who may be doing a research on NCC before deciding to attend NCC. They can wiki his entry here and decide if it's alright to attend a church where a pastor is using their money to live luxuriously... SQgibbon, you seem to be defending NCC a lot, are you a member of NCC? Pls disclose. Ahnan (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Calm calm there. Unlike the 'unfair' supreme courts, forced confession is not appropriately used in Wikipedia. False forced confession is very serious. I think we have different definitions of some words like trivia. By the way, I think it is not appropriate to make and add any conjecture in wiki pages unless you have right sources and evidences to support these conjectures. Kimberry352 (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH! Where on this wiki entry that I'm adding conjectures? Show me! How people want to interpret of his fancy house and cars is up to the people. But we put the facts there for people to judge. There is NO conjecture! Ahnan (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!"? Sorry, please clarify about it. This Wikipedia is not meant for people to judge and fantasize different things. P.S. Please mind your e-manners while writing words. Kimberry352 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Show me where did I make any conjectures or "fantasize" inside the article? You are attempting to damage my reputation here as a contributor to wiki. I demand that an apology from you at once !!! Ahnan (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Did I say that you "fantasize" inside the article? Calm calm there. Never mind. It's okay. What is the purpose of letting people 'change their mind' after reading the information that is irrelevant or too trivial? This Wikipedia is not like a newspaper. Kimberry352 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia is here to help people make up their minds about various subjects. It's not, that's what journalism and blogs are for. Wikipedia is not a news organization, it's an encyclopedia. If anyone is using it to determine whether to give money to a church then they are using it incorrectly. If we write Wikipedia articles with that purpose in mind then we are doing it incorrectly. That Joseph Prince drives a Rolls Royce is trivial and no more relevant to this article than his favorite color. And no, I'm not a member of NCC nor have I ever even been to Singapore nor do I know anything about Singapore other than what I've read on Wikipedia. Further I don't care anything at all about NCC or, frankly, Singapore. What I do care about is poorly written Wikipedia articles and this one has problems. Also, you need to be careful about these kinds of veiled accusations that you seem to be so fond of making. I'm trying to assume you're making contributions in good faith in spite of the fact that you've admitted to having an ulterior motive (helping people make up their minds) and so you need to start assuming good faith on the part of editors with whom you disagree. Disagreeing with you is not automatically equal to having a conflict of interest or pushing a point of view. Disagreeing with you might just be someone thinking you've made bad edits according to Wikipedia policy. SQGibbon (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Precisely it's an encyclopedia, we want to be as factual as possible. We lay down the facts and the people who are doing research using wiki can make up their own minds. I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you? I'm fine with editors disagreeing with me but certainly for those editors who are linked the the church, they should at least have the decency to disclose their status. These editors have the habit of not disclosing. Hence, I ask the question. Ahnan (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes I so see something wrong with that, this is a general encyclopedia and as such there should not be enough information in here for anyone to make up their minds concerning any complicated issue. That is not the purpose of a general encyclopedia. We can't stop how people use it but we don't have to compromise the principles of Wikipedia to enable that kind of usage.
Sorry, I disagree with you on the idea of having an encyclopedia. What do people use an encyclopedia for? Cause they need to find out more about a certain matter or thing which they don't know. Hence, if someone said NCC is good and he should attend, there is nothing wrong with him doing further research on NCC by checking with an encyclopedia first. People do use encyclopedia to seek more information so that they can make up their minds with that knowledge. Absolutely nothing wrong with that! Ahnan (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Your fourth sentence does not mean the same thing as your third one. Yes, to learn more about something, no to figure out if whether a church is "good".
Joseph Prince, a pastor having a Rolls Royce is certainly not as trivial thing as noting his favorite color! Please look at Benny Hinn's wiki entry. Specifically, his having a jet was written in there. Is that trivial too? These are controversial issues which should be noted down. Ahnan (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
How is it not trivial? Here's a quote from What Wikipedia is not "(Wikipedia is not) A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight." There needs to be a good reason to add the information in about Joseph's car, so what is it? You claim is that it's controversial, so where is it written by a reliable source that it is controversial? If it's not then it is just your opinion that it is controversial. You're assuming, based on your own beliefs and original research, that there is something controversial about JP owning an expensive car. Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your own opinions. SQGibbon (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

1) "District 9" and "Bukit Timah" means nothing to wikipedia users outside of Singapore. 2) What on earth is a "good class" bungalow? 3) This level of intimate detail is not seen in other wikipedia articles, so why should an exception be made for this article, considering its not even about the person but the church?DanS76 (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

District 9 or Bukit Timah is where the upper class people stay. It's like the Beverly Hill of LA or Manhattan of NYC. I think a "good class" bungalow means a big bungalow or a classy bungalow. Certain details, in my view, should be disclosed here since they are material to the overall understanding of the article. Check out the Benny Hinn's article. Certain of his possessions were also disclosed and were not deemed to be trivial for the article. Ahnan (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You're a resident of Singapore, and yet you know of Beverly Hills or Manhattan; thats a locale on the opposite side of the globe from which you reside. Whereas a reader from outside of Singapore and Malaysia would most likely know of Bukit Timah or the significance of district 9, where they are, what they mean or the significance to the article, hence the distinction. Wikipedia is an international website, and does not only serve local readers. And the point I am making about "good class" is that its grammatically incorrect. As for Benny Hinne's possessions, the only place I see it specifically mentioned is when there is a topic of relevance in the article where the mention is significant: in this case, moving residence when he moved office, or when its purchase was specifically mentioned in the controvesy section.DanS76 (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Funds Raising under Controversy

"The church was reported to have raised SGD19 million for its new cultural and entertainment complex within 24 hours in February 2009.[28][29] and it also raised SGD18 million in one day in April 2008.[1]"
--> This information seems that it does not display any disputes or disagreement with the funds raising. I assume that the clarification about the funds raising has been made since early 2009. I suggest this information to be removed from the controversy section. Pls advise.

Yeah, I was getting around to that one eventually. I agree that there's nothing indicating that it was controversial. Should be deleted. SQGibbon (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed this information just now. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Church's payroll & leadership under Joseph Prince

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

"In 2009, he was reported in The Straits Times to be earning in excess of SGD500,000 a year.[18] During the same time period he was the Chairman of the church’s board while on the church’s payroll, an arrangement that was not in line with the revised and updated recommendations contained within the Code of Governance as objectivity and indepedence could be compromised[19][20] issued by the Charity Council of Singapore on 26 November 2007, which encourages the separation of these two positions. The Church stated that it believed that the senior pastor being ‘ordained by God to lead the church...is the best person' to head and guide the board.[21]

The Commissioner of Charities (COC) has acknowledged that for religious charities, it is not always practical to “require the separation of spiritual leadership from leadership of the board”.[22][23]"
 --> The last two paragraphs of the [| Joseph Prince section] have similar links with the information from the controversy and criticism section including [| Senior Pastor's salary]. There may be no point to add repeated information regarding the controversial church's payroll.
As for the leadership mentioned by COC, I think it does not relate to Joseph Prince. It relates to NCC. However, I think it should be removed as well.
Pls advise. If no objection, I will delete these two paragraphs from the Joseph Prince section one week later. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This makes sense. You could also leave the information just in the Joseph Prince section with a "Controversy" subheading and that would be fine too. Having only one item in the "Controversy" section hardly seems to justify having it as a separate section. SQGibbon (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I also added the tag "Clean up section request" just now. Need someone who knows about NCC and can help re-editing the information. Kimberry352 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to separate NCC wiki article into both NCC and Joseph Prince wiki articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Joseph Prince has been spin off from NCC.

The parts of the information (i.e. the brief residential address) which are added in NCC pages seem more related to Joseph Prince than NCC itself. I suggest the NCC wiki article to be separated into two wiki pages - One for NCC & Another for Joseph Prince. It would be easier and better to focus on the details of NCC (i.e. information about NCC) and Joseph Prince (i.e. biography of his living details). Kimberry352 (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a question, is Joseph Prince at all notable outside his connection to NCC? If not, an article about him might get deleted or, more likely, merged back into this one. You see this with bands a lot. Someone will try to create separate articles for the band members but when it turns out the only thing they're known for is being in that band then the article gets merged back into the band's article. SQGibbon (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SQGibbon. Joseph Prince seems to be less notable outside NCC. It makes sense to just leave it where things are today. In fact, if you do a wiki on Joseph Prince, it points back to this NCC's entry which means editors previously have come to the same conclusion that Joseph Prince entry should be merged with NCC's. Ahnan (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your thought, Ahnan. Kimberry352 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I see. I heard from someone that last time there were used to be two wiki pages (NCC and Joseph Prince). However, I understand that due to lack of notable sources, both wiki pages was eventually merged into one wiki page. Perhaps Joseph Prince seems to be less notable outside NCC. However, I see that even as the demographic of NCC members are growing up, Joseph Prince becomes a more sought-after pastor (i.e. Pastors from overseas churches invite him to preach; etc..). Besides, I feel that information about the church itself should be targeted at NCC wiki page whereas the specific information about Joseph Prince should be directed at Joseph wiki page. But.. since there seems no notable sources to support Joseph Prince's wiki information, I guess it's alright to leave both NCC's and Joseph's information in one wiki page. Kimberry352 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
See no reason why a specific "Controversy" header needs to be added to the pastor section, since it is merely stating a neutral fact. Listing it as controversial is POV.116.14.12.191 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the last paragraphs under "Pastor Joseph Prince section" have quite similar description as the information under "Criticisms and controversies". I planned to remove these last paragraphs but instead, I added the sub-header "Controversy" under this section. I don't think the header should be used.

"The Commissioner of Charities (COC) has acknowledged that for religious charities, it is not always practical to “require the separation of spiritual leadership from leadership of the board”.[22][23]" --> The last sentence of these last paragraphs under "Pastor Jospeh Prince section" does not describe about the pastor but the church itself? Kimberry352 (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge two parts of information into one section

"During the same time period he was the Chairman of the church’s board while on the church’s payroll, an arrangement that was not in line with the revised and updated recommendations contained within the Code of Governance as objectivity and indepedence could be compromised[19][20] issued by the Charity Council of Singapore on 26 November 2007, which encourages the separation of these two positions. The Church stated that it believed that the senior pastor being ‘ordained by God to lead the church...is the best person' to head and guide the board.

The Commissioner of Charities (COC) has acknowledged that for religious charities, it is not always practical to “require the separation of spiritual leadership from leadership of the board”.[22][23]"

Regarding Joseph Prince's salary and NCC's leadership, I think these sentences above should be merged into the paragraphs under the Controversy section. It would help make clear of the misunderstandings/criticism of Joseph Prince's salary and NCC's leadership? Kimberry352 (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the misunderstanding about the separation of spiritual leadership from the leadership of the board has been already cleared out since 2009. Btw, I reckon that the mention of his salary (e.g. S$500,000) is also under "Controversy" section. Any comment? My truly apology if I removed the first part of the information from the "Joseph Prince" section impulsively. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undue Weight to Pastor section

Right now there seems to be undue weight being given to the pastor, considering that the article is about the church itself. Maybe someone can contribute more to buff up the church sections. Else the article might as well be about the pastor, with a subsection about the church.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Controvesy" heading under the pastor section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

The "Controvesy" section is unnecessary, as upon backtracking the edit history I see that it was used to lead into 2 other controversies which has since been removed due to being un-wiki friendly. Having a header to only one subsection is bad formatting. Also, having it in the current form relates to the undue weightage problem mentioned above. Not to mention the fact that Controversy is a word that has negative connotations, which the references do not imply. It seems more like a point of interest at the moment. If a header is even necessary, its better to stick to NPOV headings, such as just "Salary".Zhanzhao (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Prince's salary IS a controversial issue. ST article revealing his salary did cause an uproar in Singapore as witnessed by the many netizens' negative remarks against him. This has been debated here couple of years ago. And mods were called to to moderate. Now you are opening new wounds again here. Ahnan (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I added another sub-header "Clarifications on Tithe and Offerings" because the part of the information seems not related to Joseph Prince's salary. Look at the part of this information below:
On 15 April 2009, Matthew Kang, the Honorary Secretary of the New Creation Church, posted a reply to The Straits Times on the church's website stating that the New Creation Church was not a public charity and did not solicit public donations. Kang asserted that "there is absolutely no compulsion to give whether in tithes or offerings, and any giving is done out of a willing heart", and that "every giver is appreciated and it is taken in good faith that he believes in the elected leadership and will trust them to make good decisions for the particular church he has chosen to attend, whether as a member or a visitor."[25] --> More like Mr Kang made clarifications to the public about the donation (tithe/offering).

Can anyone help re-edit the information under Joseph Prince section for better improvement and relevance? Kimberry352 (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
On hindsight the tithe and offering point is relevant to the main church article rather than as a sub-heading to the pastor, so I've shifted it there instead. Also there's no need to include the name in as part of the header since the main section is already on the pastor, and the subsection is referring to the same person/subject. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

...

Wrong. As I recalled, he was attempting to cover up his $500,000 annual salary when the reporter asked him point blank about rumours of his $50K salary. At that time, he said no. But after the NKF incident, all religious orgs were forced to reveal salaries of their leaders. That's why Kang came out basically saying you come to NCC to donate at your own business... one cannot complain too much about the high salary (ie, different from the way NKF operates). Ahnan (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This statement is arrived at your own assumption and should not be used as a rationale for the name change. If you do have a reliable, wiki-quality source that states what you just said, however, fell free to change the heading. The onus is on you to provide the source since you claim it exists.DanS76 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I wish you would bother to read the stuff before jumping into conclusion. All statements made in the salary controversy section are supported by reliable sources. If you read thru the sequence of events, each supported by a reliable newspaper report, you will uncover the controversy. Hence, the section is about the controversy of his salary and his attempt to cover up. But NCC guys here are trying to remove this info bit by bit over the years. If you go thru the history of this wiki entry, you will see that this has been debated last year and settled then. Ahnan (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, statements were made about his salary, but thre was no mention of it being a controversy. The term "controversy" is hence a subjective WP:OR term here. As mentioned by anotehr editor, it is only controversial if a reliable source states it is controversial. And getting ahead of myself here, forum opinions do not count here in Wikipedia. We need reliable sources, as per wikipedia rules.DanS76 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Here, this is a Christian News site acknowledging the controversy generated among the Singapore's public when Prince's salary was revealed publicly: http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/editorial/478/section/1.htm - The public became concerned when news reports revealed the salary of a staff member in the mega-church. Pastor Joseph Prince and even the church's financial structure came under fire for allegedly having taken home too much dough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahnan (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Editorials are not used by Wikipedia as these are opinion pieces. I suggest you read WP:RS, "When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting.". As defined in editorial, "An 'editorial' is an opinion piece". Please try to find a non-editorial/opinion piece. If it really is newsworthy, I'm sure you can find a reliable source that states its a controversy without having to resort to opinion pieces.DanS76 (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent addition of Joseph's condo and car?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

Is the addition of his condo and car significant to the description of Joseph Prince? Did the users made agreement to add them in NCC wiki page in the past? Can anyone pls cite the agreement made? Kimberry352 (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in that editing and fight with NCC members here. Look thru the Talk page yourself Ahnan (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please cite this yourself. Else, I feel that this NCC wiki page should need semi-protection requirement if there were continued editing war. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahnan, what do you mean by "fighting with NCC members in the past"? The description of the word "fight" is general; it could not describe how violent or how civil the fight was made? Note: Sorry for being offtopic. You may post your comment on my talk page if needed. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Same as Benny Hinn. His expensive corp jet was also highlighted in his wiki entry.Ahnan (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'same'? How far are both NCC and Benny Hinn articles similar? Kimberry352 (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The main argument for removal of ref to Prince's classy house and expensive car is that it's a trivia. I, for one, do not think so. Clergy owning expensive house, cars, planes etc always causes controversies as in the case now. So, if people are alright for mentioning Benny Hinn owns a Jet, why not allow for Prince's case too? Hence, the conclusion is that they are not "trivia"Ahnan (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(1) Ahnan, what do you mean by "always" in 3rd sentence of your comment above? Why merely comparing both Benny Hinn and Joseph Prince? Should both follow the same rule for reaching conclusion?
(2) Can anyone share their views regarding the trivia as mentioned by Ahnan's comment above? Should the general & specific trivia be allowed in the Wikipedia website? Kimberry352 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Here, go read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals, In 2007, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) opened a probe into the finances of six televangelists who preach a "prosperity gospel".[41] The probe investigates reports of lavish lifestyles by televangelists including: fleets of Rolls Royces, palatial mansions, private jets and other expensive items. Obviously, even in the US, evangelists who are taking donations from the public will raise eyebrows if they are using the money to live a lavish lifestyle. If not, why would the US senate bothers to probe? Ahnan (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Here, go read the wiki entries of all these controversial evangelists - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creflo_Dollar, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Meyer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_White, etc. Their expensive possessions like classy cars, big houses, jets etc were all mentioned. So, what makes Prince so special that we should keep mum about his expensive possessions? Ahnan (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for referencing me to these controversial evangelists. I will look into their wiki articles someday. What do you mean by "all" in 1st sentence above? Are you against megachurches and Word of Faith evangelists? Just simply say yes or no. P.S. Pls don't cut the nose to spite the face someday. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not against mega-churches per se. Just the unscrupulous pastors or evangelists... Sorry, I don't know what you are trying to say here about "cutting nose to spite the face". Is that an English idiom? Ahnan (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Taken note. I will remember your first and second sentences. I assume that you have a mindset of these unscrupulous pastors or (and??) evangelists. Only two sets of pastors and/or evangelists. For the 'ancient' phrase (you should need to know), see [[4]]. Thank you. Kimberry352 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


...

Is it possible to turn the agreement (that is said to be made among the users in the past - as mentioned by Ahnan?) back? Pls advise. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just glanced through the Archive section (See the link in the upper right corner of the talk page), didn't catch any discussion with the purported NCC members. There is another discussion on the current talk page, however, these are between editors who have never been identified as NCC members. Ahnan needs to point out exactly where consensus has ever been made regarding the adding about the bits about the car and the condo, or his point abuot there having been discussions about it is moot. As for the discussion in the current page, it was noted by a long-time editor (SQGibbons) that the point about the car and the residence can classified as trivia.
Controversy is a subjective term. In this case, content about the church compared to the paster so unevenly balanced, so trivia that does not change the weightage should be further discouraged. By stating that he is against "unscrupulous pastors or evangalists", coupled with the fact that he only actively edits on such articles, Ahnan may have in fact declared his vested interest and potential biasness on this issue. As per Wiki's policy against Coatrack, "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject."DanS76 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what makes wiki interesting, isn't it? It takes all kinds of editors with different backgrounds and expertise to bring the different views into a single subject. In my case, my expertise is in hunting for controversial figures or controversial deeds done by people and bringing them out to the public. I don't see anything wrong with it. As in the case of those controversial evangelists in the US, some editors watch out for them and focuses on writing about them. Ahnan (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My point here is, mentioning classy homes and expensive cars of these evangelists is obviously not considered trivial. If it's a topic on Bill Gates, then yes, talking about what he owns seems mundane but certainly not for evangelists as there is a notion that if you are taking donations from people, you ought to be more responsible. That is why the senate is investigating those "questionable" evangelists, is it not? Here, go read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals, The probe investigates reports of lavish lifestyles by televangelists including: fleets of Rolls Royces, palatial mansions, private jets and other expensive items. If owning these things are trivia, why the probe by the senate? Ahnan (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only controversial if a reliable source says it's controversial. That's how Wikipedia works. SQGibbon (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Prince's house and car was not mentioned in the controversial section. It's mentioned in the Straits Times. Leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions. You may think it's trivia but others don't since they might be surprised to find Prince, a pastor, owned such classy possessions. Let the readers decide. Ahnan (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Common sense tells us that it's trivia if we mention the expensive things that rich folks own but not so for pastors... Ahnan (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
How much relevant to Joseph's biography? Kimberry352 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not here to lead readers into "draw(ing) their own conclusions". The fact that you think there is a conclusion to be drawn at all is a clear violation of Original Research as in this line "(Original Research) also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." The only way that mentioning his expensive car and house is relevant is based on your analysis of how a pastor should conduct his/her personal and financial affairs. This is POV and OR and clearly should not be included in the article unless a reliable source states explicitly that it is important. SQGibbon (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. As it is, the mentioning of the car and house IS advanced by the source, the Straits Times article. Your insistence to consider as "trivia" is truly your POV. Whatever it is, just put down what the source said he's got. What is your problem?Ahnan (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
What? You disagree with Wikipedia policy? Just because something is mentioned in article does not automatically mean it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The only argument you've put forth to justify the inclusion of this material is because you want readers to decide if they should support the NCC and Joseph Prince. Please quote me the Wikipedia policy that supports you argument. The onus is entirely on you to demonstrate that this information should be included and you've not done so. SQGibbon (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Support: Removal of the mention of Joseph's car and house
The description of Joseph's car and house seems meaningless/insignificant to NCC wiki article although it is supposed to be under Joseph Prince section. It may not be able to tell what living of standard Joseph has. Thus, the mention of both car and house should be removed completely from Joseph Prince section. Perhaps, no point to lift many passages from the source like The Straits Times. Kimberry352 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong! See all the above arguments. The only thing I would agree is if you want to make a separate entry for Joseph Prince and put all these stuff there to talk about him. In fact, as I recall, there was a separate entry on JP initially until someone decides to merge it with NCC's article. Ahnan (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
What arguments? Being well-sourced is not by itself sufficient to warrant inclusion. And your other argument? That you want readers to have all the facts so they can make their own minds about the NCC goes against Wikipedia policy. Unless you can come up with an argument that conforms to Wikipedia policy this stuff needs to go. SQGibbon (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, Ahnan, if you think/feel that it is necessary to make a separate entry for Joseph Prince, you may try to do it yourself. Notable sources/references are really needed to support the survivability of Joseph Prince wiki entry. Shalom Kimberry352 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joseph Prince's last name was Singh ??

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

From Jospeh Prince section,
"While working as a consultant, he changed his name to the current one, Joseph Prince. His real name was never revealed but the last name was Singh."
--> Where did this statement come from? Were there any reliable and verified sources that support this statement? If there is really no source, then I feel that this statement should be removed from Joseph Prince section. Pls advise for the removal. If you think it is true, then find the sources if necessary. I will remove this statement one week later if no source found. Thanks. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, we should leave this out until the source is ascertained. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your advice. Since this statement currently does not have any reliable source to prove itself, it should be removed from the Joseph Prince section. Thanks for the removal. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem removing this fact for now, until a source can be found. Ahnan (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. If the reliable verified source is found, then I will be happy to be in no position to object it. Cheer up, Ahnan. Kimberry352 (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joseph's parentage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

From 1st paragraph of Joseph Prince section, is it necessary to display the sentence without the citation (i.e. reliable source)? This sentence says: "He was born to an Indian father and a Chinese mother." If no reliable source is found, I think it should be removed? Kimberry352 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

STOP REMOVING STUFF UNILATERALLY. READ THE SOURCE YOURSELF. WE HAVE GONE THRU THIS COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. Ahnan (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I really could not find the source here as the statement on Joseph Prince's parentage has not been tagged with the source/reference. Please list the source/reference here if you have already found it. Speaking frankly, I never hear about his parentage before. I wonder whether it is true that the media report has said about his parentage. Anyway, I know your effort. I see that you guys have gone through some things discussed related to NCC and Joseph Prince few many years ago although your purpose for Wikipedia seemed single (?).
VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: Ahnan, you should not type in CAPITAL LETTERS. Typing many sentences in CAPITAL LETTERS is unfavourable.Kimberry352 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It's supported by the source that was provided as a pdf scan (which is problematical but whatever). SQGibbon (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Really sorry, I could not find the source as the pdf file. Can you pls show me the source? Thanks. Kimberry352 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No big deal, here's the link to the pdf. It's the one used in the article (currently footnote #12). SQGibbon (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Ok, this is a The Straits Times article that is reliable. Please take a note that the information from two source links [[5]] & [[6]]are exactly the same. I've amended the citations in NCC wiki entry. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joseph's previous schools

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

Is it necessary to mention his schools (in Singapore & Malaysia) under NCC wiki article? There is no citations to support the facts statements that:
1) Joseph Prince "spent his primary school years in Perak, Malaysia",
2) Joseph Prince "eventually came back to Singapore and joined with his aunt to church",
3) Joseph Prince "attended Commonwealth Secondary School in Singapore and went on to finish his 'A' levels at a Roman Catholic private school, Our Lady of Lourdes."
Above these statements, I wonder whether they are true or not. Pls advise if they should be removed or modified in NCC wiki page. Thanks.
P.S. Joseph Prince is actually a human (as in biography) whereas NCC is a Christian church (as in building). Kimberry352 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

KIMBERRY, DON'T JUST BARGE IN HERE AND REMOVE THINGS UNILATERALLY. READ THE SOURCES. IT'S ALL BEEN PROPERLY REFERENCED BY A GOOD SOURCE - THE STRAITS TIMES! THE STUFF TALKS ABOUT JOSEPH PRINCE WHICH COMES AS A SECTION UNDER NCC. I GOT NO PROBLEM IF YOU GUYS WANT TO CREATE A SEPARATE ENTRY FOR JOSEPH PRINCE BUT ALL THE SAID STUFF SHOULD STAY! THEY ARE WELL SUPPORTED BY SOURCES!!! Ahnan (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
KIMBERRY, I NOTICE YOU HAVE A HABIT OF REMOVING THINGS EVEN WHEN IT'S PROPERLY SOURCED. SUGGEST YOU READ ALL REFS BEFORE TRYING TO USE THE "NO SOURCE" EXCUSE TO DELETE STUFF. I'VE CAUGHT YOU DOING THIS A FEW TIMES ALREADY! Ahnan (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I have to say that the selective information about Joseph Prince does not have source/reference. If you have a strong reliable evidence to support the selective information, then please list the source/reference. Speaking frankly, I do not see any source/reference to support the selective information as below:
"He was then a young man dabbling in the occult but he said that 'supernatural experiences' opened his eyes to Christianity."
The statement above sounds so ridiculous. Who added this statement at the first place? How can it be believed without its source/reference?

Anyway, I noticed two another statements about Joseph's parentage and previous schools but I have not heard about them before I came to Wikipedia. I wonder if they are accurate. These two statements are:
"He attended Commonwealth Secondary School in Singapore and went on to finish his 'A' levels at a private school, Our Lady of Lourdes."
"He was born to an Indian father and a Chinese mother."
If you really want to add/show these statements under Joseph Prince section on NCC wiki article, then why wasn't it vetted by Joseph Prince/NCC? Were there any reliable media reports that proved these statements (Joseph Prince's parentage and previous schools)?

Ahnan, I know that you have gone through with Wiki users regarding all the statements few many years ago. Please show the sources/references here if you have already found them.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: Ahnan, you should not type in CAPITAL LETTERS. Typing many sentences in CAPITAL LETTERS is unfavourable.
P.S.: Sighs.. No surprise that you have made an assumption that I have a habit of removing things when it's properly sourced. I'm disappointed to find out some of your mindset about me. Speaking honestly, I do not find any sources to support them so far. Please find them if you have already found it and you would like to let me see them clearly.
P.S.S: Please be civil. Thank you. May GRACE always be with you. Kimberry352 (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Kimberry, here's the link. It does actually say all that about the supernatural, Our Lady of Lourdes, and the ethnicity of his parents. It's all a little over halfway into the article. And this is the source used in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the source. Please take a note that the information from two source links [[7]] & [[8]]are exactly the same. I've amended the citations in NCC wiki entry. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Closure: Okay, now the source [[9]] supports the three statements listed above although I suspect that something might be wrong with the 1st statement ("He was then a young man dabbling in the occult but he said that 'supernatural experiences' opened his eyes to Christianity."). I'm not sure whether the "The Straits Times" reporter really wrote the accurate statement. But nevertheless, the source has its strong foundation to support these three statements so I do not have any objection to removals of these statements. Thanks for the reference. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


The sources support these claims. I don't see any other issues with regards to this information except maybe the part about his primary school. Seems trivial so I assume it has some other kind of significance? Assuming it's not another attempt at POV pushing or Coatracking. SQGibbon (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • To all concerned, this is a Wiki article about NCC so I would suggest that we stick to the relevant facts (per WP:UNDUE) instead of adding POV related issues such as the biography of a living person here. If there is ever such a need for it, my recommendation is that we should add it instead to the relevant article about the person (conforming to WP:BLP, of course). Let us not lose focus on this, thank you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Joseph Prince is a living person but NCC wiki entry includes him. It means that the statements about him should be properly written with reliable and relevant sources/references. Any opinions/thoughts/ideas should not be encouraged to describe him. I'm concerned about the mixture of information under Joseph Prince section and other sections in only one NCC wiki entry. I understand that both Joseph Prince and NCC might should not be separated into two wiki entries due to lack of notable sources related to Joseph Prince. After all, I feel that there is really a need to verify the reliable source about Joseph Prince's parentage, previous schools and certain other statements. Please try to balance the viewpoint, reliability and relevance of Joseph Prince section. Thank you. Kimberry352 (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of the Lead of WP:BLP states: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." (Emphasis in original.) SO whether this page is a bio or not, all entires on living persons must conform to BLP policies. - BilCat (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Also from WP:BLP:
"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. . . . The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." (Emphasis in original.)
Remember, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a policy, not a guideline. - BilCat (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will read BLP policies and think over the splitting back to Joseph Prince entry. Joseph Prince is now one of prominent megachurch pastors. He is as notable as Brian Houston from Hillsong. He sells many books in Singapore and other countries. Also being invited to preach, he went to preach messages (especially Grace & Favour message) to overseas churches. FYI. Kimberry352 (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Kim, I disagree with you. IIRC, Joseph has written his own book(s) so it should be fairly straight forward affair to split his article out from NCC. The wiki article about NCC should purely be restricted to NCC and for NCC only, but as for Joseph he should be mentioned in a separate article to avoid confusing the two together. FYI, Kong Hee is mentioned separately from CHC, therefore I don't see why this cannot be done here. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • On 4 June 2010, At first, I proposed that NCC wiki entry should separated into two wiki entries - one for NCC & another for Joseph Prince. See [[10]]. However, I was advised that if there are notable sources enough, then it would be ideal to create a new wiki entry for Joseph Prince. Yes, Joseph Prince became one of the prominent megachurch pastors in Singapore and wrote many books that are sold in Singapore and other countries. Yes, information about NCC should be strictly added to NCC wiki entry whereas information about Joseph should be strictly added to Joseph's wiki entry in order to avoid duplication/confusion.Kimberry352 (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
If Joseph Prince himself is the subject of conteroversies, and is written about in reliable published sources as such, then that is enough to assert notability in a separate article. That may not have been the case when the articles were merged, but it is now. The fact that he is an author only adds to that. - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that Joseph Prince section has already citations enough to support information like his profile, books, salary and other related things (in the past, controversy such as his salary). Thus, he becomes more notable like Brian Houston from Hillsong Church. When Joseph Prince section becomes clearly notable, it is good enough to separate NCC wiki entry into both Joseph Prince wiki entry and NCC wiki entry. Related information should be added in correct wiki entry (i.e. Joseph Prince's info should focus on Joseph Prince's wiki entry whereas NCC's info should be added in NCC's wiki entry.) No information should be overlapped between two wiki entries. I am alright with splitting back to Joseph Prince's wiki entry. Kimberry352 (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split back to Joseph Prince?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – It is done, Joseph Prince has been spin off.

As of right now, the section on Joseph Prince is more than long enough for a separate article, and has several newspaper sources which should satisfy the WP:RS. The article Joseph Prince was originally merged here about 2 years ago, but the content here is much larger and better sourced now, so asserting notability should not be an issue now. - BilCat (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the long section on Prince that is here now is far too long, and should not remain here as it is currently written, as it constitutues nearly half the article's main text.(That's generally a clear sign that a section needs to be split off.) All the biographical info on Joseph Prince should be moved to the restoered article, along with the majpirty of the information on him that relates to the controversies he is personally related to. SOme of the controversy specific to the church would remain here, with a short summary on Prince as the senior pastor, and on the controversies specific to him. - BilCat (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - I wasn't sure before if there was enough to justify the split but looking over it again I think a Joseph Prince article would survive just fine on its own. SQGibbon (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Citations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

(1) "He was born to an Indian father and a Chinese mother." --> See 27th paragraph @ [[11]] (Citation footnote 11)

(2) "Before he became a full-time pastor in the New Creation Church, he was working as an IT consultant when he changed his name to the current one, Joseph Prince." --> I am not sure whether this statement is accurate/true or not. Should it be removed in time unless there is any reliable source to support this statement? Kimberry352 (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For No 2 statement above, 34th paragraph from "The Straits Times" article dated on 5 Oct 2008 [[12]] is found to match this statement. It sounds quite consistent with the fact. I wonder if 34th paragraph from this source is true and reliable. Wonder what his old name was..? Kimberry352 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Year 1984: Mr Prince & his group leaving the traditional church due to disagreement on displays of worship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

"In 1984, Mr Prince, then president of a youth ministry in a traditional church, and a group of friends were asked to leave the church, which didn’t agree with their open displays of worship."
--> Anyone who has knowledge about this historic statement can help clarify about it? Cite the reliable source/reference, pls? Kimberry352 (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's in that same The Straits Times article as before. The paragraph just below the line about Our Lady of the Lourdes. SQGibbon (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I see. The Straits Times article [[13]] dated on 5 Oct 2008 still mentioned this historic statement. It seemed that the reporter from The Straits Times took this statement without clarification. So myself, no comment on it. Perhaps..Can someone enlighten/elaborate as to describe why Mr Prince and his group disagreed with traditional displays of worship and hence left their traditional church? Still, this statement should be kept. Kimberry352 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand that is what the source says, but it is somewhat unclear what exactly the source means. I can guess that is means they were raising hands and what the church considered inappropriate times, and perhaps even speaking in toungues. I'm not asing that it be removed, just clarified. Clarity would need to come from other sources. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Creation_Church/Archive_2&oldid=1143537221"