Talk:Real Life Ministries/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Real Life Ministries. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Disambiguate?

There are lots of "Real Life Ministries", most, if not all, are unrelated. Please disambiguate. --LanceHaverkamp 03:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are but this is the only one on Wikipedia. It's hard to disambiguate if there aren't any other pages. Feel free to do so if you feel something is needed. Bg357 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries

::The Real Life Ministries Wiki Page was launched at 22:31, 4 June 2006 by BG357. In a limited 30 hours and 37 minutes, 11 revisions were made by BG357.

22:31, 4 June 2006 Bg357 (Talk | contribs) (new page)
05:08, 6 June 2006 Bg357 (Talk | contribs) (→External links)

A spellcheck was the next revision:

Revision as of 08:01, 28 June 2006 (edit) (undo) Mboverload (Talk | contribs) m (Limited spellcheck + minor fixes READ ME using AWB)--Mountainview (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is undeniable that Real Life Ministries is a notable church of growth both in numers as well as in church plants in neighboring communities. Two questions that bear consideration: 1. Is RLM's presence beneficial or a detriment to the Kingdom of God? 2. Should that organizations marketing promoters/staff have unfettered freedom to delete factual and material references that are substantiated by third party news agencies that might detract from their mass-media success? A third question might be argued: If the Real Life Ministries is investigated and found in error, and those errors were previously posted on Wiki, what impact would sustained deletions by BG357 (most certainly upper staff of RLM) have on Wikipedias integrity? 05:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)MountainviewMountainview (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have your "story" a little backwards. 1TruthTracker (talk) is the one who has repeatedly deleted "factual and material references that are substantiated by third party news agencies", I have been reinstating those references. Bg357 (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Try as you might BG357, you cannot wipe away the stain of Purpose Driven Error - YOU REMOVED THE CITATION AND REFERENCE! Revision as of 05:00, 12 March 2008 Bg357 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_Life_Ministries&diff=197652627&oldid=197420592--Mountainview (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never denied making the edit you've cited here. I explained exactly what I had done in the edit summary, when I removed your comments.[1] The reference to that Spokesman-Review article already existed in the reference list so I removed your improperly placed inline citation, I also removed your comments due to irrelevancy. One member of the staff mentioning that they read a particular book, doesn't mean that the church was founded solely on the principles found in that book, as you seem to assume. If there had been a quote in the article from a pastor or elder that said "we founded this church based on the principles found in such & such a book", then you would have had a point in posting something about it in the article. As it stands, that particular comment was inconsequential & irrelevant, which is why it was removed. The article remained in the reference list for anyone to read and draw their own conclusions. Bg357 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

White-Wash this all you wish BG357, but you cannot duck this one! (pun intended) Your deletion of my comment and labeling it irrelevant reveals your inside ties to RLM. This is supposed to be a neutral commentary on an encyclopedic entry, not you PR venue! You are not an innocent contributor/editor of Wikipedia. Rather you are the spin master who meticulously selects what will be included and what will be deleted. You wish to have 247% growth exhalted, that you initially got wrong, yet deny the influence of Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Church on the minds and hearts of the founding two couples. As for Jim Putman, there is controversy over whether he considered this pioneer effort even worth his time to pray about it...though he did promise to pray. We are left to speculate on what he did. It wasn't long befpre the Church Development Fund came knockin' at his door!--Mountainview (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've clearly stated why your comment was removed. Your agenda is very clear from your recent posting. Bg357 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes BG357...you did make it very evident: You deemed a link to PDC was irrelevant from your perspective as author of this WP Page in that it detracted from the image you wished to present. THAT IS NOT NEUTRAL - that is controlling and manipulative. This is the exact reason why a controversy exists at all!--76.182.157.18 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have shown over and over that the Spokesman Review (your third party news agency) is not factual. Also the references to the "continued current growth" that you state cannot be used because using only 2004-2006 data, supplied by the church itself, cannot substantiate "current" growth...only past growth. Current growth would only be an assumption as I have said before. Even past growth is questionable, because the numbers were provided by the church which is biased information. It appears you must have some affiliation with the church to continue trying to push only positive assumptions about the church which, again, is not encyclopedic content.--1TruthTracker (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot show that the Spokesman-Review isn't factual. The Spokesman-Review is a reputable, mainstream news organization and it's reporting is acceptable as reliable sourcing for Wikipedia articles, according to WP:VER.

The continued growth claim is based on the most recent verifiable data available. If the upcoming Outreach Magazine growth survey, or any other verifiably sourced growth survey, shows a lack of continued growth, I will be happy to remove the claim myself. If there is to be a change of the continued growth claim, it will have to be backed up by verifiable sourcing, as required by Wikipedia guidelines.Bg357 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did show that the Spokesman Review isn't factual. Their population number that they used to show the population of Post Falls wasn't even acurate. They didn't verify factual information from a current census [2]. They used the numbers that RLM gave them. Just like they used only the information that RLM gave them about their attendance. They didn't verify the numbers. Same thing with the Outreach Magazine. They used unverifiable numbers that RLM gave them, as shown in their own article [3]. It's RLM posting their numbers by proxy, which is not to the standard of Wikipedia; and not from a factual, verifiable, unbiased source with a NPOV. You cannot base your claim of CURRENT growth on 2 year old information given to the source by RLM themselves. I am not posting on the article that their growth diminished because, I have no current proof of an outside, unbiased source just like you can't post your assumuption that they have continued growth with outdated, biased information posted, by the company themselves, on another forum such as a newspaper. If that were the case, then I could take out an ad in the local newspaper stating diminished growth for the church and with your own reasoning state that as a reliable source to add to the article. You, yourself, removed a reference to a blog on the CDAPress newspaper stating that it wasn't a reliable source. I, however, did show, with your same "reputable source" that it indicated that RLM's attendance was diminishing, currently, for the simple fact that the new building to be built on the new property, seated 100 LESS people than the current property's new building they wanted to build. Wikipedia's rules have to apply to everyone equally. BTW, I do not edit under any other name or IP address but "1TruthTracker", no matter what your discriminiating, assumptions indicate. --1TruthTracker (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You continue to miss the point! You cannot show that the Spokesman-Review isn't a reliable source because you're a nobody, just like I'm a nobody. Wikipedia considers mainstream newspapers to be reliable sources and no amount of nitpicking on your part will change that fact.

Secondly, I can't believe you're trying to claim diminishing attendance based on auditorium size. The current auditorium is 1700 seats, the planned auditorium at the new site will be 3500 seats. You're trying to create a discrepancy based on an old master plan?? The only relevant fact is the current auditorium size (1700 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium (3500 seats). Bg357 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is ethical to permit skunk BG357 to repeatedly purge additions to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Life_Ministries> that remove references to his community's true nature: an emmitter of questionable scents?... Is there a Wiki policy prohibiting the Object of Community Review from deleting qualified comments and references that detract from Real Life Ministries advertising goals? Current revisions are tantamount to Bill Clinton deleting documented analysis of a blue dress from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton> that links to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.157.18 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel I have somehow thwarted your agenda. I have no interest in Real Life Ministries' "advertising goals", my only concern is upholding the standards of the Wikipedia community. The remainder of your diatribe is veritably incomprehensible, but you seem to be upset about something. If you can summon a cogent thought, perhaps we can discuss it reasonably. Bg357 (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion from Prior Tagging

Apparently, this discussion page has become the playground of the "ScrewLoose Society", who have no concept of NPOV. There's nothing wrong with this article. The subject is notable, the assertion of notability is cited. Those who happen to dislike the subject have no grounds to vandalize or delete this article. Bg357 (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my potential errant attempts to address the following issue. I am too new to scripts and codes. Please have patience while I contest the attempt by leadership at Real Life Ministries to delete this page.

Apparently, Real Life Ministries bg357 has resolved that certain information posted at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Life_Ministries > contained inaccurate information. Questions were posted in good faith in hopes of inspiring accountability within the community at large. If this deletion is successfully completed, it will not be the first time Real Life Ministries leadership has unduely influenced reputably neutral media sources. In that event, public records will be displayed on another venue immune from RLM's adverse influence to purge information that accurately describes the ministry operations.

The following statement appears to be the reason for the deletion: User talk:Rlmmedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Unfortunately, some of the edits that have been contributed to the Real Life Ministries article have not been accurate.

Community discussion of the issues is reviewable at: http://www.cdapress.com/blogs/?req=read&blogger_id=101&entry_id=513

Rather than make accurate RLM claims and representations, the entire Wiki link has been slated for speedy deletion as detailed below in bold. This is tragic for those placing trust in religious advertising and promotion.

I would think that public relations and accountability for a church in the top one hundred of the fastest growing churches in America would conduct their affairs in a more credible manner. User talk:Bg357 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [edit]Speedy deletion of Real Life Ministries

A tag has been placed on Real Life Ministries, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit]Speedy Deletion of above article Hi, I saw several edits from a user called Rlmmedia who keeps adding and deleting huge chunks of the article. I saw that they were responsible for the last several edits and thought it was a COI, but I guess that wasn't the case for the actually article. That's why I asked for the articles speedy deletion. It had turned into blatant advertisting Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to Afd

I strongly believe that the article about Real life ministries should REMAIN on Wiki. Real life ministries is a historical figure in the Pacific Northwest and will become more of an icon as the truth about the leadership and comes to light. I believe that if the creators of this page (real life ministries) wants to have it quickly deleted AFTER VERIFIABLE TRUTHS have been posted, there is something extremely wrong about that. I find it also very interesting that March 2nd, 2008, Jim Putman preached on TRUTH and now he wants the TRUTH erased and speedily deleted. WHY?

The truth should be allowed to be posted in a NON BIASED way. The history of real life ministries should be kept on wikipedia. It's just as important as Rick Warren's Saddleback church, Jimmy Swaggert, Jimmy Baker, Jim Jones; there SHOULD be a Jim Putman, he's just as historical as those previously mentioned. If Real Life Ministries is removed so should every person and every organization. If it should remain, the whole truth should be posted IF it's VERIFIABLE; like recorded documents from the county records department, historical records from RLM themselves (not just made up stuff from whole cloth), articles printed in local newspapers and such. The items that RLMMEDIA tried to removed was PROVABLE from those sources.

To sum up my position on this nomination for speedy deletion; I WANT Real Life Ministries article here to stay with the whole truth. Thank you for allowing me to put in my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Response, my nomination for deletion has to do with the lack of secondary sources establishing the notability of this church. These are required per [[WP:N|notability] policy. Also local orgs require 2ndary sourcing to prove notability, please have a look at these guidelines to see what can be added. WP is not about truth as much as WP:V verifiability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The church is written about in several books including "church is a team sport" by Jim Putman. As for the verifiable sources, there are many that were added to this article and were then erased by the leadership within the church as it's damaging to their character; as it proves that they are corrupt but that's neither here nor there. The church is a historical figure worldwide as they are all over and spreading. I will look at the notability policy as well as the others noted by yourself and I will do what I can to prove it's notability to you and WP. Please give me a little time to do this before you act on the deletion of this page. Thank you for your contribution as it WP shouldn't be filled with junk (but I don't think RLM is junk). Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion will usually run for approximately five days, although it can be relisted to establish consensus if necessary. Information should always be neutral and factual, not be skewed to present the church in a good or bad light. I wasn't involved in the previous incarnations of this article to know what the content was. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

also note that if the book's author is the Jim Putnam who is senior pastor of the church, that is neither an independent nor a reliable source. I'm linking this discussion to the deletion discussion, but you should comment there as well as it's created as location for centralised discussion. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was looking over WP policies and was wondering what policy are you sighting cause to delete this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion: WP:ORG for local organizations and WP:RS for independent reliable sources TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What I removed....

1) The link in the first paragraph attesting to the church's growth doesn't work -- it's a dead link and the fact needs to be cited so I added the {{fact}} tag. 2) The mission statement is not even remotely encyclopedic as a copy paste statement. The mission statement can be explained in a sentence or linked to on the Ministries' site but it's not encyclopedic. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reinstate AfD message

Obviously the church leadership feels that they can do whatever they want and ignore posted "warnings" not to delete certain content on this article. I found that I cannot "undo" their removal of the "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" warning. I guess the church leadership feels that they can settle this matter themselves without anyone elses approval. If they were not trying to hide the truth from their congregation, and anyone else, then why avoid the discussion and try to remove all of the proven facts on the Wiki article. They even put back on the old "Mission statement", from their old website (that no longer exists -- www.rlmin.org) that you removed, stating that it is from their current website, when in fact it can be proven, by going to their website, that the same thing is not even on there. It is different. And if you go to the Secretary of the State of Idaho's website; and look at their "Articles of Incorporation", they have indeed been recorded with the State as a "Church of Christ" church. Isn't a recorded document enough "proof" to reflect in their first paragraph, cited as such, the truth? Please do not let this church leadership "bully" or intimidate another organization, such as yourself, to hide the truth. Thank you. --1TruthTracker (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Church Development Fund

I removed a section several lines long describing the Church Development Fund, which would be fine in an article about the CDF but isn't here. If we need to describe the beliefs of RLM we should do it directly, and not by describing their funding organization. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other groups

I find that there are other groups called Real Life Ministries. Do we know if they are related, or too small to be mentioned, or should we disambiguate? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

They definitely need disambiguation. --LanceHaverkamp 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance W. Haverkamp (talk • contribs)

References

..for what they are worth...

DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: References

They are all the same church. Real Life Ministries took over the former "Crossroads Christian Church" in Boise, in April '07; and changed their name to Real Life Ministries-Boise. Just another church plant (take over) by RLM. The book on amazon.com is written by Jim Putman the senior pastor/elder at Real Life Ministries, Post Falls, Idaho. The 3rd article was just stating that Real Life Ministries did the funeral for a local family here in Idaho.

I feel that the reference about the Church Development Fund only giving money to churches of a particular faith is relevant to describe RLM, since they don't want to show it anywhere else. Can I reference the church as being a church by that faith and link it to the article about CDF, instead of listing it as just a non-denominational church? Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that clarifies it a lot. Many of us are not familiar with the church and that's why this knowledge helps. I think the Pastor's book could be mentioned in a line about him, but it should not be used as a source because it's not independent. It appears to be a notable book, however.

I don't know why the references are being locked to that particular website. Both references to the Church Development Fund don't go to anything. Does anyone know why? Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There were two points I was making up there. Yes, all the references I gave above are for the Post Falls RLM. Some of the other organizations I found are here. I'm assuming they are not all the same ministry...

DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture of the lock next to the "church development fund loan criteria" doesn't prevent it from being linked directly to their website on that page. However, I cannot find out why #4 either won't go to the website or it shows the link. Maybe someone else can fix it. Thanks.--1TruthTracker (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. For whatever reason, the link you (guessing it was you) used didn't work so I linked to the general overview. That seemed to back up the claim and from there the user can navigate to what they need. I think that works? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Facts

I placed a fact on this article that BG357 removed that can be backed up with the reference to the church development fund loan criteria. I placed it back on because Real Life Ministries has several multi-million dollar loans with this company that only will loan money to churches who "exemplify the characteristics of congregations and ministries that came to be identified with what historians have called the Restoration Movement, led in the early 1800s by Barton W. Stone and Thomas and Alexander Campbell". Therefore, Real Life Ministries HAS to possess these characteristics in order to receive monies from the CDF, no exceptions. It is FACT. BG357 also changed the exact quote from the CDF website that I posted directly from CDF's website regarding the building of RLM in 1999 and their weekly attendance....see reference. If RLM has a difference of opinion, they need to discuss that with CDF. We can only go by what facts the CDF puts on their website regarding the loans that they give churches. Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement you've added regarding CDF's loan criteria is irrelevant to this article. It might be relevant to describe CDF's activities & loan criteria in an article about CDF but this article is not about CDF. You've removed pertinent information describing the type of church and replaced it with CDF jargon that has no relevance to this article. Bg357 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right it's not about the CDF, however, it is still FACT. To use just the word Evangelical or non-denominational is too broad a view to describe anyone specific in an encyclopedic way. Unless BG357 can prove that RLM doesn't possess these characteristics then the description, described and agreed to by leadership at RLM in order to obtain loans from CDF, should stay and is completely relevant to describe their OWN characteristics from a NPOV.--1TruthTracker (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Citations

Is there something that anyone can do about various people deleting verifiable and substantiated citations and references to the Real Life Ministries article?--1TruthTracker (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it the IP? I'm still trying to work my way through. If it's getting vandalized, it could be semi-protected but I haven't yet made heads or tails of it. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MSN groups is just a host to hold photos of the actual documents. The photos of RLM's finacial records are real, unaltered and can be easily verified by RLMs staff (If they deny the authenticity I would like to know here). The photos of the Copies of the Kootenai county records are also real and unaltered). Every photo there is authentic. Again, MSN groups is just a host to hold photos of actual documents so they can be verified. If MSN isn't a reliable verifiable place, can you give us a place or recommend a reliable place to do such? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of RLMs staffers (BG357) are asking for citations and claiming some facts are unsubstantiated. BG357 knows that it's a bogus claim that they are unsubstantiated. These are facts and are easily substantiated by photos of the actual Couer d Alene Press articles hung in the lobby of RLM's main building (west wall). Is there a host for photos that can be reliable enough for substantiated citations? How about photo's of paid copies of the Kootenai County records? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not an RLM staffer, I am not affiliated in any way with RLM staff, and never have been. I originally put this article together based on a series of newspaper stories in 2006. I hadn't reviewed the article for some time and recently discovered that it had once again been ravaged by vandalism and was being considered for deletion. I am doing what I can to fix problems with the article and get it properly sourced. I don't intend to stand by and let the article be deleted because of unverifiable sourcing and poorly considered edits. Bg357 (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Replying to BG357, you are a horrible liar. YOU are the ONE who tried to speedily deleted this article when the facts where coming out. YOU are also the one who NEVER upheld ANY standards (as the history shows--No NPOV, no citations, no verifibility, not one standard you tried to hold everyone else to-again like an RLM staffer, do as I say not as I do) of WIKI UNTIL it was the only way you could try to hide the TRUTH about the REAL RLM from coming out. YOU can claim all you want that you're not an RLM Staffer but that's too bad no-one with an iq greater than 45 will fall for it. IF you're going to lie, you should try to do it where there isn't such a detailed recorded history of YOU DOINGS. IF you're going to lie through your teeth (like an RLM Staffer) maybe you should claim you invented the internet, paperclip or the post-i-note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, let me suggest you relax just a bit... put on some soothing music... maybe up your meds a little... Bg357 (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to both. The issue with MSN groups and other similar sites is that there's no editorial oversight to ensure that the photos/documents are authentic and haven't been doctored with . (This is a general statement, not alleging that anyone involved here or within any particular article would falsify docs). Is the information not available via the county clerk's office or other reliable source? Otherwise I'm not really sure how this can be resolved with a difference of opinion and WP:COI issues. I know the only thing I tagged for source has been tahen care of by Truth Tracker (I think, lost track of who sourced it). TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The recorded documents at the county (eg the $771,400 loan, the conditional use permit and such) are available at the county but not online. The photos of the presses articles are in the lobby of Real life ministries but since they are the ones making the assertion of unsubstantiation claims, I doubt they would make a reliable source either. The press has the articles archived but they charge to see such documents. Would dates and names of articles in the local press be a reliable enough citation? I understand that photos can be altered but is there any sight that does allow such or to send documents to them to have them posted as "reliable" or does sighting the source (eg. Kootenai county records dept, document number) go enough? Obviously, if anyone was slandering or falsifying records, Real life could sue for libel or deflamation but they can't because everything posted is Real and legit. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe county record numbers and print citations are sufficient but I'd suggest checking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as they deal with issues such as this more regularly. While I don't believe Bg357's methods of doing so are the most beneficial s/he does raise a valid point about reliable sources and verifiability. Sadly I think this article is always going to be a battle ground due to an apparent difference in opinion in how the church should be represented. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about citing the Coeur d Alene presses articles date and title of article? Please note The Press is a member of the Associated press. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think those are fine. That's what I meant when I said 'print citations' since I assume you're referring to an article from the paper. I think it's OK with Title. Publication. Date. Page (if possible). TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

Hello, Real Life Ministries. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ANI regarding The issues regarding reliable sources for this article and the apparent COI of some parties. I'm concerned for the stability of the article, which has proven to be a vandalism magnet for quite some time, although there are a lot of good faith edits occurring as well.. The discussion can be found under the topic topic. --TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought this article to the attention of ANI in a hope we can get some stability. Direct link to the discussion... TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable Continued Growth

1TruthTracker (talk) removed a long-standing claim that there has been continued growth in this congregation, saying that it was unsubstantiated. Edit History

I reinstated the phrase and added three citations to independently verify the claim. Edit History

The following citations are more than enough to independently verify continued growth:

1TruthTracker (talk) has again removed the claim and deleted the citations. Edit History

Travellingcari (talk) has recommended I pursue Wikipedia:Third opinion if this cannot be resolved here. Bg357 (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just tighterened up the spacing, BG and replying here for the sake of the conversation in one place. I think Third Opinion is good idea because all of you seem to be connected with the church in some fashion. I'm not saying anyone is directly involved (i.e. employed) or has a conflict of interest, however someone mentioned above knowing that there were certain articles hanging on a church wall, etc. and I think it's hard to neutrally assess something you're (general you, not either BG or Truth) so close to, does that make sense? It also helps to avoid three revert as I do't want to see either of you blocked. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My Response

Regarding these last references that I removed, they are not current. The reports were made off of information from the year before (ie: 2007 was for info received for 2006 attendence); and they were given to them by Real Life Ministries themselves. How do you know that the attendence for 2007 and the first 3 months of 2008 went up? It could have gone down. If you look at the last 5 years of CDA Press and Spokesman Review articles, reports from various magazine articles, claims from the church's own website, CDF's articles, bulletins from the church, and Jim's book, none of the numbers match up and they are all different to a large degree. At first the church claimed to have grown to 1,600 their first year. It was actually approx. 400 (as seen on the CDF website). They claimed on their website that they averaged 8,000 in attendance with 12,000 on Easter of '07. Now they've changed that down to 7,000. They have claimed to have 8,000 in attendance in a city of 18,000 people (Post Falls). Post Falls actually has a population of 33,009 ('07 census). And people attend RLM from more than just the town of Post Falls. People from Coeur d'Alene, Spirit Lake, Athol, Hayden, Hayden Lake, Dalton Gardens, Rathdrum, Twin Lakes, Harrison, Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley and Spokane attend RLM. All of the cities added together are more than 300,000! RLM also, on their website, claims to have the 124 acres paid for in full. According to the county records that claim is not substantiated in the least. There are many more examples, but I think this shows the consistantly inflated claims of RLM. I think that the article is still lacking alot of information from a NPOV and in a true substantiated form. However, in it's simplist current condition it is fine for now. I don't think that the preposition "With their congregation continuing to grow", detracts from the fact that they bought another piece of property and obtaining yet another mortgage. I also don't think that I am being unreasonable with my arguments. I would like to know honestly how BG357 is associated with the church; and what his/her reasoning is for trying to have this article "speedily deleted", and continuing to remove encyclopedic content from this article? I live in the area of the church and read the newspapers here everyday. I have noticed how big and often-talked-about this subject is here. That's how I notice all of the inconsistant claims of the church. I do have a NPOV concerning this article and want to see this article with true content. Not written with biased claims in one direction or the other. Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your personal issues & agenda, in regards to the subject of this article, are irrelevant to this discussion. The issue here is your removal of verifiably sourced material. Your "response" is nothing but conjecture, no sources, no verifiability, no nothing. You can't remove verifiably sourced content based on nothing more than conjecture. The claim of continued growth is based on several years of verifiable data, up to and including the latest report. When the 2008 report comes out, there will be verifiable data that either supports the current position or it won't, until then, the latest verifiable report stands. In other words, until there is verifiable information that disputes the current trend, the trend stands. You can't just suppose that it might have gone down, based on nothing. If you have some verifiable source that demonstrates a lack of growth, then by all means, please cite it.

We're free to make all sorts of suppositions in our personal lives, but on Wikipedia, we don't have that luxury. As it says in WP:VER, if I may quote, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That's a tough standard to live with sometimes, but that is our charge as editors. Many things may actually be "True" but cannot be verifiably sourced to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. That's just the way it is, and trust me, it cuts both ways. Bg357 (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Response I have no personal issues or agenda regarding this article. Your responses contain no valid arguments. You want your way or no way (just like when you tried to speedily delete this article). The records (even yours) show that numbers and paragraphs have been changed constantly with no verifiability. There is even no citation to verify the 7,000 attending nor the 12,000 that supposedly attended last Easter. The last report that you are using for evidence was for 2006 attendence. The percentage of growth fluctuated the 4 years before; so how can you verify that the attendence grew for 2007 and the beginning of 2008? You are SPECULATING as to their growth, which is not Wikipedia content WP:NOR. I had changed the wording in the article to reflect as such, however, since speculation is not allowed on Wikipedia, I will remove the speculative phrase entirely. Trends can be broken. I can't speculate that the attendence went down, just like YOU can't speculate that the numbers went up. Let me quote Wikipedia's WP:NOR, "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1TruthTracker (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(1)My response doesn't depend on arguments and speculation, I have verifiable sourcing citations, that's what Wikipedia is all about. It's not about "my" way, it's about the "right" way. The right way involves verifiable sourcing citations, not conjecture and angry accusations. Once again, let me encourage you to review WP:VER, which is the applicable guideline here. WP:NOR refers to No Original Research, which could be applicable in that you cannot cite your own ideas about the verifiable growth statistics, or speculate that growth has suddenly stopped, despite verifiable published sources.

(2)Repeating a false statement (that I tried to have this article deleted) over & over doesn't make it true. A cursory review of the history log will show that the tag to delete this article first appeared on March 5th, I had not edited this article for over 7 months, at that time. I first discovered that the article had been tagged for deletion on March 10th, which was the date of my first edit since Aug of 2007. It's about time for you to stop with the ad hominem attacks.

(3)Your statement about a lack of citation for the current attendance is completely false. The reference list refers to a Spokesman Review article that verifies that claim. It's right there in black & white! As it says in WP:VER, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources".

(4)I've never said anything to suggest that a trend can't be broken, the key here is that there must be verifiable sourcing to show that the trend has been broken. You have not offered anything verifiable to document a lack of continued growth. You just keep repeating your assumptions that the latest available data is not applicable. And you continue to remove verifiable citations & content with NOTHING to back up your edits. Bg357 (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

Your reference, the Spokesman Review, is not exactly reliable and truthful. You, yourself, removed a statement, on March 12th, that another editor had quoted from the same article "So they contacted Bible colleges and church planting organizations. They also read Rick Warren’s “Purpose-Driven Church". The article also states "When it comes to shepherding a church whose membership equals nearly a third of the population of Post Falls.."; which is completely false. And the information that the newspaper received on their attendance was from Jim Putman. Even the report's information was given to them by the church. You keep saying the reports' data are recent or the latest available. Stating "current and continued growth" has to be verified with current data,...not 2006 data. In the reference to Jim Putman being a speaker at the conferences, Jim Putman himself states "..Real Life Ministries has grown from just five founding members to over 6,000 regular attenders,...". Since the specific number of attendees cannot be verified, it should be removed. And as I've said before, removing the preposition doesn't take away from the meaning of the sentence. And noting that the new building would seat a 100 people less than the proposed building on their current site, would mean that their numbers are decreasing, not increasing, which would indicate the lack of continued growth. You cannot show any verifiable, reliable, neutral, third- party, CURRENT information (sourcing) to document that there is continued, current growth and the burden of proof, according to Wikipedia, is on YOU. I am not using my own assumptions, however, you are. I have given plenty of verifiable reasons why your citations and references are not applicable and use your own references to back up my edits, yet you ignore them. Again the burden of proof is not on me to show that the trend has been broken; but on you to show that it is still continuing to this day. You haven't done that. So, please stop adding them, because it IS speculation.--1TruthTracker (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though my responses on the talk page are being avoided; and there is continuing edits to add assumptions and speculatve info to the article. Why can't this be discussed rationally? Again, RLM is biased and cannot be used as verifiable information. The church, who I've proved has given false numbers before, was the one to give Outreach magazine the attendance numbers as quoted in this statement from the magazine themselves--"More than 20,000 Protestant churches were contacted for the Outreach 100 lists, which includes churches that opted to participate in the study and data that each church provided. The lists are published in Outreach magazine's annual Outreach 100 Special Issue." http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071003/29559_2_Top_100_Largest%2C_Fastest-Growing_Churches.htm. --1TruthTracker (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not proven anything. You have made accusations. Unverifiable accusations are not worthy reasons to delete verifiable sourcing citations and related content. Just because you think the Spokesman Review article is inaccurate, does not change the fact that it IS a verifiable source. You have produced NO verifiable sourcing that directly disputes the accuracy of this source. Random citations from the last several years that indicate differing attendance levels are irrelevant. A congregation that started less than 10 years ago, and has since grown to over 7000, would naturally have many different attendance levels between then and now. Just citing an old attendance number has no bearing on the accuracy of current citations.

I have tried to discuss this issue rationally! You continue to make baseless accusations and delete verifiable citations from this article.Bg357 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I DID produce verifiable sourcing that directly disputes the accuracy of these sources. You ignored it. Here is one: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071003/29559_2_Top_100_Largest%2C_Fastest-Growing_Churches.htm ; and here is the other: http://www.bestplaces.net/zip-code/Post_Falls-Idaho-83854.aspx RLM supplied the data to both sources. --1TruthTracker (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these links mention anything about Real Life Ministries. What "data" do you think RLM provided to these "sources"? Data that isn't even mentioned at the links you've provided.

Your so-called sources show nothing.Bg357 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

After studying the dispute, it seemed a bit more than WP:3O might address effectively on its own, so I listed it on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Real Life Ministries. — Athaenara ✉ 06:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation for $3.2M spent

A citation was requested for a source to verify the $3.2M spent on the new property. Someone posted some sourcing in brackets, instead of referencing it properly. I referenced the citations I believe they were referring to, although I cannot vouch for the accuracy of their claims.

I have copied the information they had in brackets below:

($2Million spent on the land, found at the county recorders office; $438,000 dispursed for required studies-found in 2007 RLM financials; $771,400 loan taken against said property reported in RLM's April newsletter reported needed for "required studies and designs" equalling more than $3,209,400 not including finance charges and other monies spent on this project)

Bg357 (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Let's not have a repeat of the March edit wars here or the article will get re-protected. Discuss rather than revert one another endlessly. Bg, thank you for starting the discussion above. TravellingCari 14:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

BG357 needs to be banned from posting on this site. He is the executive pastor of RLM. His name (BG357) has been found on several gun sites and refers to his name as Brandon that lives in North Idaho. Funny that the same name is the executive pastor whom has posted several hate filled comments on local blogs. He's suspected to be involved in this transaction of mega proportions (suspected to exceed $4 Million of God's money). Again, BG357 needs to be permenantly blocked from editting RLM's wiki page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, wild accusations and convoluted editing have revisited this page! My only concern here is that this article is accurate, readable, properly cited & sourced, and conforming to NPOV. I'm apparently the focus of the irritated, anonymous posting brigade who are determined to turn this article into some kind of a hit-piece, not at all based in verifiable facts.

As I've said before, I'm not a Pastor or any kind of employee of Real Life Ministries, I'm certainly not this Brandon person they constantly bring up.

I have invited this anonymous poster to discuss their edits reasonably, I've even incorporated their edits into a readable & accurate narrative. I've saved their personal figures & tallies on the discussion page, where it belongs, but they're not interested in discussion, they clearly have an agenda. I welcome any neutral party willing to assist with this issue. Bg357 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that Travellingcari mediate BG357's conflict of interest. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately not going to have time to work on this, but I've posted to the COI noticeboard and hopefully a neutral party can weigh in. IP, you have the right to edit anon, of course, I'd just ask one question. Do you have any connection to the church? I'll answer myself, I have none. I'm ~3K miles away and know nothing of it other than the discussions on this talk page and at the AfD. TravellingCari 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

BG357, you are a liar. You are a leader of RLM. You infact are the executive pastor, Brandon G. You have posted your name as well as your location (North Idaho) on gun/hunting blogs. If you really are interested in accuracy of this article then you would have sited accurately. You have not. The citations you put in are not accurate at all and don't show the numbers at all. I will again, put the brake down of the numbers but include your citations. This gives MORE accuracy (as you claim you're after). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a fommer member of RLM. I have NEVER been employed at RLM. I have seen RLM go from a great God lead church to a money hungery lying leadership lead church. I have seen the lies, deception and spin used by the leaders. It's sad but that is neither here nor there, the article needs to be accurate and Brandon needs to be banned from editting. He IS infact a leader of RLM. The executive pastors name is Brandon Gindion (bad spelling) and is infact a gun enthusist. He blogs on gun sites with same "BG357" name and has said his name as Brandon and living in North Idaho. I find it even more sad that an executive pastor of a "mega church" is willing to bold face lie about his ID so he can continue to spin things his way so the truth about the history of RLM isn't told accurately. Since when does God need lies and deception and spin to get His work completed? I appreciate your help in this matter and yet, I understand your time constraints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that this anonymous poster come forward with proof of their accusations. Let's see the posts that you refer to that somehow prove that I'm an employee or Pastor of this church. I'm frankly shocked that you're slandering a person with these accusations who doesn't even know he's being slandered and has nothing to do with this discussion.

To those who might be reviewing this issue, consider the "source" of these allegations and the slanderous implications involved against an uninvolved party. It's very troubling! Bg357 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask, BG357, how his citations are more accurate? Where in the citations are any numbers like I gave posted? Where does BG357 live and what is his connection to RLM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the crux of the matter, I requested a citation for these figures because I was not aware of a reputable source that published them. You seem to be admitting here that there are NO citations that can reliably verify the numbers you posted. That's a problem, according to Wikipedia guidlines. If there are such sources, they should be cited and footnoted. The $3.2M figure can stand by itself with proper sourcing citations, we don't need a math lesson in brackets, of uncited figures.

I tried to help you by placing the footnotes to the sources you claimed to be using, but now you're saying that those figures are not posted anywhere else? I moved your figures to the discussion page for others to review if necessary but they cannot be in the article without proper sourcing citations and if there are verifiable sources, they can be cited without a rather unencyclopedic "math lesson".

I might also add that much of the previous editing altercation in March was about using information that had been potenially sourced from the church itself. Now it seems that some (perhaps the same) anonymous posters are using information from a "church newsletter". I've not made an issue of that because I didn't want to start another edit war on this article, I have simply tried to make sure that the context & citations of those edits were accurate. Besides the numbers issue, this anonymous poster continues to repost their own POV of what those newsletters say, rather than using them in context. Bg357 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also ask BG357 to agree to something since he claims he is not employed at RLM nor the astranged person whom his never heard of, Brandon G; then I'm sure he'd agree with no problem. IF it's found that BG357 is indeed Brandon Giondon, by checking of IP addresses (which BG357 will most graciously agree to show a Neutral party), it will be Publically posted here (and in the local papers as well) that he bold face lied and will step down from his position at RLM and leave the state of Idaho --going back to Oregon and will permenantly be banned from posting/editting on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This slander is utterly breathtaking! I would gladly make my identity available to a third party if they could guarantee that it would not find it's way into the hands of this "potentially unstable" person.

This current editing issue began when this anonymous editor posted the following on August 8th:

"Jim Putman, in June 2008, has announced that RLM will NOT be building on the 124 acre plot of land. This comes after the church officials has dispursed more than $3.2 Million Dollars for the project, including $1.2 Million for "required studies" and designs. To put the waste of $3,200,000 in perspective; in 2007, $29,050 of nearly $7,000,000 in tithes and offerings was dispursed by RLM's officials to their benevolence ministry. That number amounts to approx 0.04% in "benevolence giving". Jim was quoted in the local press as saying "Jesus is ALL IN" about this project but now says, "timing was always in question". There is no official word if Jim will be stepping down, will be fired or will not accept any accountablity for this enormous blunder of a waste of God's money."

That's a pretty blatant violation of NPOV and gives a clear view of the issues & agenda this poster has with the subject of this article. I look forward to third party oversight in this matter. Bg357 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone needs a lesson in definitions. Slander has to be SPOKEN and maliciously untruthful. The facts that I pointed out is TRUTHFUL, 100%. Which numbers were untruthful? I know....the claims from RLM that they give nearly everything to benevolence that comes in as tithes and offerings,,,,RIGHT?

The fact that my IP address is listed, points out that I am LESS anonymous that YOU (IF you didn't put your real name and location available on other blogs (ones that just so happens to have the same points of interest as your history 10mm, 357, ect...), Right brandon? By the way, my "blatant violation of NPOV" was corrected by Travellingcari and myself so try again, if you'd like to review history shall we go back through YOURS? YOU violated so many wiki rules it's not funny including erasing/deleting a protected page. So shall we go through your history? That alone will prove that you are Brandon G, a RLM employee. But I'll ask again, Are you willing to resign from your position at RLM and allow your lies to be publically exposed IF you're found to be Brandon G or posting FROM RLM's IP address? Come on agree, or do you have many things to hide? Are you willing to agree to what I've proposed at 23:31? And why did you not answer the questions of your ties to RLM and your location? I did? I'm the truthful one here and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing worth responding to here, more accusations, no proof. It's just continued evidence of the kind of person this is. Bg357 (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right. of course you'll just leave. I HAVE the evidence, the proof and you know it and that's why you won't agree to anything that your butt can't cash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

'<cross-posted from IP's talk page>'

Do not continue to threaten, harass, or give ultimatums to other users of Wikipedia. We abide by civility, and if you are looking for the line to cross it is far behind you. Tone it down, or you will be blocked to prevent further disruption no matter what truths or facts may or may not be on your side in your opinion. Keegan^talk 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deep breaths, everyone. (Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with any party involved, nor any interest other than that of Wikipedia's integrity).

First of all: IP 98, please stay civil. The most well-thought arguments lose much credibility when wrapped in a personal attack.

Secondly: BG357, your account's history does suggest an affiliation with RLM, especially if IP 98's claims of the Pastor using the same nickname on other forums (evidence please, IP 98?). You do have to agree that the similarity at least appears to be more than coincidental. Bear in mind that the policy on COI does not automatically prevent you from editing the article if you have a conflict (e.g. if you are in fact the pastor). It just means you have to be much more careful when editing to make sure the article stays neutral, and that any claims need to be verifiable by the use of proper citations. Folks like myself who monitor COI's are much more appreciative if any conflicts are acknowledged up front. It shows good faith on the part of the editor with the COI that they want to make every effort to stay within guidelines.

Thirdly: The dispute seems to be over the breakdown of the 3.2M spent on the property. I will remind both parties here that any fact that may be disputed (as this one clearly is), must be properly cited or it may be removed by any editor. The breakdown of the 3.2M in IP 98's edit does not seem to be supported by the citation given. ~~Additionally, Citation 11 is dead and should be fixed or removed.~~ Citation 9 does not appear to be disputed. Therefore, unless a properly cited reference can be given for the breakdown of the money, it should not be included in the article, unless all parties agree here. The breakdown may in fact be 100% accurate, but the standard is Verifiability, not Truth. As it is clearly a disputed claim, it 'must have proper support or it must be removed per WP:V

Everyone please stay civil and calm, and we can avoid an unfortunate situation. Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 15:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Arakunem, I appreciate your impartial viewpoint & input in this matter. I can assure you that I will remain calm. I've gotten a little excitable in the past but life is too short to get too worked up over a wiki-page.

In response to your points, my account history suggests an affiliation with THIS wikipedia article, it does not suggest an affiliation with the church itself. My affiliation with the article stems from the fact that I was the original author of the article. I put it together from a couple of newspaper stories that were running at the time, not any kind of "inside information".

I very much doubt that any evidence will be forthcoming from IP 98, unless they manage to manufacture it themselves. I can assure you that I'm not this Pastor they refer to, I'm not a pastor, employee or staff member of this church. As far as COI, my only interest is that this page is accurate, properly cited & sourced, and conforming to NPOV. That interest has brought me into direct conflict with this editor.

I do post on other websites using the same nickname but my name isn't Brandon so I have no reason to have posted my identity as such.

On your third point, my only problem with the breakdown of the $3.2M is that it's not properly cited and if it can be cited, I see no reason not to just cite it as a statement that $3.2M has been spent, and not subject the reader to a "math lesson" in brackets. If someone questions the amount, or how it adds up, they can read the sources, IMO.

That's not the only issue though. This editor continues to insert their own POV in some of their edits, misconstruing source material, or taking it out of context. If you review the recent reverts, you will find a couple of examples of this that they've repeatedly reinserted. Those bits are sourced from the target of the dead link so we may have to wait for that to come back up before we can resolve that particular issue.

Thanks again for your efforts in this matter Bg357 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

An unfortunate word order in my previous sentence. It would have better read: If IP 98 truly produces evidence that the pastor edits under a similar or identical nick on other forums, then that would suggest a closer connection on your part. Until and unless that happens, I have to consider the accusations unfounded.

As far as the breakdown of the 3.2M: Previous edits seem to indicate that the purpose of the breakdown was to illustrate "wasteful spending" on the part of RLM. While the cite may have supported the breakdown, any assessment of wastefulness is fairly POV and WP:OR. That point seems to have been made, so the latest dispute was to just list the breakdown and let the reader decide. I personally think that including the breakdown by itself is a "so what" sort of item to include if it doesn't POV Push, but at the same time doesn't really add anything to the article by its inclusion.

In short, its current form seems like a proverbial tempest in a teapot, given this article's rather storied history. If the cite source ever does come back, perhaps if the breakdown is included it is as a footnote rather than an inline parenthetical statement? That would include the information that was apparently provided by RLM itself, without subjecting the user to a math lesson, or interrupting the flow of the paragraph. Just a thought. Arakunem^Talk 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the breakdown as a footnote, as long as it can be verifiably sourced. The link that's currently dead doesn't contain any of those numbers, I'm not sure where they got them.

In the past, they were trying to use photographed pages posted on a blog that they purported to be financial documents from RLM.

I actually posted citations 9 & 11 based on where IP 98 said they got the numbers. I was trying to help them cite the numbers they felt were important while not cluttering the paragraph with a bunch of figures. I assumed that once I got them going with the footnotes they could take it from there, adding the correct sources. They apparently weren't happy with that and proceeded with wholesale reverts.

The dead link is the July newsletter that, among other things, gives an update on the building project being delayed because of excessive costs and also mentions ideas to alleviate space constraints. Those were the passages that were being used out of context by IP 98 to insinuate their POV. Bg357 (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome putting the break down of the numbers in the footnote. I have no problem with citing verfiable sources (eg. county records- already cited), Real lifes pages (http://www.reallifeministries.com/on_mission_with_god_faq and http://www.reallifeministries.com/campaign). As for the purported to be financial documents from RLM ( http://groups.msn.com/ChurchHallOfShame/newrlm2007financialoverview.msnw ) there is a way this can be verified; our neutural third party can call or email RLM's (ask them a question) and get them to verify that this is an untouched actual RLM financial document. I'm sure this would do. Since this has changed from a COI to content and verifiablity discussion; maybe BG357's violation of the NPOV / edit warring can be laid to rest. I put information from RLM's July newsletter; stating that Jim Putman also suggested home church instead as an alternative to going to RLM. BG has repeatedly changed it adding "among many other potential measures that could relieve space constraints.". Where in the this para does it say or suggest it's a space relieving idea?: "As an Eldership and Executive Team, we are asking you to pray about the next step for us as a church. Should we start off-site locations, or add on to our existing building as a stopgap? Should we put a smaller temporary building on the new location, and split our campuses to two sites on the weekends? Is there something we are not seeing? Maybe doing church on Sunday in our homes? How do we keep reaching people but not get in over our heads financially?" If anything it's a way RLM can cut cost but that's conjecture as well. I believe my first edit should revert as BG357's edit violates NPOV. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Arakunem for taking up this issue. The fact that Real Life Ministries website is now a deadink goes to support that BG357 is indeed the executive pastor of RLM. He has the power to remove the website that supports the facts and citations. I will provide you with the evidence that proves BG357 is indeed brandon and living in north idaho as soon as BG357 agrees to be banned from editting, steps down as executive pastor (who thinks a pastor should be willing to publically lie to spin information the way he wants anyways?) and allows that information to be publically posted. IF he is not who he claims, then he has absolutely nothing to worry about, right? BG has nothing to worry about if he's not brandon Giondion (executive pastor of RLM), right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: Please do not post any personally identifiable information. Also, as I mentioned above, even if he IS the pastor, WP:COI does not automatically stop him from editing. I invite all parties to read through that policy, including yourself, who as an admitted former and unhappy member, you could be considered to have a COI as well.

As for the removal of Cite-11 from the RLM web site, I agree that the timing of that blanking seems rather suspect. I would hope that good-intentioned editors would not resort to source manipulation, as that's a rather nasty form of POV-pushing. Arakunem^Talk 18:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was alerted to the unlocking of this page by an 'unsigned' contributor who is no longer able to access the Real Life Ministries website. I am successful on a Macintosh, so the error is either the result of coding error relative to Windows (go figure) or blacklisting after a dispute between 'unsigned' and BG357.

I discovered a new link this morning to the International House of Prayer. Deborah Heubert was retained as a worship leader/director by RLM. She hails from IHOP in Kansas City. While seeming inoocent enough promoting the Washington DC prayer event to end abortion and one coming to California to intensify prayer for the sanctity of man-woman marriage, we must be reminded that IHOP and its leader Mike Bickle are the focus of the Kansas City Prophets which also include Rick Joynier, Bill Johnson, and Bob Jones. This group recently attempted to commission Todd Bently as an international apostle, but failed due to a miscalculation with whom Todd was sleeping.

RLM is but a pee in a pot of deceptive soup that gets poured from the same vat. These ministries, as God's anointed - don't touch me, refuse accountability even to Senator Grassley. It is true that RLM is continuing to experience growth, though it is of a transfer growth / revolving door nature and no longer exponential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainview (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot one issue: citations. I have provided citations from credible sources in the past regarding transfer growth and the foundation upon which RLM was launched that were deleted due to COI with RLM promotions. Those links are no longer available to me and would likely be dead links, though at the time, they would have validated my claim. As for BG357, every effort should be exhausted to validate his identity as either non-related neutral or executive pastor at Real Life Ministries.20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainview (talk • contribs)

Any links you provided in the article in past will still be there in the History tab. Looking back over the last couple from March, I see several blog-type entries, which are not normally considered reliable sources. Arakunem^Talk 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate Arakunem addressing the COI issue as well. I understand that I too may be in violation of the COI but I am not the one hiding my affilation or employment to RLM. I would like BG357 to say what his affilation to RLM is and where his location is. I would also like to simply challenge BG to the truth. If he is found to be lying (as a executive pastor of a "mega church") I think it's not too much for him to be volentarily be banned from editting (at the minimum Real Life Ministries article). I'm sure he'd never agree or actually hold to his word that he'd step down from his position at RLM nor publically admit that he's a liar on wiki. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(Responding to a couple of above sections here. This page is getting hard to read, so I'm going to try to keep it linear). Regarding the COI: I have not seen any evidence to show a COI on the part of BG357. There's been plenty of suggestions and accusations, but the closest thing I see to a connection is the letters BG, and that does not hold up to the standard of proof. If you have some real evidence, such as the pastor on record as saying he posts on Wikipedia under that nick, or BG357 saying somewhere else that he both edits here and is affiliated with RLM, then that evidence can be evaluated. Until then, I have to ask you to stop making that accusation. Wikipedia has very specific guidelines when it comes to verifiability of a claim such as this.

To be perfectly frank, your edits are more concerning to me on the COI level. As an admitted former member, and one unhappy with RLM's current state, some of your edits have been rather tenditious in nature. I can certainly understand the passion that religion brings, but please read the link in the previous sentence and understand that Wikipedia is not the place to air those passions out. Everything in the article must be neutral in tone, not steering the reader to either a favorable or unfavorable view of the subject. Since you have an admitted tie to the subject, you are the one more likely to be barred from editing this article if you show a bias either way.

Regarding verifying the financial document by contacting RLM: Please see WP:OR and realize that this would not be considered proof here and would still be removable under the OR policy on Wikipedia. WP:RS describes the criteria under which the documents could be properly sourced. Arakunem^Talk 13:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand about the photoed document. How about the other two citations?

As for the standard of proof for COI, no I don't have a recording of Brandon admitting that. I have found,however, several recordings of Brandon and senior pastor, Jim Putman blattenly lying about money issues and ECFA certification (these have been posted on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/censoredbeliever ) I understand that this along with BG357's history (complete history: please take a while and go back through what he's erased from his talk page, what article's he's started both RLM and Jim Putman articles and verify the information he claims was in the local press article (some was but alot was not). Where does BG reside; what county? There is a reason why this question needs to be asked of him and answered. I appreciate a complete investigation on this. Again, I've been honest and have not hid anything. I've been forthright and honest and not evading questions of me or to me. I wish it could be said of BG. Again, there's a reason for these questions. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Other 2 cites seem reasonable, albeit technically primary sources. As for the youtube clips, I don't see your point in bringing them into the COI discussion.... you had mentioned that the clips along with BG's edit history pointed to a COI? Remember that the COI policy doesn't stop COI editors from editing, so again, even if BG is Brandon G, as long as his edits don't POV push, but stay neutral, they're still allowable. The recent edits from BG on this article have been to remove some fairly POV edits from others. (Everybody got a little nuts back in March, and for the most part everybody has cooled off from that, so I'm only going back to the unprotect of the article).

Remember too (for everybody), that criticism is OK in the article if properly sourced. That usually will look something like "RLM was criticised by <x> for <y>" followed by the supporting citation. Things like "This shameful wasting of funds..." is not considered proper, as it is very POV-pushing. However, a cited quote that "Local Official <x> said that <y> was shameful" is ok, if properly cited. Hopefully the difference is visible there. "This shameful..." is an opinion, while "Joe Public said that's shameful" is a fact, if properly cited.

If it is factual and supported by cite, then it can be used in the article without concern over COI or POV. The article should read like an encyclopedia, not a blog or even a magazine article. It needs to be neutral, even so far as to say cold and distant from the topic. If we can all agree to follow this guideline, then anybody's COI becomes much less of a problem, on either side of the fence. Arakunem^Talk 19:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited the youtube videos to show that Brandon G as an executive pastor has no problem looking someone in the eye and bold face lying so why would he have a problem lying when he's hiding behind a PC? With that said, it appears that COI isn't a problem as long as he (and I) stop edit warring. I'm new with wiki and I don't have a problem citing and trying to stay to a NPOV. I've had problems with bg doing the same. He doesn't want anything negative to be editted into this article and I feel it's wiki material and staying to a NPOV. Even if it's a NPOV and negative BG357 edits it, spins it to a positive light and if he can't spin it, it's erased. He's inserted things like "until it becomes economically feasible." when referring to the halting of the building plans and "among many other potential measures that could relieve space constraints." when referring to the pastor suggesting home church. Neither of the comments are correct, both are unfounded and POV push either a view of financially responsible or trying to relieve space problems which again both are unfounded. I understand that my previous edit pushed the opposite view but I corrected it and stayed to a NPOV (even consulted with Travellingcari to make sure it was holding to a NPOV) and had to eliminate alot of information that I think is wiki material.

I'd like to run a possible edit by you. Would it be wiki to add an edit that goes something like this:

RLM's senior pastor has been criticized in an July 15th 2006 CDA Press article for lack of financial accountability. The Elders of RLM responded in an letter to the editor claiming they were currently seeking ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) certification. As of Aug 2008 RLM has not been denied nor approved ECFA certification. A typical application takes approx 12 weeks to approve or deny an applicant. No information has been released why this application has taken such a long time.

Is youtube a proper citation? Like senior and executive pastors have been recorded lying to a former member. Thanks to the 37 state single party notification laws pertaining to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording .

I'm not sure how to put another wiki link within but I'll figure it out. Would either of those or parts of those edits be acceptable?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. They go a long way to show good faith. Yes, properly sourced criticism is acceptible, and removal of a properly cited critical statement suggests a POV. Your proposed edits seem reasonable (again, if properly cited), though the last sentence about why its taking a long time, might be questionable. It may be taking longer than "normal", but it that also means it has not been denied, so the statement could be construed as leading. As a comparison, a subject I had great interest in, the merger of XM and Sirius Satellite Radio companies, took 18+ months before it was approved. Those kind of things normally take less than 6 months to be approved or rejected. This took 3 times as long, but in the end, it was approved, so the delay didn't really mean anything nefarious.

Opinions are divided on the reliability of Youtube as a source, especially where the clip is audio-only. My personal feeling is that youtube is ok for things like clips of tv shows or radio programs, where other copies of the same clip are likely available from other sources (the network or station itself), but youtube serves as a convenient shortcut to say "<x> appeared on Jay Leno".

Additionally, you can't really say in the article that the clips above show anyone lying about something, unless you can also link to what the "truth" is, again properly cited. Even if that were done, "lying" is a rather subjective claim. Misunderstandings, miscommunication, etc, especially when dealing with a large real estate transaction, with all the beurocracy that it entails, all could result in mis-statements, whether intentional or not. The applicable Wiki policy here would be WP:SYNTH, where an editor lists several facts from several sources, then draws a conclusion from them. This is not typically a good thing to have in an article, as it violates WP:OR. Its like the the old TV Show In Search Of said at the start of every show: "The producer's purpose is to suggest some possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones, to the mysteries we will examine". Arakunem^Talk 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the "criticism" in the CDA Press(7/15/2006) that IP 98 is referring to is NOT from a news article but is in fact a letter to the editor from a disgruntled party. I would have to see their citation to be certain but if that's the case, it's my understanding that is not considered a reliable source and could not be added to Wikipedia. Please Advise. Bg357 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:ASF allows "facts about opinions" to be included, as long as they are presented thusly. So you could not use an LTE to support a claim directly (not a reliable source as you said), but to state "In a letter to the editor, <x> assertion was made" would be factual. Caveat: The related policy would be WP:UNDUE, which cautions against giving undue weight to views held by a very small set of people. In short, if the only verifiable source for something is a single LTE, it likely should not be included, per those 3 bullet-points in WP:UNDUE.

I think the best approach is to preview the proposed edits here, in the context of how they would appear in the article. Then we can all discuss and determine if it is appropriate for inclusion.

If it is posted, please start a new subsection on this page. This one is getting very long, and since I am really getting a good vibe from both sides that they don't wish to edit-war, I think the edit-war section can be closed. :) Arakunem^Talk 16:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

Does this fit to wiki standards?

In a July 15th 2006 CDA Press letter to the editor, RLM's financial disclosure policies has come under criticism. The author of the letter said RLM has no financial accountability. In a comment section to the LTE, several supposedly former members claimed their requests to see the financial documents were rejected. Several recordings of rejected requests to see the financial documents have made their way to Youtube http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube.com. In rebuttal to this, the Elders of RLM responded in like with a letter to the editor. They cited that because of this criticism, they were currently seeking one of the highest standards of financial accountability, The ECFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Council_for_Financial_Accountability (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) certification. As of Aug 2008 RLM has not been denied nor approved ECFA certification. The ECFA's investigation of RLM's financial accountability has taken longer than 28 months wereas a the normal time period for an application is approximately 12 weeks. No information has been released why this application has taken longer than normal.

I don't know how to link a citation so I'll ask for help. I hope this fit's to all wiki standards. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions, help to make this more wiki, fluid and any help with links. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Slight tweak for readability. I've got some ideas solely based on sentence flow, but I'll hold off for a bit. Could you post the link to the cite for this? For both LTE's if possible, as a cite would probably be needed for each. Formatting cites for wikification can be really easy, or could be 5 continuous lines, depending on how the source is linked/named/etc.

To link to another wiki article, put in double brackets like this: [[Article name on Wikipedia|how you want it to appear in the text]], so the youtube link for example would look like this: [[Youtube|Youtube.com]], and would appear like this: Youtube.com. You leave out the http and all that, and just include the article name). To link to an external site, put the entire link in single brackets, like this: [http://www.youtube.com], and it will appear as a numbered link like so: [4].

If you can post the links to the cites you have for the above text, that would be great. Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 00:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The links have been removed from the CDA Press but I still have the links but are dead. I forgot about this contraversy. It was removed at the behest of Jim Putman. If I'm not mistaken, Verifiability allows for citing of Newspaper, article name and date, correct? I have some corrections to the dates and times (eg 26 months instead of 28, ect..). Here are copy and pasted LTE. I can forward the entire comment section too but be warned, they are quite lengthy. Let me know if you would like this to verify.

http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2006/07/17/editorials/letters/letter05.txt This is for the following article: FINANCES: Real Life takes responsibility Posted: Saturday, Jul 15, 2006 - 08:29:44 pm PDT

Recently, a letter to the editor was written asking about our financial accountability at Real Life Ministries. There have been many positive comments and questions raised due to the article. Many of you have contacted the church and have had your questions answered. The leadership at Real Life Ministries, including the eldership and the pastoral staff, take very seriously our financial accountability. We want to be good stewards with God's resources. Therefore, we have multiple processes in place, including both internal and external, which help us maintain financial accountability.

Our internal budgeting process goes through an approval process that starts with a pastoral team leader approving the initial budget presented in that leader's department. The team leader then presents the drafted budget to the pastoral executive team for approval. This approved draft is then forwarded to our financial team consisting of both financial staff personnel and three of our elders. They evaluate and make changes to that draft. Finally, the entire eldership reviews the entire budget for final approval. Our staff is then held accountable to the approved budget as the fiscal year progresses.

Our external accountability includes an outside certified public accountant who specializes in churches. They complete an annual audit of all financial activities. This external process also includes working closely with the Church Development Fund. They review our financial position annually as well. We have received approval from both of these organizations and will continue these relationships in order to maintain financial accountability.

At Real Life Ministries, we have always maintained an "open book policy" regarding all of our budget and financial information. We are willing to review these with interested members upon request and appointment. As we have continued to grow, the leadership at RLM has committed to prayerfully seek continued direction in this area. Currently, we are seeking certification with the ECOFA, Evangelical Counsel on Financial Accountability. This would add a third external step to our financial accountability.

We appreciate the questions and realize that when one person asks a question, there may be other members who are wondering about the same topic. As a church leadership, and as members of this great community, we strive to be open and straight-forward in everything we do.

The Elders, Real Life Ministries

Post Falls

/articles/2006/07/24/editorials/letters/letter07.txt

REAL LIFE: Someone's not telling the truth Posted: Saturday, Jul 22, 2006 - 08:48:00 pm PDT

Real Life Ministries leadership: In response to your letter stating your books have always been open, I have to say that quite a few of your present and former members say differently.

Just in case the average reader does not know, this paper has a Web site you can visit with all the stories online at www.cdapress.com. There's a section called "Features," and in that section is "Story Comments" where you can post your response to any story.

I would suggest you go there and read the postings under the stories, "FINANCES: Real Life takes responsibility" and "A matter of faith." The letter to the editor RLM responded to is "Church: It's good to be held accountable," which can be accessed in archives, as well as another article called "Small groups lead to big attendance." Both include a string of postings.

In these postings there are those who state they've never received an accounting by the church even after requesting it more than once. I believe one stated they were shown the door when insisting for records to be released. Another stated they've had a meeting with pastoral staff, with CDF present, asking why their requests for financial records were ignored.

I have this question to ask the leaders at RLM: Those who have come forth stating they're members, or used to attend your church, claim you would not give out financial records when requested. Are you publicly saying they're lying?

It appears someone's not being forthright with the truth.

The deafening silence from RLM leadership to questions asked has been quite disconcerting. Even more unsettling is the public statement you made in your letter to the editor.

Perhaps you would like to clear this up if the perception from this reader is different from what you meant.

Thank you, a prompt reply is appreciated.

Melinda O'Dea

Oldtown

I wanted to note that BG357 argued the FOR the verifiablity of the reference #5 mircle growth article (^ a b "Miracle Growth" (2003-07-25). CDA Press. ) from the same reliable source; the CDA Press. It was confirmed by , I believe, Travellingcari as metting wiki ver. I imagine the edit should be up to wiki standard, now? Thank you.

Hello Arakunem, Surprise, we have a new editor who wants to editwar, Pinkadelica. Instead of marking, citation requested, they remove the entire edit. I properly cited it and re-editted the article. Within minutes Pinkadelica promptly removed it again, ignoring the proper citations. Please help. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Arakunem,

I was able to find a live link to the original LTE, Looks like the Jim missed one. Just as a note. The other dead links have been removed at Jim Putman's request (this is verifiable to your previous standard of addmission by the perp). In the dead links, if you change the letter number up or down all the articles are still posted. Only the two are "missing", weird eh? I'll edit again the edit to reflect the bottom verifiable reliable source. Thank you for all your help and oversight.

http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2006/06/24/editorials/letters/letter03.txt

CHURCH: It's good to be held accountable Posted: Thursday, Jun 22, 2006 - 10:11:58 pm PDT Email this story Printer friendly version

I've been actively following and contributing to the online article responses to a few published stories and thank this newspaper for such a forum. One story, Real Life Ministries and its land acquisition and proposed building, is of particular interest to me.

I have done some research and wondered why such an upcoming mega-church has no accountability group overseeing them. Or if they do have one, I'm unaware of it since their records are kept private.

Did you know the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has belonged to one such group since 1979? The name of this group is Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, or ECFA. In light of the apparent confusion from the members concerning RLM's financial accountability, I would suggest each member look into this group.

We all know Billy Graham Ministries has always had a sterling reputation and total trust and accountability in all areas. I would think if Billy Graham feels the need for outside accountability, perhaps Real Life Ministries could follow suit.

Belonging to such an organization will surely dispel all questions and concerns being raised about RLM. You can access the organization, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, on the Internet. They have a wonderful Web site.

If, after reading their site, you feel this is something you want for your church, please let your pastor and elders know. Accountability and trust goes a long way when asking for the sums of money this church is asking for.

Melinda O'Dea

Oldtown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Arakunem, it's nice that IP 98 took your advice about posting proposed edits on the discussion page but it would have been more useful if they would have waited for some discussion to occur before posting their proposed edits to the article.

I can't see how any of what they've posted is verifiable or in keeping with Wikipedia guidlines. The only source they offer is their LTE which would seem to indicate, "undue weight to views held by a very small set of people", as you said, "if the only verifiable source for something is a single LTE, it likely should not be included". They also reference comments on the LTE which are completely unacceptable under WP:SPS. We went through this whole thing with the comment blogs back in March, I can't believe we have to go through it yet again.

I see no reason not to revert this addition but I would appreciate your input on the matter. Bg357 (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would have hoped for a discussion and consensus before posting the raw text. Thats rather what I meant when I said I would hold off before commenting. But anyway. Some of the text is a bit leading, but some is ok, with proper cites. (Yes, newspapers are citeable directly if you have all the info.) I didnt know from IP98's first post that RLM had responded directly to the LTE with their own. This does add more credibility in my mind, especially since RLM's response wasn't just to criticise the original LTE. That said, may I propose my own text in lieu of the posted one:

In a June 22, 2006 CDA Press letter to the editor, RLM's financial accountability was questioned. The writer suggested RLM seek certification from the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability as other large churches had done. (cite first lte). RLM responded with their own letter to CDA on July 15. In it, RLM described their accounting practices and stated that they would seek ECFA certification as an additional measure of outside accountability. (cite rlm lte) As of August 2008, the ECFA has not acted on RLM's application. (a cite here would be really nice as this one's a bit iffy)

The youtube reference strikes me as rather irrelevant, and the response to RLM's lte came from the original lte's author, so that gets a bit axe-grindy too. Comments? Arakunem^Talk 17:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Arakunem, I don't necessarily have a problem with your text suggestion, if a LTE is considered a verifiable source for this kind of criticism. It seems to run afoul of some of your previous comments regarding acceptable sourcing. My main concern is with the insinuation & POV push that run through most of IP 98's edits.

BTW, one of the LTE citations seems to be dead. Bg357 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If RLM had not replied to the LTE, then it the first letter certainly would not have been noteworthy. That RLM did respond, I feel, does lend credability to the first letter, and thus warrants both letters' inclusion. The 3rd letter, in response to the RLM reply, makes unverifiable claims, that were not responded to, so I'm hesitant to give that one undue weight, hence its omission from the proposed text. Yes, the RLM reply letter link is dead, though is probably citeable from the paper directly, though to be fair, someone should go to the library and get all the info (including page numbers, etc). The claim that RLM removed that one doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as that letter suggests openness on the part of RLM. The text I proposed, I feel is neutral, and factual as supported by cite.

Keep in mind that these are just my opinions. I'm not the final word on anything; I'm just here as an uninvolved party with no particular interest in the subject, other than adhering to the policies and guidelines. Edits are made by consensus of the involved editors. Arakunem^Talk 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that arakunem was going to make or suggest changes after it was posted. I honestly thought you have the green light on the edit once it was cited. I thought that the purpose of the discussion was to verify that it's within wiki policies. The youtube references are factual relavent and goes to the criticism of the financial accountability which in this youtube recording addresses the article itself and what they claimed in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4opIIOtpnc John Helwich, is their executive administrator.

I dont see where the article is leading or out. BG357 even said that the only problem that he saw was that it isn't properly cited. You addressed the citation issue as being verifiable and legit. I would like to see the edit to stay complete as to context but some words can be changed (like you had suggested, instead of criticized, using questioned). The reason why the word claimed was used instead RLM described and stated they wouid seek is RLM did was not currently seeking ECFA cert. (their application as not turned in for nearly 4 months later (Oct 31, 2006) and by the rejection of many peoples request to see their complete financial records (one being recorded and put on youtube) goes again to the fact that they are claiming what their policies are but not actually the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The youtube reference, upon double checking the policies, likely does not meet the standard of verifiability, as it is only available from there, and being audio-only, the integrity of it is unconfirmable. (Youtube is specifically addressed by name in WP:RS ). Then there's the issue of the legality of the recording. While it may have been legal in the state it was made, I won't even pretend to guess the legality of its use in Wikipedia, which I believe is governed by the laws of Florida.

As for the time it takes to certification, is there a source that says how long is average? I think that the text I proposed is factual, in that RLM said in July 06 they would apply, and in August it has not been acted on. "No reason has been given", is sort of implied, as the reason would have been included if there was one, and a long delay doesn't mean anything evil, as I alluded to in my XM/Sirius analogy above. No approval in 2 years also means no denial either. The text on the article now seems a bit leading to me, (and no offense, but doesn't flow well from a reader perspective). I feel my proposed text says essentially the same thing, but in a neutral tone that lists the facts without drawing any conclusions from them.

That said, as I mentioned above, edits are by consensus, and not what Arakunem says should be up there. Any and all editors are invited to propose changes to it, or indeed completely new versions. But yes, edits that can be expected to be contentious, as the last one was, should be thoroughly discussed on the talk page, so that everyone has the chance to tweak it and approve it before putting it live. Arakunem^Talk 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would BG357 like to add to the discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the text suggested by Arakunem is a good compromise:

In a June 22, 2006 CDA Press letter to the editor, RLM's financial accountability was questioned. The writer suggested RLM seek certification from the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability as other large churches had done. (cite first lte). RLM responded with their own letter to CDA on July 15. In it, RLM described their accounting practices and stated that they would seek ECFA certification as an additional measure of outside accountability. (cite rlm lte) As of August 2008, the ECFA has not acted on RLM's application. (a cite here would be really nice as this one's a bit iffy)

This text is clear, concise and completely neutral. As far as the final cite, we could just cite the ECFA member list and change the text to, "As of August 2008, RLM is not yet listed as a member of the ECFA." IMO, what's currently posted is not sufficiently neutral and will only result in continued edit warring Bg357 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a moment and decided to remove the entire youtube recorded rejected request section. No use having on the article when it doesn't meet [wp:ver]. I also adjusted one sentence to remove an insinuation that RLM has no financial accountability and made it "claimed" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How about ""As of August 2008, RLM is not yet been denied as a member of the ECFA." ? That's so leading, Either way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was asked that everyone (including BG) post in a linear fashion. It does make it harder to see where BG is putting his replies. Please post linear (that means put your reply at the bottom of the page so no-one has to hunt for your reply). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you were specifically asked to sign your posts as well, but heh, we all have our weaknesses. =)

I don't see it as leading, it's simply a matter of wording it in a way that can be verifiably sourced. Since there is no acceptable source to cite regarding what's occuring with the ECFA application, it can only be said that RLM is not currently a member, citing the current member list of the ECFA. Seems fairly straight forward. Bg357 (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RLM isn't listed currently as a member of NAMBLA either. So shall we say they are not yet listed as members of NAMBLA too? It can also be said that RLM isn't on the denied nor Teminated members list either and can be properly cited (http://www.ecfa.org/Content.aspx?PageName=FormerMember) . So are you willing to leave and fight (edit war) FOR the sentence to say that RLM has not yet been put on the denied or rejected members list? It's not positive nor negative...and not leading what-so-ever, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess BG357 only wants me or others to preview and/or discuss the proposed edits, since BG has changed the article entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.64.25 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrase "neither accepted nor denied" is the most neutral, and verifiable (cited by both members and rejected pages). Even more so than my proposed "not acted upon", as we don't know what is going on inside ECFA, as pointed out. While subtle, the other options "doesn't appear on the members list" or "doesn't appear on the rejected list" by themselves, feel leading one way or the other to me, and are just not as clear as "neither accepted nor denied".

Also, I wouldn't characterize the article as having been changed entirely, as the substantive text is still there, just formatted, including the disputed edits that we are discussing here.

Come on guys, we were doing good there for a couple of days.... Arakunem^Talk 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay not entirely but still added a new area that is debateable and provable/citable they don't have grouth issues. Infact, the july news letter by Jim (cited) does NOT say anything about grouth issues. It does however point out they have issues with money; as they can't get enough and have gone over their heads financially. But then again, that's not the point, the point is, I thought proposed edits were going to be discussed? I think I've been pretty fair with everything since we have a neutral third party involved. However, I don't think BG is.

Because of the out of linear format that BG357 was posting on this discussion page, I just noticed Arakunem's reply to him regarding the removal of the cited pages. As a side note, Arakunem seemed to think then that my edit was neutral and he is the neutral third party. You're biased and so am I. I'm trying to keep to a NPOV when editting.

The cited pages were indeed removed at the request of Jim Putman. He has claimed this in emails that have made their way onto a blog page (Jim is known to read these as well as his friends and if this was libealous, I'm sure Jim and RLM would sue but no suit has arisen because the emails can be confirmed, especially when the person who received the emails from Jim Putman, senior pastor of RLM, is also the one who recorded Jim lying about many things and posted them on youtube, so if Chris was truly lying or libealing Jim with him claiming he removed the articles). Jim infact did claim to have the LTE's removed.

Here's the original link to the article which Jim Putman HAD the CDA Press take down (this is not liable as it's provable and citable and Jim Putman himself would probably confirm it):http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2006/07/24/editorials/letters/letter07.txt

If the CDA press just removed old articles then why when you just change the letter number up or down any (on both Putman removed articles) the other letters are still there? Try it? Here's a link down : http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2006/07/24/editorials/letters/letter06.txt

and down another: http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2006/07/24/editorials/letters/letter05.txt

and up one:

http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2006/07/24/editorials/letters/letter08.txt

and another:

http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2006/07/24/editorials/letters/letter09.txt

Here's the other article Jim had removed:

http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2006/07/17/editorials/letters/letter05.txt

Go up or down any number and they are all there except the articles removed (days, months and years up and down and the only removed articles are the ones removed by Jim. Now, that's either really weird or criminal.

Now that's either really a one in a million coinkidinki or Jim Putman did indeed do what he claimed. --98.145.64.25 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Still rather speculative and WP:OR, but also irrelevant, as for the purposes of the wiki article newspaper citations are perfectly acceptible, even if the online version is gone. Arakunem^Talk 18:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still fine, I don't know why IP 98's shorts are in a bunch. I'm ready to go with your compromise text whenever we're done discussing it. IP 98 hasn't commented much on your suggestions, just keeps editing along here & there.

Last night I tried to clean up the article a bit, leaving the disputed passage intact. Seemed like we needed a new section for the expansion issues as it doesn't really fit in the history section. Bg357 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that discussion seems to have subsided on the disputed text regarding RLM's financial accountability, and because no one has opposed the neutral text suggested by Arakunem, I have replaced the disputed text:

In a June 22nd, 2006 CDA Press letter to the editor, RLM's financial disclosure policies came under criticism. The author of the letter claimed RLM had no financial accountability and held the records private. In rebuttal to this, the Elders of RLM responded in like with a letter to the editor. They cited that because of this criticism, they were currently seeking one of the highest standards of financial accountability, the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) certification. As of Aug 2008, RLM has not been denied nor approved ECFA certification. The ECFA's investigation of RLM's financial accountability has taken longer than 26 months whereas the normal time period for an application is approximately 12 weeks. No information has been released as to why this application has taken longer than normal.

with Arakunem's more neutral text suggestion:

In a June 22, 2006 CDA Press letter to the editor, RLM's financial accountability was questioned. The writer suggested RLM seek certification from the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability as other large churches had done. RLM responded with their own letter to the CDA Press on July 15. In it, RLM described their accounting practices and stated that they would seek ECFA certification as an additional measure of outside accountability. As of September 2008, the ECFA has neither accepted nor denied RLM's application.

I have retained the same citation links provided earlier and have added the ECFA citations suggested by Arakunem. Hopefully, the discussion that preceded this edit and the helpful input of a neutral third party will reduce controversy regarding this text. Bg357 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding IP 98's edit on 9/12. I don't think removing the text "as an additional measure of outside accountability" was appropriate. As mentioned above, this cite is considered a "fact about an opinion". The text said that RLM would seek cert as an additional measure, and that statement is supported by the cite. Yes, they didn't name their accountant, or anything else as you say, but it was cited as "this is what RLM said". Remember: Verifiability, not Truth. The reliability of these Letters as sources is pretty borderline right now, so removing one party's claim without removing the other's claim (that RLM has no accountability) is a bit leading in my opinion. Arakunem^Talk 16:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only is the deletion completely without merit, but the text was suggested nearly a week ago for discussion and IP 98 expressed no opposition towards it. Only now that it's posted have they started picking it apart in order to push their POV. I have reverted this inappropriate deletion. Bg357 (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't followed this thread lately, but utterly surprised that WIKI, and online people's encyclopedia, permits the subject's agents to control and sanitize script to protect mass marketing. BG357 is strongly suspected of being an associate minister at Real Life Ministries. Past appeals to verify suspicion have been ignored. Only time will validate whether RLM operated with integrity. Changing appearance to be acceptable to ECFA does not alter the leopard's spots!Mountainview (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)