Talk:New Testament Christian Churches of America/Archive 2

~The initial author of the historical article can be reached at: tracts@juno.com

Wikipedia asked me to shorten this DISCUSSION PAGE to under 30 kilobytes.

Mediation

Mediation page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/New_Testament_Christian_Churches_of_America%2C_Inc I'm not sure what happens next. Hanako 17:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

wording

The word "ingrown" has been used. Are we a toenail? How about a different word, maybe one that is used for businesses that get their talent from the inside? (A positive word is much more nuetral, at least, than a negative one.) And has anyone seen my thess-a-russ? Nevermind. There it is, embedded in a rock. ~a member

a member - your point is well taken, i will fix it right now. wwjd2009 20:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I was in NTCC during most of the 1980s and I know many ministers who were involved in and involved with NTCC during the 1960s and 1970s, and I am telling you that "ingrown" does indeed define the nature of NTCC's relationship to the larger Body of Christ! NTCC no longer relates to any ministry or church that is not under their direct authority.

Concerning divorce, the fact is that NTCC allows exceptions for both adultery and desertion (and they have broad definitions for both), but the Independent/Free Holiness allow neither one! NTCC may not like it because they are ultra conservative in many areas, but when it comes to divorce, the "liberal" word belongs there. The way wwjd has it worded, you can't tell whether NTCC went more conservative or more liberal on divorce, and I assure you it was the latter. --JGabbard 02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Outreach and Recruiting" Churches have outreaches, so can we just use that word? Using "recruiting" for a church is like using "compound" instead of "campus." It gives a negative conotation. Do the three involved parties listed in the request for mediation agree to change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.65 (talk • contribs) (~ a mem)

I think that's reasonable. I'll change it and if anyone disagrees they can speak up. Hanako 01:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to say "Outreach Ministry". Respond if you have concerns with that. Hanako 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Free Holiness churches are just like the Mennonites and other Anabaptists: They do not make exceptions for either adultery or desertion, and some of them also hold that if you were divorced and remarried before you got in church that you have to go make an effort to return to your first love (spouse) as restitution, and that you are living in sin with your new spouse as long as any former mates remain yet alive. And definitely no preacher or deacon can be "double married," as they call it. So NTCC is poles apart in their divorce teachings, and this can rightly be called "much more liberal"!

Literary Purity

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Pentecostal_Ho******_Church for a good article that i wouldn't mind reading in an encyclopedia that comes from a neutral point of view. i may not agree with all of their practices, but i wouldn't expect to read all of their faults (in my eyes) in an encyclopedia. this is a well written article, telling their history and the suchlike. daddylonglegs2050 20:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

i just logged back in. the site is looking much better now. i am glad we have been able to come to agreement on many items. i did read the link above and must agree, that is a good npov. wwjd2009 20:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

i just did some more research and read the following two web pages. i suggest that we all do the same to get a good idea of how others have come to agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_day_saints http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon i personally don't agree with their practices but at least it's a good decent article. notice they don't get into what i would view their questionable practices. it stays neutral. it doesn't talk about their holy underwear or secret temple practices, etc... it gives some history and other tidbits of info, even a doctrinal statement (article of faith) on one, etc... in reading their discussion page, they had numerous edits and 'arguments' for lack of a better word but came to a npov, a good consensus.wwjd2009 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wwjd2009, the mormon article you read is only a page defining the meaning and origin of the word "mormon". Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints. This article is very good about talking about the Mormon church in plain language while still keeping a npov. It's good that we are trying to maintain a consensus. Great effort, everyone. Hanako 21:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Readability!

Uggh!

1.

I think the doctrinal statement is too long. Could we move it down with the article, (as originally published?) and refference/link to it under the doctrine heading? The link can even include "We Believe" and the bullet about salvation, then people can find the rest below. ~a member (please take no action until at least the first three parties can agree.)

Yes, I agree with you and so did several others. But members of the church fought us so hard to include the whole doctrinal statement that was agreed to it in order to get compromise on what we felt needed to be included, but yet they are fighting those items too. Unfair of them if you ask me. Glad to have your input "a member". Could you sign your comments by adding four ~'s (the squggly line) after them? It records the date and time you made them. You could even register for the name a member or somehting similar. :) Hanako 01:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

as Hanako stated, we've already discussed the doctrinal statement and came to an agreement. so let's leave it. we don't need to rehash that portion again. let's go on to the other topics. Wwjd2009 01:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC) wwjd2009

I don't want to remove it, either, just to move and downsize most of it, and it can be openned to full size, and this way we (Wikipedia contributers) could even copy it as we've (NTCC) published it. What do you each think of the idea, in and of itself? ~a member 207.200.116.65 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

hi a member. i don't agree. i like it where it is and i know one other contributor liked it that way also. let's go on to a different subject. this has already been discussed and agreed upon. there are other issues we have to deal with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwjd2009 (talk • contribs)

You forgot to sign /\.~a mem 207.200.116.65 03:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wwjd2009, any item can continue to be discussed even if you feel it's a closed case. "A Member" has a valid point, which is supported but at least three others that were trying to voice their opinion on the matter. I think the doctrinal statement should just be a link. It's huge on the page and not important to the article. I agreed to not argue about it's inclusion because I was trying to a little give-and-take from you. I thought maybe you'd thoughtfully consider a point (or two) that I might think should be included. I was unsuccessful. Given an inch, you take a mile. :) Hanako 04:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But what do you think my new idea? Have the {SOD as published[1], but put most of it beside the News article,} and keep {only the words “Believed Among Us” and the bullet on salvation under the "Doctrine" heading,} as the link to that SOD attachment of the article? WWJD sais No. What do you say? ~a member 207.200.116.65 05:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

i think it looks more readable and more like an actual article if we have the doctrinal statement there. thank you to whomever is doing the links, it looks much better. Daddylonglegs2050 12:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)daddyloglegs2050

2.

Another question: Could we create a heading for "outreach" in the article and put the explanations about soul winning and the servicemen's works there, then come to an agreement as to how to word it? Maybe we should either do the same for the seminary, or make the heading "outreach and seminary." I know that these ministries are important parts of NTCC's history and should be discussed there, but that section seems to be getting too full of non history stuff, and there are very few other categories. And, honestly, I want the article about my Church to look nice! ~a member (who almost forgot to sign her own post) 207.200.116.65 04:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. Before we do anything, what do you each think?

by the way, a member, what ntcc do you actively go to right now? can you email my friend wwjd2009 at wwjd2009@hotmail.com.  ? since you are a member, i am sure you would love to talk to a friend. looking forward to hearing from you. Daddylonglegs2050 12:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)daddylonglegs2050

I would just as soon remain anonymous here. ~ a mem 207.200.116.65 00:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hanako & Wwjd2009

Can you please go look at the article right now, and see that you have messed up the way it looks? Everything is over to the left, a ton of spaces inbetween everything, and when I fix the format you feel that I am changing content. Also, the portion about outward holiness is valid and documented by a major newspaper. If the reporter felt it was necessary to include it to explain the church to its readers then it's necessary to include here as well. The reporter had NPOV and so does this article. No difference. I think you're copying and pasting the entire article which is messing up the formating and text. Please make your edits within the form. Hanako 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

hi Hanoko. if it's already in the newspaper clipping then why have it again. if i am reading this article i am going to click on the newspaper article. so that would make me read it twice. the page is already long enough. that's my opinion. wwjd2009 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia pages you suggested. But they describe individual "terms" and not churches. Did you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints? Please do. It will help us come to an understanding. Hanako 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

government funds & seminary

this doesn't sound like a neutral statement. only reason i bring this out is, i don't know of any SEMINARY that can take govt funds. i seem to remember a seminary student (from another group) that went to court becz he wanted to use govt funds to go to a seminary and wasn't it denied, becz of separation of church & state. a seminary exists for one purpose, it's not a college but a place to train for the ministry only. so govt funds would not be accepted at any seminary. true?

As a vetern and a college student - you can only get government funding for school when it is an accredited school through a government recognized accrediting agengy. Therefore a college or seminary with the only purpose of training people only for their religous organization does not qualify.

Formatting

I think who ever has been working so diligently on this article should be commended. It looks great, and the format flows nicely. It also looks like the content has been a group effort. Good job! 2centsworth 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It does look great! Now if we can just agree on the content. But we are making headway. Tyworld 23:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The "removal of false info"

The recent edit has been reverted because (1) the church is classified as Pentecostal in the newspaper article (scans of which are posted at the bottom of the page, and (2) the other statements are accounted for by a countless number of witnesses who have made statements on Factnet.org (link at bottom of article). Thank you. Hanako 01:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

you need to read wikipedia's founder's article. he said recently he felt that people such as you are making his site an unreliable source becz u have an agenda to fulfill. there was more than just 1 change i made. we can go down the list, if you would like. and a countless number of witnesses does not suffice. as an encyclopedia, you must name them. or i could say i have 15,000 witnesses that proves what i am saying is true. either way, i issue you a challenge. contact MC Kekel, the President and he will glady verify the truth of the matter.

in the future, prior to changing this page, plz verify your information with the ntcc headquarters, they are happy to oblige.

thank you.

wwjd2009.

Okay, all i'm debating is the term "pentecostal". The News Tribune article provided refers to NTCC as such and therefore it is documented, as they interviewed the leaders directly in 1999. If NTCC has changed it's stance on Pentecostalism, please provide a new section detailing when this change took place. Thank you. Hanako 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

hi Hanako, let me get back with you on this. maybe we can put it back on. i just re-read the article, it's been a while. i know that current literature says Full Gospel Holiness, and there was much discussion on who or what ntcc would identify with. full gospel and pentecostal are similar in some ways but different in others. but it may be ok to put this back in, let me verify the current stance, and then we can go from there. thank you for working with this. give me until friday. thx. ~ wwjd2009

Sure. About your most recent edit...getting free expired bread from Walmart and letting people take it home from church is hardly being a charity...in fact...Kekel himself stated that "a church is not a charity". I think it should be noted in the article that NTCC doesn't provide such services. At any rate, your addition sounds like an advertisement for NTCC, not an encyclopedia. I'm removing it. Hanako 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

dear hanako, once again, you are going by hearsay. prove it, name your persons that give you this verified information concerning food. and also, please don't only use one church to blanket what goes on in every church across the world. I know of several churches that provide such services currently within NTCC. you are making it more clear that you have an agenda to tear down this church that you don't attend anymore. how can you even know what goes on in 'every' church across the world for ntcc, if you don't even attend one, let alone attend several such as many of us. by the way, please note for everyone reading this, when was the last time you were in an NTCC church service? i think this is important for everyone to know since you outrank everyone on this site concerning the edits. who made you the 'webmaster' for this page? wwjd2009 02:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

clear of copyright?

The section "NTCC Official Doctrine" seems to be a direct copy from the website. (The heading is linked to it. By the way, can we change that somehow so it isn't the heading that is linked?) Do we have a release on this information to include it? One that is compatible with our GFDL? RJFJR 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think it should be included, but some other users argued for it and it stayed in. We don't have a copyright release. It should merely be included as a link. Hanako 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a thought

I have been reading the different exchanges between everyone. I must ask shouldn't the people that belong to the organization write the article? I don't understand why people who don't even go to that church want to write the article? I know when I look at wikipedia I come to see up to date information about subjects not outdated information. Sounds like NTCC has changed a lot since some of you attended. Maybe everyone should verify the facts through the organization headquarters so it can be accurate.

Stedfast, et al

According to Wikipedia, links must be about the subject of the article, in this case NTCC. If your personal blog is allowed to stay, by that logic my personal blog should be included and perhaps every other person associated or ever associated should add their own links. You are acting like this is a personal attack, but it isn't, it's just trying to keep the Wikipedia article on topic. Plus, your statement that ntccXposed defames NTCC - is not coming from a neutral point of view, which is a Wikipedia standard. Thanks for your understanding. Hanako 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hanako

What is wrong with "a blog written by a current member of NTCC"? why are you being picky about what the sites are about? TP blog is stated blog written by former ministers. Its not your blog leave it. Anyways do you even go to NTCC? What are your motives? Livingforgod 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Livingforgod

Livingforgod, Hanako is no longer a member of NTCC. She takes part in the ntccxposed site and is not for NTCC in any way, shape or form. By the way, thanks for making sure my blog says what I wrote it to say on the wikipedia page.

Now Hanako (Leah), can you just leave it stated the way it is and also leave the Words of Encouragement blog up? I have stopped playing the game and left the exNTCCrs up. But if you want me to come back and play, I will do this several times a day if need be and I will wipe it all the whole page over and over. You make the choice.

However I hope you will leave my edit there. Thanks.

Stedfast

Hanako

Isn't it time to grow up a little. Stedfast did something by mistake but you immediatly take it off of here by saying since its not for public viewing. Why would you take that off and not your own yahoo group? Which is not for public viewing. if you have a problem with a church organization take it to your yahoo group or factnet stop doing it here. I will pray for you so you can break free from the grudge you are holding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingforgod (talk • contribs)

I didn't know it was unintentional. Thank you for your prayers and have a great day! :) Hanako 19:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Stedfast

I'll agree to your removing ALL of the weblogs, including the pro-NTCC ones, not jut the Ex'er blogs as you did today. Think about it. Removing the Curt's one was fine, but not the rest. If you remove Tracy's you should remove the pro-NTCC ones too. Hanako 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Hanako...I hadn't seen you around so I tried my luck LOL. Aren't you tired of doing this? I mean you don't even go to NTCC anymore. I would have hoped you would have gone on with your life. Hanako, also I do care about you even though you might think I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stedfast (talk • contribs)

The feeling is mutual, Stedfast. That's why I'm here, because I care. Have a great night. Hanako 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Outward Holiness Editing

I don't think it is approriate to say dogmatically that God has "commanded" something in His word if it is not stated plainly.

The person who keeps editing this section of the NTCC article is stepping over the line when they claim that God wants dresses and skirts on women when there is nothing so stated in the Word of God.

I don't see why there is a problem with my adding into the Outward Holiness section that it is NTCC which believes such things and it is their interpreation.

I don't think this person should keep deleting this information. It doesn't change what you believe, but it is totally incorrect to state something is in fact stated in the Bible, when it is in fact, NOT.

Tracy Pelfrey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracypelfrey (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Tracy......the text states that "NTCC believes..." You do not need to add (this is their interpretation) to each sentence. Stedfast 21:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys are doing a good job working together to create an encyclopedic entry about outward holiness. I know it's difficult to come to agreements, but I applaud you for trying. Outward holiness can also be noted as "holiness standards". Many other groups practice such standards. God cannot be spoken for in the entry, except to say that NTCC believes as such. An encyclopedia would never speak for God. This article is about NTCC and what they believe. Hanako 01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stedfast

Stedfast, the section on holiness standards is VERY biased in it's wording. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia at all. I've been giving you a chance to revise your version before I start editing it, but we've got to address this issue like an encyclopedia would, with a neutral point of view. Hanako 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hanako, the section is stated that NTCC believes this thing to be so as according to the Bible and list the scriptures that support the claim. I'm not sure how it could read like an encyclopedia, as the Bible is not an encyclopedia. What were trying to get it to sound like? I'm uncertain, how should the wording be changed to fit an encyclopedia entry? Stedfast 22:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tracy Pelfrey: the section on Holiness Standards is too preach-y and less informative. To just state what is believed with the scripure as reference...is much better than adding in all the preach-y stuff about...how that a Christian will abide by these holiness standards, etc. Just the facts, ma'am...just the facts.

Sorry Tracy, I forgot you don't like being preached to. ; ) Whoever did the latest revision, that looks fine to me. I just added the links in for the scripture references. Stedfast 06:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Editing of the Holiness Standards

From Tracy:

This is an Encyclopedia...not a sermon and not a Bible Study. I guess the moderator will have to decide whether or not "preaching" is allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.211.7.227 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Tracy, this isn't Flaknet, please keep your attitude over there, thanks. Stedfast 06:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Contacted Wikipedia About The "Sermon" Content in Holiness Standards

I guess the title says it all.

This is an encyclopedia.

If you want to spread your doctrine...do it somewhere else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.211.12.247 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Tracy, this is so comical. YOU are the one who put the Holiness standards in there in the first place. If you don't want doctrine spread, then why not delete the whole thing? You make no sense whatsoever and you must have missed the part where I agreed your last revision was ok and all I did was added the links for the scripture and then you reverted that. So take a deep breath, calm down and slowly look that you did the revision and I'm fine with what it says now. Stedfast 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

when I contacted the Wikipedia folks...I was directed to the page about editing disputes. Here is what it says:

First step: Talk to the other parties involved The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and do not mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. If you want assistance, request an advocate to help you in presenting your thoughts in the issue (see Section 6 on this page).

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.

Further information: Wikipedia:Negotiation

SO, I am asking you, Stedfast...to be reasonable and realize that all the extra stuff you are putting in there is Sermon-y and preach-y. It has nothing to do with information one would find in an encyclopedia. Unless, maybe if you put it in quotes and say that this is part of the teaching of the Founder of your organization. Otherwise, it really has no place in an encyclopedia.

Is that acceptable?

Tracy

Tracy, in response to your words: "This is an encyclopedia. If you want to spread your doctrine...do it somewhere else" Sounds like a good idea to me, I will go ahead and remove the Doctrine from the page, as it doesn't belong in an encylopedia. So we reached one thing in agreement. Stedfast 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Information Deleted

As per resolution with Tracy in that doctrine should not be included and this is an encyclopedia. I also came across the fact that the NTCC Official Doctrinal Statement is copyrighted and can not be included here on this page unless you get a copyright release. So it has been removed and only a link to the copyrighted doctrinal statement is included.

Thanks for helping resolve this issue. Stedfast 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Holiness Standard that was posted is not copyrighted material. You are making reference to something different than I am. I will put the Holiness Doctrines section back in.

I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OFFICIAL DOCTRINAL STATEMENT, WHICH IS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, AND Holiness Standards...which is not copyrighted. I never said the doctrine should be deleted. I said the sermons and the preaching should be deleted...and that was not a part of the Official Doctrinal Statement, but it was a part of the Holiness Standards. I know you understand that.

Tracy

P.S.: I've also copied all of these recent "discussions"...in case someone might inadvertantly delete them.

Tracy, please sign your comments. Add the four tildes after your comment. Also, I changed the header and put back in the link for the official doctrinal statement followed by your holiness standards addition, and all I did was make the scriptures linkable. Stedfast 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Stedfast: The Doctrine part looks good. Thanks. TracyTracypelfrey 02:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See Tracy, we did it, we were able to work it out. WHODUTHUNKIT? Stedfast 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)\

Too bad we're too far away from each other to go celebrate over coffee. Thanks Stedfast. TracyTracypelfrey 17:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tracy, I always tried to talk with you but you kept yelling at me on flaknet and well you even gave me my own post on your blog. I'm not afraid to talk with you, my email is: stedfastservant@hotmail.com Stedfast 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I never yelled at you my dear. I may have raised my voice to "get through"...but never yelling. This is a "for the record" response. TracyTracypelfrey 06:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok sorry about the mix up. Stedfast 07:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.

We need to discuss this. We are currently violating wikipedia's guidelines concerning this article. wwjd2009 20:48, 05 Mar 2007 (UTC)

I came across this on Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution It says that even though YOU may FEEL a statement to be true, unless it can be verified by an encylopedia or publication, then it must be removed. The burden of evidence is on the person trying to add this. I would love to see your written evidence and then we can gladly work together to put it back together on this site. thx for working together. Wwjd2009 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)wwjd2009

Are you talking to me or someone else? Stedfast 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am talking to whomever wants to add something to this page or revert it back to what it was. References to why Davis left PCG is hearsay. Wikipedia has policies that are against this. You can't go by what you heard, Wiki says, but it must be verifiable or removed. Also there are strict requirements when commenting about someone who is still living, as that can put people in danger. Even as I am editing this page, before i save it, it says:

Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL - Wiki policy Wwjd2009 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I don't know who posted the original contribution about Davis leaving PCG and the issues surrounding that...but it is verifiable. TracyTracypelfrey 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tracy, let me recap again Wiki's policy on this as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution says that you may FEEL a statement to be true, unless it can be VERIFIED by an ENCYCLOPEDIA or PUBLICATION, then IT MUST BE REMOVED. Let's work together to make Wikipedia a valid online Encyclopedia. Regards... Wwjd2009 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We are in violation of External Links pages

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

What can be linked:

1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 2. Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

Links to Avoid - according to Wikipedia Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority are to be avoided. Wwjd2009 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea and agree, deleting them all and only having the official ones on this page. Stedfast 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What are official "ones"? tracyTracypelfrey 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This website is not NTCC's official website. I put the ntccxposed website back in. There is no reason not to include it. It doesn't violate anything. It's obvious what you are trying to do. You are trying to use Wikipedia to try and promote yourself and keep back any information that is relative, but that you do not like personally. TracyTracypelfrey 15:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The information provided on the website is verifiable. TracyTracypelfrey 15:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Tracy, I was agreeing with WWJD2009 to the taking off all my blogs as well with all the ex ones. When I said official, I of course meant the NTCC websites. My blogs are not official in anyway nor do they represent NTCC officially as I'm just a church member, but the websites are from Rev Kekel himself, the President of the Organization, and as the rules state a "recognized authority". Stedfast 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok Tracy, let's try this one more time. Please try and follow the rules of Wiki policy. Or we'll have to get a mediator to help us out. If you would read the link above about Rules for External links it would help and then follow Wiki policy. Here is what it says.

Links to Avoid - according to Wikipedia Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority are to be avoided.
1. Tracy, let me break this down for you. Factually inaccurate material. It might be a fact, but you use it in inaccurate way.
2. Your website though lengthy is not verifiable to a RELIABLE SOURCE. Reliable source being an encyclopedia or newspaper.
3. No link to your personal web page is allowed excepth those written by a RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY. sorry, ntcc doesn't recognize you as an authority.
-- Best wishes, Wwjd2009 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Tracy's attempt to push her agenda and not keep this Encyclopedic in nature

1. Tracy, let's talk and come to this from a neutral point of view. I must agree with the other parties it appears you have an agenda you are trying to push, which is against Wiki policy.

I found one of your quotes dated March 7th on the websites you frequent stating: Tracy said...We will make sure that folks who look up NTCC won't just find your propaganda page on Wikipedia...but will find the sources of information of those hoping to keep people as far away from NTCC as possible.

And, hopefully, if you can be kept busy fooling around with loopholes on Wikipedia...you will be kept from fouling up the souls of men and women. End Tracy quote.

What is funny is that ntcc didn't even put this page up. Hanako and others did. Some people slightly edited what Hanako and others said, but even in that I believe Hanako and stedfast worked it out and the result was an article that probably did not please NTCC nor Hanako but like mature adults they agreed.

so why the changes all of a sudden? and with unverifiable information. Plz verify your changes with a newspaper article or encyclopedia.

IF you continue, we'll have to get a mediator and perhaps BAN you from this site. It's happened before but I hate to do that. I am sure you are a wonderful person, so let's work this out. thx. Daddylonglegs2050 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent activity on here is suspicious. And, it is not from a neutral point of view. Also, where are your encyclopedia and newspaper verifiable sources of information? The problem I have is that this is an encyclopedia. Enclyclopedias usually are neutral and point out the good, the bad and the ugly about institutions, people, etc. You don't want to provide both sides of your organization to the viewing public. You don't want it to be known that there is an effort to expose your organization as a cult. It is not immature to require that you not use this Wikipedia as your own personal website and promotional device and to push your propaganda. You don't like that the negative side of your organization is getting exposure. Who are you by the way? Why another anonymous posting? What in the world are you afraid of? TracyTracypelfrey 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are going to tell me that what you've written and Stedfast is Encyclopedic in nature? We'll have to go through it with a fine tooth comb and find out. Also, I will get the references that you want...concerning cults, etc. And, I promise to keep it totally Encyclopedic in nature with references. No problem. See ya later. The strong arm tactics you use in your organization is not going to work here. And if you keep making me out to be someone pushing my agenda...when I am trying to keep this NTCC love fest...balanced...then we will have to use quotes from your leaders about their agenda on individuals. Also, I realize that this was not put up by NTCC...but they have hijacked it for their own private use. It's not right. TracyTracypelfrey 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tracey I don't think they are hijacking anything. I went and read what wiki says about links and sources and daddy long legs and wwjd2009 is right. Only official websites and no blogs or personal websites. Since Wiki is running this site maybe we should stick to wikis rules and policies. I like WWJD2009 version it seems very neutral. Livingforgod 22:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tracy, why do you sound so angry for? Let's keep this professional in nature. You saying you want to expose someone as a cult, does not sound too friendly. Wiki policy states we are not to attack one another, but I feel threatened by you. Tomorrow I'll try and read thru mediation, or if someone else can, that would be great too. Then we can work thru this together. I am sure stedfast & hanako & livingforGod and whomever else wants to help, we can get thru this and produce an edifying article for all to read. Wwjd2009 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok count me in. Stedfast 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back

I've been away, and haven't kept up with anything NTCC-related in quite awhile. But I see it's time for me to get back here and contribute. I agree that we need to work together. I realize that "compromise" is a bad word in NTCC, but it's needed here. I feel that this article needs a "controversy" section. You cannot leave the article the way it is without saying there are people who disagree with NTCC's practices. This is significant. We aren't talking about one or two people, or one or two points of contention. An encyclopedia would state that there was controversy with a link to Factnet, at least. Mormonism has a whole article called Criticism of Mormonism. We could at least have one section within the article that briefly states that there is controversy. Isn't it telling that NTCC arranges their doings so that there will never be sources? That's an attribute of a controling cult. "Neutral" does not mean we cannot state anything "negative". Neutral means it needs to sound as though it was written by a third party - someone that doesn't not have a vested interest in what is said, and that the article will not be one-sided when there is, in fact, more than one side. Looking forward to the dicussion. Hanako 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hanako, i've got no problem with the word 'compromise' in context of this article. As far as a link to factnet, that is not allowed. External links cannot be to an unreliable source, that's wiki policy.

As far as the fact that you say there isn't much out there on ntcc, it's not becz of as you say, the control factor, it's more so becz of the age of the church. Already there is more than there ever has been, and I'm sure that it will continue to grow as the years go by. Wwjd2009 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that whatever we post, must be in accordance with the Wiki policy as follows. In fact, really if we save a page and are not abiding by this policy, then we are 'lying' Here is what it says on this page when I click save: Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be ATTRIBUTABLE TO A RELIABLE SOURCE. You AGREE to license your contributions under the GFDL.

Hanako, I'm sure you could find people that would not agree with a lot of things. So does that mean that every page on Wiki has to have a criticism page also about it and describing those that oppose or have opinions about someone, a place, religion, etc? Then you have your claims and factnet. None of that stuff is proveable in a court of law, its all hearsay.....the he said, she said crowd.

If anyone wants to know the history of NTCC and write this article, the only one that is really a reliable authority would be Pastor R.W. Davis himself. He is the one who could write the history. I would think even Rev. M.C. Kekel could also and he is writing a history on NTCC, but not for wikipedia, it is for the organization's purposes. Stedfast 08:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Stedfast, how do you come to the conclusion that Kekel could write the history when he wasn't there? There were other men around when Davis left his other organization and started this one. They (more than one) have quite a different story than Davis tells. Things that would stand up in a court of law. I am not trying to include those items here. You are missing Hanako's point...which is basically that Encyclopedias are neutral in nature. Your posts on this article are bias in nature. The elements that are missing are those which complete the "picture" of NTCC...which is the fact that their peculiar doctrines have created a wave of criticism against this church...because many consider it a cult. In trying to find that middle ground...you and others like you do not want to include anything which you deem as criticism which makes you "look bad". Your organization is what it is. To produce a neutral, enclopedic-type article...all elements must be present...otherwise, it's nothing more than a puff piece and propaganda. I'm in the middle of a big project this weekend. When I can settle into this on Monday...I will give you an idea of what I mean. You can do some research yourself by looking up a subject in an online encyclopedia...and see how they are written. It is not written to 'preach', but to inform. TracyTracypelfrey 13:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To all, i think both of you are right in a way. This reminds me of the book of Job. :0) anyways, Whatever is included must meet Wikipedia's guidelines, and that is it must be ATTRIBUTABLE TO A RELIABLE SOURCE. Which is either another encyclopedia or a recognized authority by the 'company' in question. Which is perhaps what Stedfast is referring to. I don't talk to her, so I can't read her mind. I am taking a stab at what I am thinking she is saying, and that is that Kekel or Davis would be a Wikipedia Reliable source. Of course, you may say, Well there isn't much info out there yet. That may or may not be true. If it is, well then, should we break Wikipedia's policies then? or just be patient and wait. As time goes on, there will be more information coming. I'd rather be patient and do it right, and according to their policy, then act hastily and break Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has already suffered much criticism via the news and web becz people have hijacked articles and hurt other organizations and even people, so they are trying to clean their image and that is why they came up with these policies. Therefore, if we are going to post on their site, we must abide by it. Chow. Wwjd2009 21:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WWJD2009, you said "I am taking a stab at what I am thinking she is saying, and that is that Kekel or Davis would be a Wikipedia Reliable source" That is right and that is what I was saying. I think we should be patient and wait because there is not enough information yet to do this page correctly. Also I didn't write this page, I only edited some things Pelfrey and other exers had put in here, but this page is NOT accurate completely. As I understand it, Rev Kekel is writing the history and getting the information from Pastor Davis himself, this is what I remember he had told me. Of course I don't speak for him, I'm just going on what he told me a few months ago from my memory. He is not doing it for Wikipedia however as I stated. But when he does publish the history, if he does end up publishing it online, then I'm sure we could link to it.

If one of us tries to write an official encyclopedic entry for NTCC, we really are not a reliable source because NONE of us was there when it all started, right? So why try and risk getting it wrong? KWIM? Stedfast 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone is not reading the guidelines of Wikipedia correctly. To believe that nothing can be posted which isn't from an Encyclopedia or a newspaper is just not taking the guidelines in context. Neitehr is the "reliable source" part.

NTCC gets what it deserves

Because of the narrow-minded ignorance of the world outside of NTCC, the loyal followers of the "Apostle" R.W. Davis deserve to have this article as a stub. Davis is not an apostle as he so selfishly claims in a wonderful, narcissistic fashion. See [[2]]. God has to designate an apostle, Davis designated himself. NTCC teaches hatred and judgmentalism instead of love and tolerance. Guess what, Jesus himself was loving and tolerant. Jesus always helped the sinner, many times in the middle of a sinful lifestyle. NTCC doesn't deliver anyone from sin, just teaches a person other sins while claiming to be sinless. Hatred, backbiting, kicking people out of church, intolerance, judgmentalism, condescension, etc. are all the common sins of NTCC.

JaMikePA 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)