Talk:Samuel Koranteng-Pipim/Archive 1

Archive 1

Resignation speculation and source

Information surrounding Mr. Pipim's resignation should be limited to carefully verified official explanations. Any defamatory speculation should be left out (such as the suggestion of homosexual behavior I removed), especially as this is a living person who is not a public figure. The citation is to Spectrum Magazine, which is not a primary source; should this perhaps be changed to point to the primary source cited by the Spectrum article? Just a thought. Hooverd377 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia thrives on secondary sources. Spectrum Magazine has proven quite a reliable source. Spectrum blogs are not so consistent. I agree with caution in reporting about Pipim's resignation. There are primary sources online, such as his actual letter of resignation, etc. Perhaps a link can be provided in External Links so individuals can read it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Resignation information on this page should cite the original, http://campushope.com/resignation/ which broke the news on May 29th. The current source, Spectrum, didn't post the news until May 31st. Quoting the primary source gives wikipedia more credibility. Using a second-hand source like Spectrum who is openly hostile toward the teachings of Samuel Pipim damages Wikipedia credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.210.161.13 (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Openly hostile" stance of a Journal does not discredit it necessarily. There probably are hundreds of reputable journals which can be described as "openly hostile" to someone. Spectrum magazine articles and opinion essays usually are carefully documented. They have a very active blog comment/response pattern. Some of the people responding to articles say some important stuff, but their input cannot be used as a reliable, verifiable source. Dr. Pipim held a position of influence within Adventism. He has been strongly supported and strongly opposed. This makes the article about him here at Wikipedia vulnerable. I applaud those who have temporarily protected the article. It allows for everyone to take a breath, review Wikipedia's rules for sources and remember that this is a biography of a living person. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Blogs and Facebook as Sources

This section has been commented out hopefully until the Wikipedia verifiability of sources can be established for blogs and facebook sources:

<! -- As was noted by a blogger, the resignation letter and statement did not name the gender of the other individual involved. Matthew Gamble, a popular Adventist speaker and writer, took issue with his statement that "others who have always opposed what we stand for will have an additional reason to rejoice." -- >

As you can imagine, in matters of this kind, careful adherence to Wikipedia's protocol is very important. We may need a veteran administrator, or two, to advise on this. The first statement casts a slant to the rumours just by mentioning what has not been said. The Gamble reaction has some validity, I think, but facebook is not a valid source for wikipedia, as far as I know. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Trailer a source

why is a trailer a source for the claims made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Make Fountainviewkid stop adding BLP violations!

Fountainviewkid readded it. Who are they and why do they belong in the article? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected for now. Please use dispute resolution for such problems in future. Regards SoWhy 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like BelloWello is showing only IP address- 50.72.159.224 (talk) Simbagraphix (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Resignation

{{editprotected}} On May 29, 2011, CAMPUS reported on its website that Pipim had resigned his employment with the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and his ministerial credentials following a "moral failure" while traveling overseas.

please use the above information in the resignation section of this article so as to attribute the primary and direct source of the information, thanks :-)

Not done, secondary sources are preferred, per WP:PSTS. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Though implied, the three official resignation documents no where mention his "ministerial credentials." CAMPUS broke the news first on May 29, not "Spectrum" (May 31), which was referring to the CAMPUS info. It's better to cite primary sources for readers to check the facts for themselves, instead of speculations from Spectrum blog. Would modify resignation section to read :

On May 29, 2011, CAMPUS reported on its website that Pipim had resigned his employment with the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists following a "moral failure" while traveling overseas. His resignation message to his "colleagues in ministry" and CAMPUS staff stated: "Although my passion for youth training and empowerment has not waned, the rest of my life is in God’s hands."HopeAfrique (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

I have no problem including the citation to CAMPUS. Spectrum still remains a secondary source. I disagree that Spectrum's contribution is "speculation". In this case, they reported accurately and provided the primary sources on which they based their story. I suggest that we keep both the CAMPUS and the Spectrum sources. Spectrum Magazine has a proven track record of sound, accurate journalism for over forty years. CAMPUS provides the carefully managed face of Pipim's church employer. Their damage control is admirable. Spectrum is a journal at arm's length from church administration. Both views are helpful to our readers here at wikipedia.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Yes we need to also have the Spectrum source, but we should be careful that everything we use comes from the news articles section and not the comments. I have yet to see any reliable source say Pipim "resigned his ministerial credentials". --Fountainviewkid (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi FVK. I have looked for any mention of Pipin resigning his ministerial credentials and can find nothing. His letter states "This is to notify you of my resignation as Director of Secular Campus Ministry and the employment of the Michigan Conference." The text ought to be edited to reflect this. His ministerial credentials have not been mentioned in this matter. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I edited the section to reflect the change. It now mentions his canceling of speaking appointments rather than untrue statements about his credentials. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook as a Source on Wikipedia articles

Recent addition to the Resignation section has prompted this section re: Facebook.

We need some veteran editors to help, one more time, on this. The concern of Matthew Gamble's opens a good discussion, I think. But the source is a Facebook account. Is this a valid source? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The veteran advice is still hoped for. I have edited the Resignation section so that Pipim's quote and Gamble's Facebook statement can be read in a wider context. Note that the Facebook account is not accessible unless one has opened a facebook account. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is not a valid source. It needs to be some kind of article or journal or something that is RS which facebook isn't.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is a valid source if it is from a notable figure on a public page, which this is. It, of course, has to be used with attribution. 209.32.70.56 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No only if that public figure is the one who the discussion is about. This is a third party source and therefore not reliable. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The third party is attributed, hence, it becomes what he thinks, and his facebook page is a reliable source for what he thinks. 209.32.70.56 (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter the attribution. If Pipim didn't write it then Facebook isn't reliable for him.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Under what policy? 209.32.70.56 (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. This also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook." [1] <quote> When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one. </quote> This applies to Gamble. 209.32.70.56 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Flatterworld, 20 June 2011

Within 'External links'

• Works by or about Samuel Koranteng-Pipim/Archive 1 in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

Flatterworld (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I support the request. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I just reactivated this edit protected request because it appears that the current protected version removed this good change. I think it should be re-added. 69.89.205.152 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Y Done as uncontroversial.  Sandstein  18:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

IP's editing

There appear to be several IP's that keep editing this article popping us as "new" editors. I personally think many of the edits are "vandalism" in nature, but I'm putting this out for comment. The removal of whole sections such as in Theology, the addition of "ministerial credential" issues and other word changes I see as trying to insert certain POV into the article. Perhaps we can hold off on editing the article in large amounts until a consensus is reached?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I also get the feeling that some edits from some IP addresses are calculated to remove important information or source references. Sometimes these edits wrongly remove whole sections or paragraphs, claim to “condense” sections or information, claims to be “trimming peacock language,” rewrites direct quotes, deletes some sources as “unnecessary,” removes listing of Pipim’s works because it is “non-notable item,” etc. I’m not entirely sure whether this is vandalism or not, nor how this vandalism can be established. But one gets the impression from some of these edits that there is deliberate attempt to either promote some agenda represented by those IP addresses or (at the very least) re-cast Pipim as though he were not “mainstream” Adventist.--HopeAfrique (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected

"The head of the worldwide Adventist church, the General Conference (GC) President, put his weight behind the movement when he spoke to the gathering of some 7,000 attendees at the 2010 GYC meeting. In the words of one GYC critic, “[t]he agenda of the GYC has been embraced by the new GC [General Conference] leadership and now is being pushed by the current editor of the AR [Adventist Review.] Even more, GYC has attracted a large global following. “Youth training events in Canada, Australia, Germany, and other places around the world have been inspired by the successful GYC grassroots movement.”"

The claims made by this paragraph is not supported by the source. Please remove it.

Pipim has authored a number of books such as Must We Be Silent? and Here We Stand.

If this could be changed to: "Pipim has authored a number of books including Must We Be Silent? and Here We Stand" I think it would sound better. Also, a citation isn't needed for this since it is sourced elsewhere in the article. 69.89.205.152 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

N No consensus yet. Please obtain consensus for the proposed edit before making the edit request.  Sandstein  18:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"The head of the worldwide Adventist church, the General Conference (GC) President, put his weight behind the movement when he spoke to the gathering of some 7,000 attendees at the 2010 GYC meeting. In the words of one GYC critic, “[t]he agenda of the GYC has been embraced by the new GC [General Conference] leadership and now is being pushed by the current editor of the AR [Adventist Review.] Even more, GYC has attracted a large global following. “Youth training events in Canada, Australia, Germany, and other places around the world have been inspired by the successful GYC grassroots movement.”"

The above paragraph should not be removed (see discussion under IP’s editing). The paragraph and references show that the movement which was inspired by subject’s ideas and influence (and which was initially ignored or dismissed) has now gained the attention of the head of the worldwide church and the editors of the official magazine of the church—facts that are even attested by critics of the movement.--HopeAfrique (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources cited do not even mention Pipim. They are not relevant to this article and should not be included, and are synthesis at best and simply unsubstantiated violations of the policy on citing items about living persons at worst. Either way, I believe it should be removed per BLP until consensus is reached either way. 184.158.59.207 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That paragraph describes the extent of the influence of the movement that was inspired by Pipim’s ideas and philosophy of youth empowerment. The sources cited in the paragraph show that the movement (which was initially dismissed by critics) has now been embraced or recognized by the highest leader and the official magazine of the church, and by many training events outside North America. Paragraph should be retained as part of the BLP.--HopeAfrique (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTHESIS. Do that at the Generation of Youth for Christ article if you want. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the paragraph is pertinent to the biography, showing that the subject’s theological ideas and philosophy of youth empowerment is being taken seriously by his church and even youth outside North America. I see paragraph as another evidence of subject’s notability (not just in ideas—expressed in his public speaking and writings—but also in his philosophy of youth empowerment—evidenced by the GYC movement he inspired).--HopeAfrique (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice thoughts but totally irrelevant to the encyclopedia and improving it. Obviously, this article suffers from WP:PEACOCK. what are your suggestions for making this article less promotional? 198.228.225.123 (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: I have declined the request again as it not clear to me whether there is consensus for this change. 198.228 and 64.91: are you the same person or different people? Are there any other opinions on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I am not the same person. I am in Wisconsin as my IP address shows, the other user seems to be from Louisiana? The sourcing is insufficient for the claims made, that is why it should be removed. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, why was this removed? This paragraph is important and I can add many sources to it. Rather than cutting, give us time to add the sources in. That's what the other admins are doing and I think it would be a better course of action than what is currently occurring.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin, for removing that badly paragraph. 209.32.69.82 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you should not have removed that paragraph because there is no consensus for removal. It is supported by the references. It indicates the attitude of SDA Church leadership towards the GYC, which Pipim mentored and supported, and, it reports the growth of GYC overseas. The only change I would make would be to remove the word "large" in the last sentence because it's a little too subjective. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good move, Martin. The sources did not support the sweeping claims made. This article needs to become less of an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.4 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh look a new IP to object. The sources supported the claims which were not "sweeping".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth, I agree with the above IPs. I think that gives us four editors who agree with the change. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

4 IP's which could be one, versus at least 3 editor users who are clearly separate and not directly connected. I'm sorry but even 4 vs. 3 does not constitute consensus. This is not a vote. And please don't try to canvass more IP's.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

List of published works

Since Pipim’s theological views generate considerable discussion, and since his philosophy of youth empowerment has inspired grassroots youth movements, any or all his published works should be listed for the benefit of those who may desire to study those works. Ideas--even controversial ideas--in these books merit interest. At the very least, those works that have ISBN numbers or those catalogued in Worldcat should be listed. Contra to some IP edits, I suggest the re-insertion of the list of published works, so that the relevant paragraph (under "Public speaking and writing") reads:

Pipim has authored a number of books. They include:

• 1995. Searching the Scriptures: A Call to Biblical Fidelity
• 1996. Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact Our Biblical Faith and Lifestyle
• 1997. In the Spirit of Truth: Key Issues on Biblical Inspiration and Interpretation
• 2000. True to Principle: Radical Discipleship in God's End-Time Church
• 2001. Must We Be Silent: Issues Dividing Our Church
• 2003. Patience in the Midst of Trials and Afflictions
• 2004. The Humility of Christ
• 2004. The Forgotten Grace of Humility - The Cure for Cancer of the Soul
• 2005. Here We Stand: Evaluating New Trends in the Church, General Editor
• 2006. God is Faithful: A Journey of Faith & A Test of Commitment
• 2007. This Is Love: Closer Relationships, Deeper Love, and Higher Spirituality
• 2008. Not for Sale: Integrity in A Culture of Silence
• 2009. Healed Wounds, But Ugly Scars: Choices and Consequences
• 2010. From Ministry to Movement—The Potential of Public Campus Ministry

It's not enough to say he has authored a many books, without listing them.--HopeAfrique (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, wikipedia does not provide lists of non-notable items. Since these books do not meet WP:BOOK, we do not need a list of them. If you think that these are notable books, please write articles on a nice proportion of them to prove notability. 184.158.59.207 (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The policy wrongly cited concerns “articles about books and literature in general.” However, the article in question is not about specific books, but about the biography of a living person. The issue at hand is whether that person’s works should be listed as part of his biography.--HopeAfrique (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that policy is very pertinent, but wasn't explained well. The issue at hand is whether this list should be included. Wikipedia happens to frown on lists of non-notable items, which this would be if the items it includes are not notable for stand alone articles. Hence, in order to include the list, the items (the works) need to be notable under WP:BOOK. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If policy is not well-explained, we must seek clarification or interpretation by finding out how other biographies have addressed this question. I checked on some Protestant/SDA theologians—past and present. Their publications were listed as part of biography. E.g., for SDA theologians, see entries on J. N. Andrews, James Springer White, Alden Thompson, Richard Rice, Edward Heppenstall, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Desmond Ford, Norm Young, etc. In some cases, even their articles are listed. It seems reasonable to me that one of the things that distinguishes a scholar/theologian is his/her ideas—often found in their writings. Thus, their writings are part of their biographies.--HopeAfrique (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dropping in again, the policy is very well explained. WP:OTHERSTUFF is an unacceptable rationale. 198.228.225.123 (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The bibliography is wholly within policy. From MOS:WORKS:

Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles.

These IPs have no idea what they're talking about. WP:BOOK is a wikiproject. Please refrain from citing policy until you know what you're doing. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from citing policy until you know what you're doing.

Please refrain from biting until you know what you're doing. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lionel knows what he's doing. This list should be included in order to bring this biography in line with others of it's same type.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lionel knows what he's doing? That's why he goes around biting new contributors, correct? 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked Lionel hasn't been blocked for edit warring as we have. Perhaps we should learn something from him.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests

Unsourced labels and original research

From towards the end of the theology section:

His theological views generate considerable interest within his church, with reactions varying according to a person's
theological leaning. Some conservative Seventh-day Adventist websites sites tend to promote his views as representing
the mainstream Adventist position, while liberal or progressive ones tend to be critical of his views, sometimes dismissing
them as relics of “religious fundamentalism."

• Citation (word used loosely): Conservative sites that are favorable to his view include: “Adventists Affirm”, “Adventist Theological Society”, “Great Controversy.org”, and “AudioVerse”. Examples of liberal or progressive sites that are critical of Pipim's view include, “Spectrum magazine” and “Adventist Today”)

As can be seen, this amounts to original research. At best, the statement "Some conservative Seventh-day Adventist websites sites tend to promote his views as representing the mainstream Adventist position, while liberal or progressive ones tend to be critical of his views, sometimes dismissing them as relics of 'religious fundamentalism.'" should be removed as it is a mischaracterization of the sources. Nowhere does Spectrum or AToday identify themselves as liberal (or progressive). Furthermore, neither of the supposedly "liberal" or "progressive" sites actually uses the words "religious fundamentalism." 184.158.59.207 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It should not be too difficult to find a reliable source which refers to Spectrum as "liberal" or "progressive". Or to find such sources which identify the conservative productions mentioned. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That would then become WP:SYNTHESIS. What you would need is a reliable source making the connection. Otherwise, it is just an unsubstantiated commentary by wikipedia editors. Great for Spectrum, not so much for wiki. ;) 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As there has been no further opinion on this, I have removed the sentence as requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, MSGJ. I can give you links. Please don't go around deleting everything after only 2 days. Give me some time and I will get the sources. I'll have to re-add this later I guess with the proper sources when the article in unblocked.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced assertion from theology section

Also, at the end of the theology section, this assertion with no source:

The varied assessment of his works may be traced to his theological methodology and his stance on issues.

This may or may not be true, but it needs a source to be included. 184.158.59.207 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 Sentence removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of date and unsourced claim of speaking engagements

This from the "Public speaking and writing" section is unsourced and out of date even if true:

He is also a frequent speaker at local and international conventions of professionals and business personnel. This includes ASI,
Adventist-laymen's Services and Industries a body of Adventist professionals.

Since he has resigned in disgrace, he has cancelled all speaking engagements so at the very least the tense needs to be changed to past tense and marked as {{cn}}, preferably, however, it should be simply removed pending a source (there is already too much unsourced material in this article). 184.158.59.207 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 Paragraph removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to cause trouble but I just noticed this edit request. I have several links which verify the information that was removed. May I request that the admin look over the sources and if possible insert them in along with the previously removed paragraph? I have found several RS links verifying this information. The first link is courtesy of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (http://www.pacificunionphoto.com/photocatalog.php?pc_id=158&cmd=detail&hash=), the second is in the calendar for an ASI Southern Union event where his name is listed 4 times as a speaker (http://asisouth.startlogic.com/events/event.php?event_id=33). Please let me know if this information is acceptable.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The links are not WP:RS and are insufficient. It should not be readded. Let's work on removing peacock language, shall we? 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And why are they not Reliable sources? What kind of source will you accept? Other than maybe an academic journal I can find that same information. Nevertheless, let's let the admin make the decision.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I will accept a source from a reliable source. Start with Adventist today or Spectrum. Furthermore, two small events is insufficient to say "frequent speaker at local and international conventions." 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you pick and choose your sources based on ideology then? The only 2 sources you gave are the same ones Bello would accept, which are definitely "alternative" compared to the mainstream or Conservative SDA sources. That's like only accepting MSNBC to report on Glenn Beck. Oh and these aren't "small events", however if you want I can provide links to 10+ more sources of various events. How many would you like? I can provide them.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Here’s an additional source, showing paragraph shouldn’t be removed (though tense should be changed to perfect tense). Introducing Pipim as the keynote speaker for the 2006 International ASI convention in Gaylord, Texas, the General Vice-President of ASI, mentioned that Pipim was also the devotional speaker at the 2005 Internation ASI convention, and also gave four reasons why Pipim is appreciated within ASI and youth circles. See, “Tell What Now”. Incidentally, this was one of the sources previously deleted by an IP address. Could it be that some IP addresses deliberately delete sources, enabling them (or others) to later suggest that certain paragraphs must be deleted because of “unsourced assertions.” Just wondering.--HopeAfrique (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Google video is not a reliable source, and could possibly be copyvio which we are not allowed to link to. 209.32.69.82 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The same ASI keynote address aired on 3ABN is available on the these two sites: [2] and [3] --HopeAfrique (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

YouTube is in the same boat as Google Video. Probable copyvio. I would assume yourvideos.net would be the same. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The video's are a red herring. There are several other sources which show the same thing. We are basically just trying to provide as many sources as possible since some random IP's are hell bent on deleting significant portions of this article. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The videos seem to be the only source provided so far. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss the ASI link? Or maybe the link from the Pacific Union Conference of SDA's? Oh and the Hope media link was not a video that I posted. Again I can post many more links as well that say the same things.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

ASI? What's ASI? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A leading Adventist organization where Pipim has been a keynote speaker.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not under the disambiguation page at ASI. Why is it notable? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's notable because he's a speaker there. Remember one need not have a wiki article to achieve notability.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's earned. And ASI had earned notability--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

How? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

By meeting the guidelines. Show me how this organization is not notable.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It doens't work like that. You have to show how it is notable. Notability is not assumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a leading organization, which is made up of thousands of members and business organizations within the SDA church. You read all about it. Adventist Layman's and Services Industries Inc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny how this "leading organization" doesn't get a single hit from Google News Archives. [4] 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but I could find you several sources on it. The organization is notable for information inside the topic of interest (the SDA church). Inside the church you can find numerous media reports on it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Various Adventist Review Articles, Journal articles, etc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Links? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They're coming, but you might have to give me a few minutes or even a few hours. I have them though.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Waiting. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait as long as you want. It's not your job to tell me how long I have to post sources or that I only have 10 minutes. The sources are coming. Be patient.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. It remains without sourcing while we wait. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why we're working on the article. It was protected exactly so things like this could be fixed instead of edit warred over.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It was protected because users insisted on re-adding unsourced material back into the article without explanation. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It was protected because a random IP kept trying to remove valid material.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay using Google News I was able to find several linked sources describing the organization ASI. Some are church based others are mainstream media type organizations. From the church based ones we have this link noting the local convention in South Africa [5], this link which lists the organization along with others [6], this story from the official Adventist News Network describing ASI in an evangelistic series [7]. Additionally there are non church sites such as this local news story from the USA [8]. This link [9] from a Jamaican newspaper describes the role of ASI is providing business and church growth information. Also this story from a Barbados news source [10] describes the role of religious business and the economy. ASI also helps in health as this news article shows [11]. Finally ASI was big on social needs in Africa as this international report describes [12]. Hopefully this is enough to prove it's notability.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Here’s another source to buttress the fact that Pipim has been speaker at local and international conventions of professionals and business personnel. He was a keynote speaker at the 2009 “Southern Union ASI convention”. He was also a guest speaker at the “Southern African Union ASI Convention”. In the course of the discussions on this Talk page numerous sources have uncovered. I just hope that none of these will be left out in the article, lest some IP editors resurface again with claims that paragraphs should be removed because they are supposedly not properly sourced.--HopeAfrique (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Alma mater

I did a search and could not find any non-wiki sources that were reliable for this. The following sentence, tagged as unsourced, should either be sourced immediately or removed.

He holds a degree in engineering from the University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana,
where he subsequently served as a research and teaching assistant.

If sources are found for the school, then the additional info should still be removed unless a source is found. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources where this information exists. First is [13], which documents his "ministry". If this isn't acceptable however we have his website where he lists his credentials [14]. Yes this is self-sourced but we can use a biography of a person to say where they got their degree unless there is contrary evidence. There is also this source [15] which lists him along with other academic leaders on various religious topics. Again let's let the admin make the decision based off an analysis of the sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

His website would be a reliable source for where he went to school. As such, I ask that the admin add the drpipim.org website and still remove the additional "where he subsequently..." part. Thanks for finding that source, not sure how I missed it, Fountainviewkid! 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added the reference. I'm not sure if there is agreement to remove the second part of that sentence so I've left it in for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please remove the second paragraph as well. Thanks! 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do NOT remove the paragraph. We have provided several sources which are reliable and relate to the topic. Whatever else you need ask and I can provide. This is a better way to reach consensus than arbitrary removal of anything any random IP wishes to question.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not mean to ask to remove the paragraph. Simply the second part of the sentence which includes unsourced fluff about assignments. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove the second part either. It is not "unsourced fluff". It is reliable information about his work during his academic time.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliably not sourced information. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is reliably sourced. Here it my post from above. ":There are several sources where this information exists. First is [16], which documents his "ministry". If this isn't acceptable however we have his website where he lists his credentials [17]. Yes this is self-sourced but we can use a biography of a person to say where they got their degree unless there is contrary evidence. There is also this source [18] which lists him along with other academic leaders on various religious topics. Again let's let the admin make the decision based off an analysis of the sources".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The only reliable source there is his website, which we should avoid as self published, in addition to the fact that it is currently down. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not the only reliable source. There are the several others which I noted.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I see a joke of a site called hopevideo.com that has no indication of editorial oversight. Is that what you call a reliable source? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources which may be reliable. If you want I can list many more sources about Pipim's previous speaking engagements.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What does Pipim's speaking engagements have to do with anything? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait never mind sorry. But we have concluded based on an above statement "His website would be a reliable source for where he went to school". His website is reliable and not self-published for this.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what I get at his website. It seems to have been taken offline, likely because of his recent downfall. What are you getting? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine then we can use the "cached" version. It has the same information.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Link? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Its currently down but we can work on getting it up. Notice the other reliable source say the same thing.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

HopeVideo.com is not a reliable source. Please show evidence that these other sources have a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are reliable as they come from various organization within the church which are required to engage in oversight editorially. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That they include many speakers within the church, that they are widely used, etc. One does not have to sit back and be on the witness stand about every single source. They are from a noted media organization within the church.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

HopeVideo.com is a noted media organization within the church? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The media it has. The level of leadership speakers it deals with, etc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? How does that make an organization notable? And what does notability have to do with reliability? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's notability is based on it's connections is speakers, it's variety in the church, it's ability to have the rights to the various speakers messages, and it's position as a leading media organization.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What notability guideline does that satisfy? Definitely not WP:GNG. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It proves significant--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC) coverage of the subject.

Under what guideline? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The notability guidelines for organizations.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Link and quote? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's coming be patient.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can help you out here. The link is WP:NOTABILITY. Now, could you provide the quote? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's coming. Patience is a virtue, seldom found in fountainviewkid, never found in this random IP.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. How long does it take to click over to WP:NOTABILITY and show us where HopeVideo.org meets its requirements? An hour? Day? Year? Decade? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

However long it takes is not your job decide. That's for the admin, which you definitely are not.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but taking so long to post a rationale as to how this organization is notable would make most incredulous. Even if it is notable, that doesn't explain how it is a WP:RS. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again it's coming. It's not your job to determine how long it should or should not take.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All right. So I have the link that discussed where he went to school. His website is still available in the cached format. Here's the link [19]. The statement in the article is an exactly quote from the source pretty much, just as it should be. Hopefully this clears up the complains about unreliable sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also this link which says the same [20].--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Other links for this information include here [21], this book/paper [22], this link to one of his ministries [23], and his article in Spectrum Magazine, which you've admitted is a reliable source here [24]. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Spectrum article is the only reliable source. On what page does it note his work as a "teaching and research assistant" which is what we're trying to source here? I didn't see it. Anonymous websites like http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/ and http://www.womenministrytruth.com/ are not WP:RS. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

He and some of the other websites note it. And it's not your job to say what is and is not RS. That's the job for the admins. Right now this information is credibly sourced and should stay. As long as these sources get included.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You do not get to unilaterally declare sources reliable. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither do you. Spectrum is a reliable source. His website is a reliable source for his education. Reliable sources say exactly what is in the article. Why the confusion?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither of which say anything about his research and teaching assistant, or at least that I could see. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes his website does.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The website was down when I asked that, now it is up and it has been confirmed to be there. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

BRI

I would ask that the following sentence tagged as not sourced be removed:

Between 1995 and 2000, Pipim served as a member of the Biblical Research Institute Committee (BRICOM).

64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are sources for his being on the BRICOM as well. The first is the listing of his biography [25]. There is also his biography on this Religious Media Network [26] which mentions his service. Finally this church website notes the same information [27]. This information does exist.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

None of those seem like reliable sources for a self-serving claim like serving on BRICOM. Did you check the SDA Yearbook? If it exists, it should be listed there. HopeVideo is not in any way credible, neither is an individual church website. Self-published sources are insufficient for a self-serving claim. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If we accept his website for the claim of where he went to school we can accept it for what committee's he has served on. We also have the media source. They should be reliable sources. We'll let the admin see.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's because saying he went to school at "x" is not controversial or self-serving. Saying he served on an important committee like BRICOM without any other reliable source saying it is self serving. That is the difference. To the admin, please view the "religious media ministry" website's about page [28] before approving it as a reliable source. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The information is verified and valid. We have him saying it and other reliable organizations listing it on their biography about him. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither HopeVideo or that random small church is a reliable organization. There is likely no credible editorial oversight over their websites. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And why do you say there is n oversight and that they aren't reliable? We have Pipim saying it and other biographies backing him up. The information is verified and valid.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides the sources mentioned by Fountainviewkid, Pipim’s name is also listed in the Introduction to the Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology [2000], which is volume 12 of the official “Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary” series. He is named as one of the BRICOM members who reviewed the scholarly articles contained in the volume.--HopeAfrique (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hope. That's a physical hard cover that I don't currently own. It's nice to also have a print source in addition to the electronic ones. It would make sense BRICOM would appear there.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I just looked that up and did not see it, Hope. Are you sure you are not making that up? We need verification through a scan or something of that sort to verify that it is actually there. 209.32.69.82 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at p.v., where all the the names of all the BRICOM members are listed. Pipim's name is there.--HopeAfrique (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't verify it. Perhaps the other IP will be able to confirm whether they found it or not.... 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have seen copies of this book. Here are links that describe the existence of the book. For example a location on Amazon where the book can be purchased [29], the description of the book from the committee which produced it where Pipim served [30], and an article from the official journal of the church describing the book's creation [31]. These should be verification enough. If not I can provide everything but the physical book itself (though I can be in possession of it within a week or so).--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I know the book exists. We just don't know whther Hope is telling the truth when he says that BRICOM members are listed and Pipim's name is there. I believe my church has a copy and I will check it then. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can do likewise but it will take a few days.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pipim's official bio indicates he served on BRICOM. Hope mentions it. I checked from the "Handbook . . ." where his name is listed alongside the other BRICOM members who produced the book. The reference page is "v" (Roman letter "v"). IP 209.32 was wondering if I made it up and IP 50.72 not sure if Hope is telling the truth. Could you confirm your findings to us? Thanks.--HopeAfrique (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I also found two additional sources. The 1999 and 2000 “Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook” (the official book with the names of all denominational employees) list Pipim as a member of the BRICOM, alongside the other members whose names also appear on p.v. of the “Handbook of Adventist Theology”: See, [32][33]--HopeAfrique (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The two additional sources will work. I looked at the Handbook, and I did not see Pipim's name listed (or a list at all) but that is irrelevant as other sources have been found. Admin, please add the final two references in. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

From the method section

The following sentence appears under "Method:"

Scholars who embraced the church's historical positions, however, were more supportive of the book.

• Citation: Besides the favorable review of the book by the Director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference, George W. Reid, “Book Review: Receiving the Word,” in Ministry, December 1997, 30-31, Receiving the Word was also endorsed by the following prominent thought leaders of the church: Norman R. Gulley, Paul Gordon, Raoul Dederen, Clifford Goldstein, Alberto R. Timm, William H. Shea, Keith Burton, C. Raymond Holmes, Artur A. Stele, and Randall W. Younker. Their endorsements appear at the back of the book, where Raoul Dederen sums up their evaluation of the book: "An amazingly clear and competent presentation which will supply Seventh-day Adventists with a reasoned statement of their own position and challenge liberals to reexamine their fundamental presuppositions. I wish it the widest circulation."

I take exception to the "embraced the church's historical positions" part. That portion of the sentence should be removed. Perhaps to "Some scholars, however, were supportive of the book." 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

How about if the term "embraced the church's fundamental beliefs". The SDA church has a clear set of beliefs and a spectrum on how widely those are "embraced". It's an openly known fact that Pipim's supporters are those which "embrace" the church's beliefs (which are generally in line with it's historical positions). --Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No its not, Spectrum writers represent the mainstream of the church, in my opinion. Your opinion differs. Hence, unless there is a reliable source, it is unacceptable to include such opinion. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what Spectrum has to do here. It's clear that certain SDA leaders embrace the "official" position more than others. Those leaders just happen to be the same ones that endorsed Pipim and who are listed above. Additionally the church's "historical positions" are not really that disputed, especially since there is even a page for "historic Adventist" which embrace the church's "historic positions".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum writers are not usually mainstream Perhaps in Spectrum's early days. But Spectrum's writers usually address mainstream practices and challenge them. This has been Spectrum's strength. Avant-garde Adventism, perhaps. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So we have a variance of opinion. This highlights why reliable sources to make the claim are crucial, and it should not be included and should not use synthesis to get to it. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Variance of opinion? You mean one new IP who disagrees with the other editors and is trying to remove anything that isn't sourced at the highest levels...ironically right along with a specific POV.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs verification. Particularly since there is disagreement, we need a source to lay it out without engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS. 209.32.69.82 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite its perceived strengths, 'Spectrum does NOT represent mainstream of the church.'' 'The Seventh-day Adventist church's position dissociating itself from the Association of Adventist Forums and its magazine, Spectrum, is found in General Conference President’s statement at the 1984 Annual Council. See "Association of Adventist Forums Report (See also, Myron K. Widmer, "1984 Annual Council--Part III," Adventist Review, November 15, 1984, pp. 4-5).--HopeAfrique (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. What matters is that the source provided is SYNTHESIS at best and is insufficient for the claims made. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is not synthesis. It explains what Spectrum's relationship is with the church. That is relevant as Spectrum has written a lot on Pipim, including sourcing for this article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with "Scholars who embraced the church's historical positions, however, were more supportive of the book." ???? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You need evidence that certain positions are the church's "historical positions"? If so look at the Historic Adventist page or the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Also look at the issues with the scholars are supporting. You will see that they were the ones which support this book. And no its not synthesis.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is textbook synthesis. You need a WP:RS to make the connection for you. We don't research and create conclusions that were not laid out by reliable sources on wikipedia. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not synthesis. These sources are reliable that we have posted on here. These conclusions are laid out the sources themselves.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is combining multiple reliable sources to create a statement that is not supported by any reliable sources. That is the textbook definition of synthesis. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not combining multiple sources to create a statement. It is using multiple source to back up and provide the background and information to a statement. There is a difference.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a quotation and link to the reliable source which says "scholars who supported the church's historic positons were supportive of the book." 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not everything on here has to be exactly quotes from other sources. The point is to get the main points, ideas, or thoughts by using the sources. Otherwise that would be "excessive quoting". The sources provide those ideas without using those exact words. Kinda like Pipim's ministerial credentials and the gender of the other.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to put it in the article, I asked you to provide evidence that a reliable source makes the connection you want to include in the article. Please do so under WP:BURDEN. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources describe the positions that Pipim holds, that the thought leaders hold and that the Spectrum group holds. They then endorse various positions.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quote? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again this will take some time to compile. I have to re-read it to find the specific quote I'm looking for. I don't have it offhand.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Waiting. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well have a little bit of patience. I know you're trying to keep me from being able to find the sources by starting arguments with me about every source on here, so it will take some time. Wikipedia sources don't just get posted in a few minutes. Have patience. Give time for consensus. Don't be in such a rush. You love to selectively choose and preach certain guidelines while ignoring others.

This article has been contentious for a while. You've edit warred on these sections without sources previously, you've had plenty of time to add sources, as the other IP suggested below. But, we're waiting. Let's see these sources. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you have engaged in edit wars. That and your pals. Just like you're engaging in edit war behaviors on several other articles (GYC for example). The sources will come. The admin will decide when the deadline has passed not you. You are an IP not an admin. You don't get to make those decisions.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I noted your edit warring to say that the sections have been contentious for a while. There has been plenty of time to add these sources. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would note you also have a history of edit warring. I am working on adding these sources. If you were truly working for the good of the article and consensus you would allow me the time. I am not asking for a month or many days. I also ask for a little time. Be it a few hours or a few days. But remember. It is the admin that makes this decision not me and definitely not you.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We're waiting for the sources. If there are sources, the paragraph needs to be written over again, anyway. Which is why it is better off deleted and then reposted. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And you will get the sources. If you weren't so focused with deleting half the article I'd have the time to find them. It is not better to delete it. It is better to edit it. Why delete and repost when you can simply reform?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it is not sourced and the tone is unencyclopedic anyway. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion which an admin will decide.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All right so I have the link talking about Pipim's views and the church's positions. This material comes largely from A research paper from a conference written by Dr. Timm. It can be found here [34] or [35] if the other one loads to slowly. Either way they are both the same and should not have copyright troubles. Here are some reactions to the book [36], and [37], as well as a shorter article by Timm over the whole controversy [38]. Other reviews which describe the church's "historical positions" and Pipim are here [39] & [40]. We also have the official statement on Spectrum from the SDA church above.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That does not source the claims without engaging in synthesis. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope the claims are there. You just have to read the source to see that, which you obviously didn't.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the quotation and page numbers then. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They might be coming. Patience. It's not your job to judge these things, it's the admins.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Admins don't have special powers over content, and any editor can challenge anything. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Another from the method section

Besides CAMPUS (Center for Adventist Ministry to Public University Students) and the Emmanuel Institute of
Evangelism, Michigan Conference's outreach school, Pipim also regularly teaches intensive courses on
hermeneutics to students enrolled at, AFCOE (Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism), ARISE (A Resource
Institute for Soul-winning and Evangelism), and LIFE (Lay Institute for Evangelism), supporting institutes
run by Adventist supporting organizations.

This is marked as not sourced and is puffery anyway. As such, it should be removed. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Again we can use his biography for this information [41] or [42], or even [43] which describes his leadership in various organizations.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

His official biography is insufficient for such sweeping claims. If it is included, a link should be included to the website of each organization which lists him under faculty or a WP:RS noting each organization. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm that's funny. You said Spectrum is a reliable source. I use Spectrum as a reliable source and you complain about my sourcing. Notice I listed a variety of sources. You conveniently chose to attack the one which was less reliable than the other 2. These organizations don't exactly have lists of "faculty" yet or include him since he's operates more as a "visiting" scholar. Nevertheless the information is reliably sourced depending on which source you choose.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Spectrum link you provided does not make the claims that are being challenged here. 209.32.69.82 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If his official biography is "insufficient," as per IP editor, allow for additional sources, instead of calling for the removal. There are sources that show he is a guest lecturer in some of the supporting institutes. For example, the “AFCOE” website and their “2009 Handbook” mention Pipim as a guest lecturer. Similarly, “ARISE” mentions him as an adjunct professor. I'm sure other editors may be able to look for additional sources to back information from his official biography.--HopeAfrique (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Spectrum" link provides information about some of the challenged claims such as his positions in various organizations (i.e. CAMPUS). Additionally Hope provided examples where the institutions do list him.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest it be edited as follows:

In addition to his, now resigned, position at CAMPUS (Center for Adventist Ministry
to Public University Students), Pipim wasa guest lecturer at the Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism in 2009.

That is what we have sources for at this point. The Spectrum link and either of the AFCOE sources will work for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea but instead of "now resigned" how about we say "former". To me that sound clearer and is still true and verifiable. Also we should keep the information about those other organizations in.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me:

In addition to his former position at CAMPUS (Center for Adventist Ministry
to Public University Students), Pipim was a guest lecturer at the Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism in 2009.

Maybe also link to Amazing Facts. Admin, please make the change. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes please add the citations in. I request that you not remove portions of the article, however.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the latest version now including ARISE using this source:

In addition to his former position at CAMPUS (Center for Adventist Ministry to Public University Students), Pipim
was a guest lecturer at the Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism in 2009 and has also taught at ARISE Institute.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 

I still don't support cutting that much. Let's add the sources but keep it basically how it is.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The rest is not sourced. Per WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Please remove this . 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion as to whether documents posted anonymously to Google Docs can be linked to under WP:COPYVIO

You forgot ARISE. Hope found a list of sources you can post. And I think a few others.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be WP:COPYVIO. How do we show that it is not? The AFCOE website and the Spectrum article are the good sources we have... 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A school's handbook is not a WP:COPYVIO. We have used school handbooks and bulletin's numerous times.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize it is not a copyvio, if the school posted it to Google Docs. But the links given have no indication of who uploaded them. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the school handbook or bulletin. Handbooks and bulletins are reliable sources and are not violations, because they can be accessed by the public. Show me somewhere where we can't use college handbooks.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. It doesn't matter if it can be accessed by the public, is should not be posted to the internet unless the party that posted it owns the rights to it. Unless you can show the handbooks were 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Show me where college handbooks can't be used. I have look I have found no place which prohibits there use as reliable sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that they are reliable sources. They just aren't supposed to be linked to if they are copyvios, which these Google Docs uploads seem to be. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A school handbook is not a copyright violation.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is if posted by someone who didn't have permission in writing to post it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a school handbook. That's a reliable source. We could use a hard copy citation if you need.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you in possession of a hard copy? If not, then we can't use a hard copy. I agree, the school handbook is a reliable source. We just can't rely on some anonymous google docs user who posted it as a reliable source. Even if it is actually the school's handbook, it is probably copyvio and can't be linked. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The School's handbook is not a copyright violation. I can attain posession of the desired item though again not in this exact second.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said a school's handbook is a copy vio. It is, however, a copy vio when posted by an annoymous party to the internet, and THAT cannot be used or linked to. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The handbook is a relevant, and valid source.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said it isn't. A copy vio edition of it, however, is not. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A handbook is not a copyright violation.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is when published online by someone who didn't have permission, in writing, to do so. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A handbook is a reliable source. The statement comes from the handbook.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a hard copy that you're reading off of? Please quote from it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to quote from the hard copy.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So what are you quoting from? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Handbook.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And where did you access this handbook? How can it be verified? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in print or I think we can find it online outside of Google Docs.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please point out where online a non-copyvio version of it is available. Otherwise, please confirm that you are reading from a hard copy. We cannot do things based on copy vios. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I could say I'm reading from a hard copy and make up a source that sounds reliable. You don't know. Just like an 4 IP's could be one and we wouldn't know. I can however find the source, but again I need a few seconds to do such.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So are you confirming that you do not posses a hard copy? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have neither confirmed nor denied. Though I could speak an untruth and you would not know. Much as you could do the same when claiming you have 4 IP's agreeing with you.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay so I see the situation with the ARISE bulletin. When you search and try to open up a PDF of it (which looks like it will work) it takes you to the website but says it can't be found. If however you simply click "Quick View" the PDF handbook pops right out through Google Docs. We do know however that a handbook was there and it had Pipim in it. ARISE is going through changes so that's why the handbook probably isn't up. I was able to solve the problem though by going to another ARISE handbook (perhaps a different year). This link [44] opens to a PDF which lists the "adjunct instructors" one of whom is "Dr. Samuel Koranteng-Pipim". Hopefully this clears everything up.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes us think that http://www.mission-extreme.org/, a rather random website, had permission to post the handbook? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the coursebook and the Handbook. Mission Extreme is a partner of ARISE. They work together on classes/credits and stuff. This is the handbook and it says Pipim is an adjunct professor. It's legal to be there. Until an admin says otherwise it's a reliable source.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof? Mission Extreme does not even have an about page to read about them (or at least none that I saw), please provide documentation for their claim that they are a partner of ARISE and authorized by ARISE to post their handbook. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's your proof [45].--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will add Arise to the edit request. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Finally we agreed on something. See how much nicer that is?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Youth empowerment

This dream became a reality in 2002, when GYC was inaugurated at Pine Springs Ranch, California.

This is unsourced and should be removed as peacock language anyway. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a true statement that can be sourced. It's true "the dream" could be considered "peacock" but that could easily be edited to "Pipim's dream came to fulfillment"...in 2002... The sources for GYC can be found here [46] and the connection with Pipim here [47].--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic language, perhaps. But peacock? I'm not seeing it. - SudoGhost™ 04:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There are sources. For example, documenting the history of the first seven years of GYC, the official 388-page GYC book “For This Purpose” clearly states Pipim’s critical role in the formation of the movement that was inaugurated in 2002 (pp. 2-4; 156). Besides his other messages, the book also includes the entire sermon delivered by Pipim during the inauguration of GYC at Pine Springs Ranch (pp. 28-45). See Sikhululekile Hlatshwayo, Justin Kim, and Stephanie Quick, eds., For this Purpose: A Compilation of Sermons and Presentations from GYC. (Generation of Youth for Christ, 2008); ISBN 978-1890014-10-0. The book fleshes out what was briefly mentioned in [3” and on p. 14 of [4].--HopeAfrique (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Why" and "Excellence" Bible lectures

This section contains exactly one (1) source [48] which does not substantiate the assertions in the section. The assertions that are unsourced include "Since 2006, Pipim's name has become well-known in university circles of Africa," "imploring students to be part of the solution in transforming the African situation, Pipim insists that there is no reason to wait until after school," and most of the rest of the paragraph. I would ask that it be removed pending the finding of more sources with a brief (one sentence) summary of the source given included under the "liberating the african mind" section. 184.158.66.196 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that some of the sources to an older version were blanked out in the possible vandalism by certain IP addresses. These “edited” versions were then subsequently tagged as needing references. (See concerns raised under “IP editing”). I would suggest that we either retain the current version while efforts are made to improve upon it with additional sources, or we revert to the version that existed before “edits” by 75.128.235.12.--HopeAfrique (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. The fact is the section, as it currently exists, is not sourced. As this is a biography of a living person, any material that is not sourced and is challenged must be removed. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than simply requesting a "removal" of material it might be better to allow others to add the sources in. I suggest holding of on removing whole sections until the debate is settled. One new IP shouldn't=consensus.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This sentence is a large cause of the peacock and puffery issues plaguing this article. It needs to be removed until such sourced can be found, and at such time, it should be rewritten from a neutral point of view. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than removal this section needs reformation. It can be worked on and can have many more reliable sources added in. We should wait before going to extreme cutting lengths.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNSOURCED says that the removal of unsourced content is not on an immediate timeline. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Given the overall state of the article (currently at Full protection), this should not happen quickly, as full protection occurs when editors have not discussed changes to an article to the point that the entire article needs to be locked to promote discussion. Editors wishing to keep the contentious information in the article should, within a reasonable timeframe, find sources to back up the content. - SudoGhost™ 01:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sudo. That is exactly what I'm trying to do. On the other edits I've been able to find reliable sources that can be added for the various statements. The information in the paragraph is not exactly "contentious", except one newly editing IP has objected to it. Because it's a whole paragraph it would be easier to simply work on it once the article becomes unprotected. Until that point I can suggest sources but it's hard because it's not just one or two sentences. That is why I think any action on this particular paragraph should not occur until multiple editors get a chance to work on it. I can, however, begin posting sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This article has been contentious for a while as well as removal of this section. There has been weeks, that's a reasonable time frame. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If no sources can be found by the time full protections ends, then I would agree with the removal of the content. That gives others a reasonable amount of time to find sources for the contentious information. Immediate removal is not required, as there is no deadline. - SudoGhost™ 02:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

See below for the sources. As I said the IP will definitely challenge them, but we need time to work them in while editing the paragraph. In the meantime these sources should be enough to keep the entire paragraph from being removed.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It may help if you started a sandbox, copied the paragraph (or however long it is) into the sandbox, and added references to it there, and then share the sandbox's location with us here, so we can discuss the information and we'll have an idea of what will be sourced and how it will look. - SudoGhost™ 05:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. The thing is I've never done a sandbox but I have some "adviser/mentors" who could give me some tips. We still have a week or so till the article is free so that gives us some time. Just so long as it doesn't get deleted we should be good. Thanks for the tips Sudo.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

All right so I found many sources that could be inserted into the article which can back up the content. Of course the paragraph need editing but I'll simply give some of the sources. There's no need to go to the extremes the new IP is suggesting. For example the quote about "chicken and eagles" can be linked to an African news article [49], [50] and Pipim's own sermons [51], [52]. His work with ALIVE focusing on the African mindset can be linked to his site and a Journal article discussing the work of ALIVE & Pipim on pg. 12 [53]. The information on the "WHY" and "Excellence" series can be sourced here [54] or [55]. While you may not accept all these sources, at least some of them could be added to the paragraph to strengthen it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Instead of “removing” material, it might be better to allow others to add the sources in. For example, a version of Pipim's “Why” lecture series on university campuses was aired on Amazing Discoveries TV channel as “Why? Questions Demanding Answers”. One can also find references to his “Excellence” series at Audioverse: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62].--HopeAfrique (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea about the draft. Per WP:SUB see Talk:Samuel Koranteng-Pipim/Why and Excellence. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a better way to go.--HopeAfrique (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please go ahead and remove this unsourced section until the sandbox version is ready. Thank you. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No please do not remove this item. Feel free to add in these valid references, but don't remove the section. We don't need to destroy this article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As it currently exists in either version, it doesn't (wouldn't) add anything to the article anyway. It is not destroying this article to remove it, but simply removing information that is not sourced and not written in wikipedia's tone anyway. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This information is relevant and needs to stay in the article. It is sourced and we can source it some more. Also it's being worked on and it's not that far outside of the appropriate tone. A few tweaks would be better than taking a chainsaw do this article as the random IP keeps trying to do.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then please create a suitable version in sandbox. Otherwise, it needs to go as it is unsourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not unsourced. We have several sources here for these statements. Also a sandbox is being worked on which I believe is including other sources in addition to these.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Have you even looked at the sandbox? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have and the sources are going in there.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The sandbox has only added one additional source that is not marked for being insufficient in some way. That additional source does not even mention Pipim. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Who's judging what is "insufficient"? One IP does not get to determine the guideline for wikipedia. Especially one who may masquerade as others. Several of the sources I posted mentioned Pipim.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The point remains that the one at the sandbox is no better than the current one. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's being worked on. Wikipedia is a "progressive" encyclopedia in the sense that things constantly get changed and updated. This takes some time though and won't happen overnight.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The parts that are sourced can easily be readded. that is not an argument to keep unsouced material. See WP:BURDEN. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What material exactly is unsourced?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything that isn't sourced by the lone source. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow that was VERY specific. Thanks for your help.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly was. Unfortunate that such a large amount of information is unsourced. Do you need it laid out better for you? How's this:

Since 2006, Pipim's name has become well-known in university circles of Africa because of his unique
one-week Bible Lecture Series, notably his “WHY” and “Excellence” series. These lectures grew out of
presentations he first gave to different groups in the United States, but which he now adapts for
students, faculty, and staff on African university campuses.

Not sourced.

Pipim considers the “Why” and “Excellence” Bible lecture series as his personal contribution to the
intellectual and moral transformation of the African people. Believing that the “African mindset” is
the problem, and not the “African mind,” Pipim's lectures his audiences to think differently, take
responsibility for the destiny of their lives, their institutions and their nations. He frequently tells
his audiences to “change the world, by first being changed.”

Not sourced.

Imploring students to be part of the solution in transforming the African situation, Pipim insists
that there is no reason to wait until after school. “If not now, we're late,” he says. He passionately
believes that the change that Africa needs today can be (or must be) brought about by its young
people. 

Not sourced.

The titles of the “Why” lectures are rhetorical in nature, providing biblical solutions to everyday
questions he considers relevant to students and to the larger African society.

Not sourced.

The change Pipim is promoting is one which moves Africans from the “chicken mindset to eagle
mindset,” from mediocrity to excellence. He derives the chicken/eagle metaphor from the statement
by James E. K. Aggrey (1875–1927), one of his esteemed African role-models: “My people of Africa,
we were created in the image of God, but men have made us think that we are chickens, and we still
think we are, but we are eagles. Stretch forth your wings and fly! Don't be content with the food of Chickens.”

Not sourced. (Source for quotation in sandbox but not for Pipim's usage of it)

As the title of the “Excellence” series suggests, Pipim invites Africans to aim high, to strive for excellence
in all aspects of life—academic, professional, and spiritual.[45][non-primary source needed] For example
in his lecture titled "The Need for Excellence" or “Shine Like Gold” (here, “gold” is a metaphor for such
desirable virtues as diligence, integrity, selflessness, simplicity, compassion, patience, kindness, and
others), he urges his fellow Africans: “Don't lose your gold; don't substitute brass for gold; and don't
be content with anything less than gold.”

Not sourced or not reliably sourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You ignored the body or sources I compiled about these statements. These statements are sourced. Below I have re pasted my original post with some of the sources which you claim don't exist.

Of course the paragraph need editing but I'll simply give some of the sources. There's no need to go to the extremes the new IP is suggesting. For example the quote about "chicken and eagles" can be linked to an African news article [63], [64] and Pipim's own sermons [65], [66]. His work with ALIVE focusing on the African mindset can be linked to his site and a Journal article discussing the work of ALIVE & Pipim on pg. 12 [67]. The information on the "WHY" and "Excellence" series can be sourced here [68] or [69]. While you may not accept all these sources, at least some of them could be added to the paragraph to strengthen it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They are not in the article. Out of the ones you posted, news.myjoyonline.com seems to be the only reliable one. Which statement does that one source?50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Several of the sources are reliable. They are from various organizations of significance in the SDA church. The my joy online discusses the African mindset and the quote Pipim uses.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What sentence(s), specifically, does it source? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All of the ones about Africa, the African mindset, the eagle/chicken analogy, etc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifically? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

the ones about Africa, the African mindset, the eagle/chicken analogy, etc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifically? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

the ones about Africa, the African mindset, the eagle/chicken analogy, etc. how much more specific can I get?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

By quoting them instead of vaguely describing them. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I did exactly what you did in the request.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't 'make the edit request. But fine, here goes:

In lieu of the above, vague, edit request. I would like to ask that the paragraphs and statements above which are noted to be without sourcing be removed, without prejudice to future addition should proper sourcing be found. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The statements have sourcing. Additionally we have proposed additional reliable sources. This has already been discussed. No need to make a repeat edit request just because the first one got denied. Here I have re pasted my original post with some of the sources which you claim don't exist.Of course the paragraph need editing but I'll simply give some of the sources. There's no need to go to the extremes the new IP is suggesting. For example the quote about "chicken and eagles" can be linked to an African news article [70], [71] and Pipim's own sermons [72], [73]. His work with ALIVE focusing on the African mindset can be linked to his site and a Journal article discussing the work of ALIVE & Pipim on pg. 12 [74]. The information on the "WHY" and "Excellence" series can be sourced here [75] or [76]. While you may not accept all these sources, at least some of them could be added to the paragraph to strengthen it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The first one did not get denied, and the sources you have suggested have been shown to be non-reliable with the exception of myjoyonline.com. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Shown to be non-reliable? Really? An admin made this decision or a random IP?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Any serious editor could figure out that reviveonline.org and 247nigeria.com and HopeVideo.com are NOT reliable. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult. Perhaps I should report you like you would me? Any serious editor might stop hiding behind an IP maybe (that or possible more than one?) Honestly I don't know. Let's hope you're all independent. The integrity of the process needs to stay preserved.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up the fact that I am an IP? IP editors have just the same right to edit as you do, sorry that bothers you so much. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are several IP's. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are serveral users, excellent! 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I ask that the sections listed above as not sourced be removed immediately. Per WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Please remove this . 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The requesting IP's requets have been denied and the IP has been found to be a sock [77].--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin removing valid references

I noticed that an administrator recently removed a whole large section from the article which had several references and was going to receive more. The section was in "Youth empowerment" and described Pipim in relationship to the GYC and GC. I would ask that any administrators which are acting on this article please delay removing any sections until a proper discussion can be had. This is important to allow time for those of us working to strengthen the article to find and suggest proper sources which can be inserted into the article. That is a better way than simply cutting. This also occurred in the "Theology" section discussing ASI. If these don't get re-added now we can wait and once the page is unprotected we should be able to have the proper references to put those paragraphs back in.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I add my voice to the above. Besides the relevant and compelling sources deleted, there are additional sources that establish the close connection between Pipim (via CAMPUS) and GYC. Even his letter of resignation addressed to his “Colleagues in ministry, etc.”, assumes the general knowledge that CAMPUS (which he founded and directed), is “the birth place, headquarters, and sponsor of GYC.” See also a response by one of “GYC’s founders and second President”.--HopeAfrique (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want content added back create a new section, add {{editprotected}}, and type your addition with sources.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

More sources to be added later

I have several reliable sources that should be added to this article to strengthen it especially which relate Pipim and GYC. Maybe these could go into the sandbox or something. One source which could be used is this news story the magazine of an Adventist University [78]. I used the cached version because the website was having trouble, though this magazine is also in print so either option is available. GYC also lists Pipim as one of their presenters and describes his work [79], which I think could go very nice in this section. Pipim's also wrote an article which appears in several of his books of his connection with the GYC movement.It can be found in several places, but the easiest link was to his website here [80]. Additionally both these article from Spectrum Magazine (which the IP sees as a reliable source) mention Pipim's work with GYC [81] and note him as one of the "founders" [82]. Finally this article [83] from Adventist Today describes Pipim and GYC specifically on the role the two have played in relationship to each other.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Later isn't going to cut it with this many IPs targeting the article and an admin who is quick to change the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know where to begin. Especially on a fully protected article. I've never used sandbox before. Hope has though so basically I'm doing the job of providing sources and letting Hope insert them in. The admin has also been (somewhat) helpful in adding them in as well. Too bad he has an insane 2 day arbitrary deadline.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remove this

I don't know how to ask. From the Theology program

Following the publication of his first two books (in 1995 and 1996), Pipim emerged as a serious theological thinker, albeit a polarizing figure in his church. This fact is illustrated by the 14 comments from the leading church scholars that appear on the back cover of his first two books. For example, in the debate over women's ordination, Roy Gane, then Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Languages at the church's leading theological institution at Andrews University, wrote the following concerning Pipim's Searching the Scriptures (1995): “Whether or not a reader agrees with all of the author's interpretations or conclusions, several characteristics of this work make it helpful for focusing discussion and for challenging thinking. These include: its isolation of central questions, its consistent reasoning regarding these questions, and its careful search for authoritative principles through investigating a broad base of biblical data.” Similarly, Randall W. Younker, then Director of the PhD/ThD Program the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, endorsed Pipim's Receiving the Word (1996) in these words: “Koranteng-Pipim represents a growing number of young, perceptive, Bible-believing scholars who, while not afraid to `call it as they see it,' present challenging issues with a spirit of love and compassion. He correctly perceives that the key issue that causes division among many of us is how we view God's Word and the way we interpret it. This book is a must read for anyone who wants to be aware of the critical issues that are confronting our church in these days just prior to our blessed Lord's return.” His theological views generate considerable interest within his church, with reactions varying according to a person's theological leaning. Some conservative Seventh-day Adventist websites sites tend to promote his views as representing the mainstream Adventist position, while liberal or progressive ones tend to be critical of his views, sometimes dismissing them as relics of “religious fundamentalism.”[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.4 (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel this should be removed? Simply asking isn't sufficient reason. - SudoGhost™ 23:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because its a bunch of opinion withoutcitations, and is very opinionated as well.

Would you like some more sources? First there already are sources in the article which provide this information. I can however provide many many sources on this. For example the book which Pipim edited titled "Here We Stand" contains chapters about key issues in the church. Dr. Younker in on record endorsing. If you want I can post the citation. I don't have a scanner so I'm not sure I can scan it but I can post everything else. I can also post links to where it would exist online so you can see it's the same. Would that be acceptable?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Please remove the unsourced opinion. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Another IP? Wow what a shock. How do we know whether or not these IP's are the same or different. There is no need to remove these statements. There are sources for them and I can add more sources. I speak especially to the admin which has been cutting a lot of the article. Please don't remove unless I can't find any sources. If I can't find any I will let you know. That's probably the best way to have consensus. Way better than single-handedly allowing random IP's to take over the article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we know if these IPs are the same or different? Let's start with Geography. Michigan, Louisiana, Minnesota, Vancouver, Pennsylvania... Even if you really think we were the same person, do you really think we travelled that much? IPs have the same right to edit that you do. It is all a bunch of unsourced opinion and should be removed... it was removed at one point and readded so it has been contentious for a while. There has been plenty of time to source it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't mean you aren't part of a group working towards a specific POV goal. This is not a bunch of unsourced opinion. There are many reliable facts in here that yes were wrongly removed temporarily by other IP's (ironically). The sources are there and I can add more. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quit with your ad hominem. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What if it's true. What if you are like tatababy whom Bello Wello "accidentally" got involved with another dispute? How do we know? Basically here on wiki it's one's word against anothers. That's the danger (or for the deceptive) blessing in using an IP. Those edits and terms are all very much the same. It's ironic to have so many new IP's.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who User:Bello Wello is, and the other user seems to be blocked indefinitely. Stop with the ad hominem and lets fix this pov promo piece. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the POV attack by calling this article "promo piece". If you don't know who Bello is, that's fine, but his edits and POV were very much like the IP's on here. Supporting only Spectrum/Adventist Today sources, and attacking the use of qualified sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I quote from the top of the article:

This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information.
Please remove or replace such wording, unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization.

That is exactly what us IPs are trying to do. It is not a "POV attack" when it is clearly written at the top of the article. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that may be the goal, but in the process the IP's are getting some very good information removed. This information informs rather than just "promotes". That is why I support "replace" rather than "remove". Yes the article needs work, but there are enough sources out there to make it possible to edit without going to these extreme lengths.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What good information? If there was sourced good information removed, make an edit request for it to be added back. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What part of this is good information? Most of it. The description about his books, the statements from leading church scholars, the issues covered are all relevant. The statements from Dr. Gane, a leading expert on the Near East and the Sanctuary are also good to have in here. These quotes are useful because they show Pipim's relationship with various church leaders on key theological issues. The statement about his view being based on the way one leans is definitely relevant because it provides context. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They are also not sourced, and violate the policy on biographies of living persons until they are sourced by reliable sources. Since these statements are not pipim, they cannot be sourced to books/articles/etc. that are published or related to Pipim. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are in various books such as "receiving the word". I don't currently own it, but I've read it and read these statements. I could probably post a citation from the book, though I don't know if could get the page number. Others such as Hope probably good though.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy on self published sources do not allow the subject of an article to be a reliable source on other people, only on himself. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not self published. These are simply the endorsements of others that show up on his book or at other places. You are allowed to post endorsements of others about another's work. It's not the author himself who said it. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it needs to be published by either the source of the endorsment (the guy that supposedly endorsed it) or in some other reliable source independent of the subject with editorial oversight. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We can post those as well, however where does it say we can't use endorsements from a book. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS. Self-published sources can only make non-self serving claims about themselves. Pipim's book is a self-published source. It cannot make claims that are self serving, which endorsments are. It also cannot make claims about other people, which endorsements also are. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not making a claim about itself. It's merely reprinting a claim a third party has already made about the book or person. Endorsements are not self-serving unless it is the person endorsing themself.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"It is not making a claim about itself." That is exactly the reason why this self published source is insufficient. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not self-published.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Its written by him. Hence, it is not independent of him, that means we handle it as a self published source under WP:RS. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The book is written by him. The reviews and the endorsements are not. They are written ABOUT him, which is not considered self-published.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Does't matter. Its in a book that he published. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They're endorsements ABOUT him. There's a difference.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In a book he published. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The endorsements are not his. Also they are in reviews which he did not publish. They are in both locations, which makes your argument moot. Whether in the book he published or in reviews about his book.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then link to the reviews and this disagreement is irrelevant. I have no problem with them as long as they are sourced to something other than the back cover of his book. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can source them to several places. The problem is you want everything perfect in seconds or you will call for deletions in the article. I can get the sources but I have to first organize them and present them in a logical manner. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The way it is currently written isn't useful anyway. It can be readded when the sources appear. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No it's useful. And the sources strengthen the arguments made. This should not be removed.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are currently no sources. Please remove it and it can be added again when the sources appear. This is under WP:BLP since it is sourcing statements to living persons without citations. As such, it should be removed immediately until reliable sources are found for these statements from living persons. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No please do not remove it. This article was protected so IP's like this couldn't run rampant and just delete everything they felt wasn't in their good graces. It was also protected so that it could be worked on through consensus and Talk. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations must be removed immediately as a matter of policy. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly on here is a WP:BLP violation?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotations attributed to living persons without reliable sourcing. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh there's reliable sourcing.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Link? Otherwise, it must be removed as a WP:BLP vio and added again when sources are found. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They're coming. Be patient.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It remains a WP:BLP violation while we wait. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a violation.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Argument by assertion doesn't cut it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why you're not deciding. The admin is.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, once again, while failing to explain how this is not a WP:BLP violation other than simply claiming it is not. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again the admin will decide. Thankfully it's him and not you.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very clear reply to my post that didn't sidestep the point at all, and of course, was all material that nobody would have known otherwise! 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome for your condescending attitude.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Please remove the section noted as not sourced above. Thank you . 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This request was previously denied, and the requesting IP has been show to be a sock and has been blocked for 2 weeks [84].

False puffery under theology and then method

In addition to challenging the method of moderate liberalism, Pipim's book also worked to make a strong case for his church's 1986 “Methods of Bible Study” statement, which “urge[ed] Adventist Bible students to avoid relying on the use of the presuppositions and the resultant deductions associated with the historical-critical method.”[14]

Please edit this. In fact, the book did not make a "strong" case at all. It made a very weak case, if we use the word at all. Please edit the sentence to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.4 (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states it made a "weak case"? I strongly urge you to thoroughly read WP:NPOV and WP:COI. - SudoGhost™ 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No. But the source that says he made a "strong" case is an organization he is affiliated with. Why should he be able to self-declare that his case was "strong?" Why should I read COI?

That you have no source showing that it was a "weak case", but asking us to change the wording to such, suggests a possible conflict of interest in regards to the article's subject. - SudoGhost™ 00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true that from an ideological perspective one may disagree with the terminology of "strong". I will say however that there are ways to measure appeals and success. We have evidence that whatever he wrote regarding the statement it was widely praised and further raised him up as a leading thinker in Adventism. Several of the sources currently on the article discuss this, including Alberto Timm, the leading SDA theologian in South America where the document comes from. Timm has a long research paper on it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Alberto Timm is a leading Adventist church historian. His “History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844–2000)” is considered “the definitive study” on the subject.[85]. According to Dr. Timm, in the Adventist debate over the inspiration and authority of the Bible in the 1990s, Pipim’s Receiving the Word was “one of the most influential landmarks in that debate” and one of “the two main conflicting poles around which gravitate[d] the contemporary discussions on [the Bible's] inspiration” during the second half of the 1990s (see pp. 534-535 of [86]. It is, therefore, not without reason that scholars who embraced the church's official 1986 "Methods of Bible Study" statement also endorsed Pipim's book. This fact is amply evidenced by the strong endorsements the book received by leading scholars of the church--important sources that some of the IP editors want to remove (see discussion above under the heading "From the method section"). To avoid giving credence to questionable calls for the removal of paragraphs, these relevant sources should be included in the article.--HopeAfrique (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• If we include Alberto Timm's opinion, it should be with attribution. Admin, please either remove this puffery or attribute it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove these statements. We can include with attribution if needed. These sources are valid and need to be added into the article rather than having the article torn to pieces by new IP editors who all seem to have the same agenda.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

IP editors have the same right to edit that you do. If it is included, it needs to be attributed to this Trimm dude, which then raises the question why his opinion is significant. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you have the same right, but there is no conclusive way to know if this is all part of an organized group or just random individuals who happen to stumble upon the same article, but only choose to stay as IP's. Why is Trimm's opinion significant? Because he is the leading SDA theologian in South America.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

First attribute it and then that discussion could follow. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can and will. Right now the article is protected so I can't really edit. I can only post sources and suggestions. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You can start an article for Alberto Trimm to prove his notability. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to start any article to prove his notability. Notability is not based only on having an article here on wikipedia. Notability is based on success and knowledge and sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability is proven here on wikipedia by passing the notability policy for articles. You can just create a one sentence stub if you want. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again I don't need to even create a "one sentence stub" to prove notability. Last I checked that was not a requirement for sources. Timm is however cited on several other pages on Adventist history and theology. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Let's get it attributed first (as an improvement) and then we can argue about his notability. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All right I'll be posting the links from Timm and about this shortly.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess I have a different definition of "shortly" than this other guy......50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Than the admin, yes you will. For you shortly= a few seconds. For me shortly=in a recent period of time such as a few days.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please attribute the opinion statement above to Trimm as agreed above. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit is being worked on. In the meantime the requesting IP has been show to be a sock and has been blocked for 2 weeks.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please edit this unsourced and pov sentence from "Youth Empowerment"

Writing about the history of GYC, a retired communication director of the General Conference of the
Seventh-day Adventists, mentions that the students who started GYC were attracted to Pipim's “can-do,
tell-it-like-it-is, traditional Adventism” and his “‘higher than the highest’ philosophy of excellence” that
was advocated at CAMPUS.

This is an unbalanced opinion and should not be included without proper counter opinions. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest other sources to add. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remove this unsourced and pov sentence from "Youth Empowerment"

From the start, the GYC “experiment” that was conceived and birthed by idealistic students was
misunderstood, dismissed, and criticized by both the professional youth leadership of the church
and liberal Adventist thought leaders.

As the title says. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

These statements can be sourced.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then please provide the source. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's coming. Patience little IP patience.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your condescending attitude adds little to improve the article. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As does your impatience.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Asking for sources to be provided does help improve the article. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Patience--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Please remove this . 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sentence sourced only to self-published source

They denounced and opposed it, not only because GYC was youth-initiated and youth-led, but
more especially because of the conservative CAMPUS ideals and leadership behind the movement.

• Source: http://www.drpipim.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=126&Itemid=57

The source is dead anyway, but even if it wasn't, self published sources are only acceptable for one's own opinion, not for claiming someone else's. I ask that this be removed. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

These statements can be attributed elsewhere. I will be posting some links (but it might not be in the next 10 minutes).--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? I'll believe it when I see it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll see it. Thankfully you're not the one dictating the timing.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Please remove this poorly sourced self-published, self-serving statement. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations of liberal in "Youth Empowerment"

In the eyes of its liberal critics, the grassroots youth organization was an “emotional, anti-intellectual [and]
conservative movement" that doesn't accomplish much long-term. Other liberal critics saw GYC as the means
by which “very conservative and even reactionary forces” wanted to advance “fundamentalism” in the North
American church — a veiled reference to the CAMPUS leadership that was empowering the youth.

There is no justification for calling it a veiled reference except the extremely poor sourcing/commentary:

• These early criticisms have been echoed in recent times (2011) in liberal Adventist publications or blogs. See, for example, Hanson, Andrew, "Reviewing the Review: GYC Edition", Spectrum Magazine, January 24, 2011, accessed March 27, 2011. He writes: “What I am saying is that emotional, anti-intellectual, conservative movements like GYC don't accomplish much in the long run in spite of all the hoopla. They are ineffective in achieving their own long-term goals and can be spiritually harmful to the young innocents who blame themselves for delaying the Second Advent.” Taylor, Ervin (January 20, 2011) writes in a similar vein in his “Creating Myths: Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC) Origins”, Adventist Today, January 20, 2011, accessed March 27, 2011: “Prior to the election of Ted Wilson [as General Conference President in 2010], the GYC was viewed for what it actually was--a well-financed means to advance fundamentalist North American Adventism supported by well-known very conservative and even reactionary forces who also support and advance the Adventist Theological Society. With his election, there has been a rapid change. The agenda of the GYC has been embraced by the new GC leadership and now is being pushed by the current editor of the AR [Adventist Review].”

There is no justification to call these commentators "liberal." Please remove that. Also, please remove the original research that says it is a "veiled reference.." to CAMPUS leadership, etc. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This section needs editing, not removal.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I asked for. The removal of "liberal" and the "veiled reference" stuff. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Right but I don't think the removal of those statements is necessary. I think I may be able to find some references that use those terms. If so and they are reliable we can keep it. Thankfully you're not the one removing so hopefully the admin will give me a little bit of time.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The part about liberal is a WP:BLP violation, so it needs to be removed ASAP. The other part can wait, since apparently, there is no deadline, although Sudo suggested the end of full protection above, which is a week. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A BLP violation? I don't see any living person specifically called "liberal".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, basic reading skills are sparse on here (or among certain users, not that I am talking about anyone specifically, of course)... The persons named as liberal are what are termed "critics," of course. The ones named are Ervin Taylor and Andrew Hanson, both of whom are not liberal in the least bit. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the complements. It seems doubling skills are good on here as well (or among certain users, not anyone specific though). These individuals that you named are definitely on record as critics of Pipim. They are also considered liberal by the SDA church's standards, and politically as well, especially Taylor.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof? And why should it be mentioned here? We don't have "liberals" in the Adventist Church, just progressives. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The proof is coming be patient little IP, be patient. Don't be like how bello was.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your condescending attitude is much appreciated. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bug I got from this random IP. The same one who likes to edit war on GYC.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny how that doesn't change the fact that something is unsourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's partially sourced and it will be sourced more. Just be patient.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Please remove this . 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests under "Youth Empowerment"

lead

Between 1999 and 2011 Pipim served as the director of CAMPUS (Center for Adventist Ministry to
Public University Students), a division of Michigan Conference Public Campus Ministries department. 

This is unsourced. Please remove it unless it is sourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This can easily be sourced. We've already post a ton of citations saying this. The Spectrum article or Adventist Today for starters.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then please edit the edit request to add the citations. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I will be suggesting the citations here. I'd don't engage in "edit requests" to protected articles. I believe it's better to talk and discuss before making such unilateral decisions.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Making an edit request to add citations to an article, provided they are WP:RS, is always uncontroversial. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unlike your edit requests?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is still not sourced. Per WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Please remove this . 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

location

It is located near the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, the programs and
events at CAMPUS have attracted and earned the trust of many students and young people.

The first part of the sentence is irrelevant to the article, this article is about Pipim, not CAMPUS. Please remove it. The second part is unsourced opinion. Please remove that also. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant. He has been the leader of the organization. A tiny bit (such as the location) of the organization is not irrelevant.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The second part is still opinion. Besides, why should these two sentences be linked? If anything, it should say "CAMPUS (located near the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) or something to that effect. Furthermore, it is unsourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can source it quite easily and these sentences are linked b/c they are discussing his ministry and it's location.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt the first part can be sourced. The second part, I'll believe it when I see it. The source has to be independent of the subject, obviously. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll see it, but again...it takes time.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Please remove the second part of this sentence which is contentious and not sourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-serving claim

Since 1999, the missionary training program at CAMPUS has developed student leaders to engage the world.

Please edit this to say:

Since 1999, CAMPUS has accepted students in their missionary training program.

This is to remove the weasel language, "engage." 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit isn't necessarily a best suggestion either. It's not that "weasel" to say "engage". All "engage" means it to act and work with. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is more neutral point of view. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice opinion. We'll let the admin decide that one too.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are they engaging the world to do? It isn't useful anyway. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Resignation speculation and source

Information surrounding Mr. Pipim's resignation should be limited to carefully verified official explanations. Any defamatory speculation should be left out (such as the suggestion of homosexual behavior I removed), especially as this is a living person who is not a public figure. The citation is to Spectrum Magazine, which is not a primary source; should this perhaps be changed to point to the primary source cited by the Spectrum article? Just a thought. Hooverd377 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia thrives on secondary sources. Spectrum Magazine has proven quite a reliable source. Spectrum blogs are not so consistent. I agree with caution in reporting about Pipim's resignation. There are primary sources online, such as his actual letter of resignation, etc. Perhaps a link can be provided in External Links so individuals can read it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Resignation information on this page should cite the original, http://campushope.com/resignation/ which broke the news on May 29th. The current source, Spectrum, didn't post the news until May 31st. Quoting the primary source gives wikipedia more credibility. Using a second-hand source like Spectrum who is openly hostile toward the teachings of Samuel Pipim damages Wikipedia credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.210.161.13 (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Openly hostile" stance of a Journal does not discredit it necessarily. There probably are hundreds of reputable journals which can be described as "openly hostile" to someone. Spectrum magazine articles and opinion essays usually are carefully documented. They have a very active blog comment/response pattern. Some of the people responding to articles say some important stuff, but their input cannot be used as a reliable, verifiable source. Dr. Pipim held a position of influence within Adventism. He has been strongly supported and strongly opposed. This makes the article about him here at Wikipedia vulnerable. I applaud those who have temporarily protected the article. It allows for everyone to take a breath, review Wikipedia's rules for sources and remember that this is a biography of a living person. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Blogs and Facebook as Sources

This section has been commented out hopefully until the Wikipedia verifiability of sources can be established for blogs and facebook sources:

<! -- As was noted by a blogger, the resignation letter and statement did not name the gender of the other individual involved. Matthew Gamble, a popular Adventist speaker and writer, took issue with his statement that "others who have always opposed what we stand for will have an additional reason to rejoice." -- >

As you can imagine, in matters of this kind, careful adherence to Wikipedia's protocol is very important. We may need a veteran administrator, or two, to advise on this. The first statement casts a slant to the rumours just by mentioning what has not been said. The Gamble reaction has some validity, I think, but facebook is not a valid source for wikipedia, as far as I know. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Trailer a source

why is a trailer a source for the claims made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Make Fountainviewkid stop adding BLP violations!

Fountainviewkid readded it. Who are they and why do they belong in the article? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected for now. Please use dispute resolution for such problems in future. Regards SoWhy 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like BelloWello is showing only IP address- 50.72.159.224 (talk) Simbagraphix (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Resignation

{{editprotected}} On May 29, 2011, CAMPUS reported on its website that Pipim had resigned his employment with the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and his ministerial credentials following a "moral failure" while traveling overseas.

please use the above information in the resignation section of this article so as to attribute the primary and direct source of the information, thanks :-)

Not done, secondary sources are preferred, per WP:PSTS. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Though implied, the three official resignation documents no where mention his "ministerial credentials." CAMPUS broke the news first on May 29, not "Spectrum" (May 31), which was referring to the CAMPUS info. It's better to cite primary sources for readers to check the facts for themselves, instead of speculations from Spectrum blog. Would modify resignation section to read :

On May 29, 2011, CAMPUS reported on its website that Pipim had resigned his employment with the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists following a "moral failure" while traveling overseas. His resignation message to his "colleagues in ministry" and CAMPUS staff stated: "Although my passion for youth training and empowerment has not waned, the rest of my life is in God’s hands."HopeAfrique (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

I have no problem including the citation to CAMPUS. Spectrum still remains a secondary source. I disagree that Spectrum's contribution is "speculation". In this case, they reported accurately and provided the primary sources on which they based their story. I suggest that we keep both the CAMPUS and the Spectrum sources. Spectrum Magazine has a proven track record of sound, accurate journalism for over forty years. CAMPUS provides the carefully managed face of Pipim's church employer. Their damage control is admirable. Spectrum is a journal at arm's length from church administration. Both views are helpful to our readers here at wikipedia.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Yes we need to also have the Spectrum source, but we should be careful that everything we use comes from the news articles section and not the comments. I have yet to see any reliable source say Pipim "resigned his ministerial credentials". --Fountainviewkid (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi FVK. I have looked for any mention of Pipin resigning his ministerial credentials and can find nothing. His letter states "This is to notify you of my resignation as Director of Secular Campus Ministry and the employment of the Michigan Conference." The text ought to be edited to reflect this. His ministerial credentials have not been mentioned in this matter. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I edited the section to reflect the change. It now mentions his canceling of speaking appointments rather than untrue statements about his credentials. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook as a Source on Wikipedia articles

Recent addition to the Resignation section has prompted this section re: Facebook.

We need some veteran editors to help, one more time, on this. The concern of Matthew Gamble's opens a good discussion, I think. But the source is a Facebook account. Is this a valid source? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The veteran advice is still hoped for. I have edited the Resignation section so that Pipim's quote and Gamble's Facebook statement can be read in a wider context. Note that the Facebook account is not accessible unless one has opened a facebook account. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is not a valid source. It needs to be some kind of article or journal or something that is RS which facebook isn't.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is a valid source if it is from a notable figure on a public page, which this is. It, of course, has to be used with attribution. 209.32.70.56 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No only if that public figure is the one who the discussion is about. This is a third party source and therefore not reliable. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The third party is attributed, hence, it becomes what he thinks, and his facebook page is a reliable source for what he thinks. 209.32.70.56 (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter the attribution. If Pipim didn't write it then Facebook isn't reliable for him.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Under what policy? 209.32.70.56 (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. This also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook." [87] <quote> When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one. </quote> This applies to Gamble. 209.32.70.56 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Flatterworld, 20 June 2011

Within 'External links'

• Works by or about Samuel Koranteng-Pipim/Archive 1 in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

Flatterworld (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I support the request. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I just reactivated this edit protected request because it appears that the current protected version removed this good change. I think it should be re-added. 69.89.205.152 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Y Done as uncontroversial.  Sandstein  18:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

IP's editing

There appear to be several IP's that keep editing this article popping us as "new" editors. I personally think many of the edits are "vandalism" in nature, but I'm putting this out for comment. The removal of whole sections such as in Theology, the addition of "ministerial credential" issues and other word changes I see as trying to insert certain POV into the article. Perhaps we can hold off on editing the article in large amounts until a consensus is reached?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I also get the feeling that some edits from some IP addresses are calculated to remove important information or source references. Sometimes these edits wrongly remove whole sections or paragraphs, claim to “condense” sections or information, claims to be “trimming peacock language,” rewrites direct quotes, deletes some sources as “unnecessary,” removes listing of Pipim’s works because it is “non-notable item,” etc. I’m not entirely sure whether this is vandalism or not, nor how this vandalism can be established. But one gets the impression from some of these edits that there is deliberate attempt to either promote some agenda represented by those IP addresses or (at the very least) re-cast Pipim as though he were not “mainstream” Adventist.--HopeAfrique (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected

"The head of the worldwide Adventist church, the General Conference (GC) President, put his weight behind the movement when he spoke to the gathering of some 7,000 attendees at the 2010 GYC meeting. In the words of one GYC critic, “[t]he agenda of the GYC has been embraced by the new GC [General Conference] leadership and now is being pushed by the current editor of the AR [Adventist Review.] Even more, GYC has attracted a large global following. “Youth training events in Canada, Australia, Germany, and other places around the world have been inspired by the successful GYC grassroots movement.”"

The claims made by this paragraph is not supported by the source. Please remove it.

Pipim has authored a number of books such as Must We Be Silent? and Here We Stand.

If this could be changed to: "Pipim has authored a number of books including Must We Be Silent? and Here We Stand" I think it would sound better. Also, a citation isn't needed for this since it is sourced elsewhere in the article. 69.89.205.152 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

N No consensus yet. Please obtain consensus for the proposed edit before making the edit request.  Sandstein  18:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"The head of the worldwide Adventist church, the General Conference (GC) President, put his weight behind the movement when he spoke to the gathering of some 7,000 attendees at the 2010 GYC meeting. In the words of one GYC critic, “[t]he agenda of the GYC has been embraced by the new GC [General Conference] leadership and now is being pushed by the current editor of the AR [Adventist Review.] Even more, GYC has attracted a large global following. “Youth training events in Canada, Australia, Germany, and other places around the world have been inspired by the successful GYC grassroots movement.”"

The above paragraph should not be removed (see discussion under IP’s editing). The paragraph and references show that the movement which was inspired by subject’s ideas and influence (and which was initially ignored or dismissed) has now gained the attention of the head of the worldwide church and the editors of the official magazine of the church—facts that are even attested by critics of the movement.--HopeAfrique (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources cited do not even mention Pipim. They are not relevant to this article and should not be included, and are synthesis at best and simply unsubstantiated violations of the policy on citing items about living persons at worst. Either way, I believe it should be removed per BLP until consensus is reached either way. 184.158.59.207 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That paragraph describes the extent of the influence of the movement that was inspired by Pipim’s ideas and philosophy of youth empowerment. The sources cited in the paragraph show that the movement (which was initially dismissed by critics) has now been embraced or recognized by the highest leader and the official magazine of the church, and by many training events outside North America. Paragraph should be retained as part of the BLP.--HopeAfrique (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTHESIS. Do that at the Generation of Youth for Christ article if you want. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the paragraph is pertinent to the biography, showing that the subject’s theological ideas and philosophy of youth empowerment is being taken seriously by his church and even youth outside North America. I see paragraph as another evidence of subject’s notability (not just in ideas—expressed in his public speaking and writings—but also in his philosophy of youth empowerment—evidenced by the GYC movement he inspired).--HopeAfrique (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice thoughts but totally irrelevant to the encyclopedia and improving it. Obviously, this article suffers from WP:PEACOCK. what are your suggestions for making this article less promotional? 198.228.225.123 (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: I have declined the request again as it not clear to me whether there is consensus for this change. 198.228 and 64.91: are you the same person or different people? Are there any other opinions on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I am not the same person. I am in Wisconsin as my IP address shows, the other user seems to be from Louisiana? The sourcing is insufficient for the claims made, that is why it should be removed. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, why was this removed? This paragraph is important and I can add many sources to it. Rather than cutting, give us time to add the sources in. That's what the other admins are doing and I think it would be a better course of action than what is currently occurring.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin, for removing that badly paragraph. 209.32.69.82 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you should not have removed that paragraph because there is no consensus for removal. It is supported by the references. It indicates the attitude of SDA Church leadership towards the GYC, which Pipim mentored and supported, and, it reports the growth of GYC overseas. The only change I would make would be to remove the word "large" in the last sentence because it's a little too subjective. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good move, Martin. The sources did not support the sweeping claims made. This article needs to become less of an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.4 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh look a new IP to object. The sources supported the claims which were not "sweeping".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth, I agree with the above IPs. I think that gives us four editors who agree with the change. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

4 IP's which could be one, versus at least 3 editor users who are clearly separate and not directly connected. I'm sorry but even 4 vs. 3 does not constitute consensus. This is not a vote. And please don't try to canvass more IP's.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

List of published works

Since Pipim’s theological views generate considerable discussion, and since his philosophy of youth empowerment has inspired grassroots youth movements, any or all his published works should be listed for the benefit of those who may desire to study those works. Ideas--even controversial ideas--in these books merit interest. At the very least, those works that have ISBN numbers or those catalogued in Worldcat should be listed. Contra to some IP edits, I suggest the re-insertion of the list of published works, so that the relevant paragraph (under "Public speaking and writing") reads:

Pipim has authored a number of books. They include:

• 1995. Searching the Scriptures: A Call to Biblical Fidelity
• 1996. Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact Our Biblical Faith and Lifestyle
• 1997. In the Spirit of Truth: Key Issues on Biblical Inspiration and Interpretation
• 2000. True to Principle: Radical Discipleship in God's End-Time Church
• 2001. Must We Be Silent: Issues Dividing Our Church
• 2003. Patience in the Midst of Trials and Afflictions
• 2004. The Humility of Christ
• 2004. The Forgotten Grace of Humility - The Cure for Cancer of the Soul
• 2005. Here We Stand: Evaluating New Trends in the Church, General Editor
• 2006. God is Faithful: A Journey of Faith & A Test of Commitment
• 2007. This Is Love: Closer Relationships, Deeper Love, and Higher Spirituality
• 2008. Not for Sale: Integrity in A Culture of Silence
• 2009. Healed Wounds, But Ugly Scars: Choices and Consequences
• 2010. From Ministry to Movement—The Potential of Public Campus Ministry

It's not enough to say he has authored a many books, without listing them.--HopeAfrique (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, wikipedia does not provide lists of non-notable items. Since these books do not meet WP:BOOK, we do not need a list of them. If you think that these are notable books, please write articles on a nice proportion of them to prove notability. 184.158.59.207 (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The policy wrongly cited concerns “articles about books and literature in general.” However, the article in question is not about specific books, but about the biography of a living person. The issue at hand is whether that person’s works should be listed as part of his biography.--HopeAfrique (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that policy is very pertinent, but wasn't explained well. The issue at hand is whether this list should be included. Wikipedia happens to frown on lists of non-notable items, which this would be if the items it includes are not notable for stand alone articles. Hence, in order to include the list, the items (the works) need to be notable under WP:BOOK. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If policy is not well-explained, we must seek clarification or interpretation by finding out how other biographies have addressed this question. I checked on some Protestant/SDA theologians—past and present. Their publications were listed as part of biography. E.g., for SDA theologians, see entries on J. N. Andrews, James Springer White, Alden Thompson, Richard Rice, Edward Heppenstall, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Desmond Ford, Norm Young, etc. In some cases, even their articles are listed. It seems reasonable to me that one of the things that distinguishes a scholar/theologian is his/her ideas—often found in their writings. Thus, their writings are part of their biographies.--HopeAfrique (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dropping in again, the policy is very well explained. WP:OTHERSTUFF is an unacceptable rationale. 198.228.225.123 (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The bibliography is wholly within policy. From MOS:WORKS:

Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles.

These IPs have no idea what they're talking about. WP:BOOK is a wikiproject. Please refrain from citing policy until you know what you're doing. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from citing policy until you know what you're doing.

Please refrain from biting until you know what you're doing. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lionel knows what he's doing. This list should be included in order to bring this biography in line with others of it's same type.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lionel knows what he's doing? That's why he goes around biting new contributors, correct? 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked Lionel hasn't been blocked for edit warring as we have. Perhaps we should learn something from him.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests

Unsourced labels and original research

From towards the end of the theology section:

His theological views generate considerable interest within his church, with reactions varying according to a person's
theological leaning. Some conservative Seventh-day Adventist websites sites tend to promote his views as representing
the mainstream Adventist position, while liberal or progressive ones tend to be critical of his views, sometimes dismissing
them as relics of “religious fundamentalism."

• Citation (word used loosely): Conservative sites that are favorable to his view include: “Adventists Affirm”, “Adventist Theological Society”, “Great Controversy.org”, and “AudioVerse”. Examples of liberal or progressive sites that are critical of Pipim's view include, “Spectrum magazine” and “Adventist Today”)

As can be seen, this amounts to original research. At best, the statement "Some conservative Seventh-day Adventist websites sites tend to promote his views as representing the mainstream Adventist position, while liberal or progressive ones tend to be critical of his views, sometimes dismissing them as relics of 'religious fundamentalism.'" should be removed as it is a mischaracterization of the sources. Nowhere does Spectrum or AToday identify themselves as liberal (or progressive). Furthermore, neither of the supposedly "liberal" or "progressive" sites actually uses the words "religious fundamentalism." 184.158.59.207 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It should not be too difficult to find a reliable source which refers to Spectrum as "liberal" or "progressive". Or to find such sources which identify the conservative productions mentioned. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That would then become WP:SYNTHESIS. What you would need is a reliable source making the connection. Otherwise, it is just an unsubstantiated commentary by wikipedia editors. Great for Spectrum, not so much for wiki. ;) 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As there has been no further opinion on this, I have removed the sentence as requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, MSGJ. I can give you links. Please don't go around deleting everything after only 2 days. Give me some time and I will get the sources. I'll have to re-add this later I guess with the proper sources when the article in unblocked.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced assertion from theology section

Also, at the end of the theology section, this assertion with no source:

The varied assessment of his works may be traced to his theological methodology and his stance on issues.

This may or may not be true, but it needs a source to be included. 184.158.59.207 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 Sentence removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of date and unsourced claim of speaking engagements

This from the "Public speaking and writing" section is unsourced and out of date even if true:

He is also a frequent speaker at local and international conventions of professionals and business personnel. This includes ASI,
Adventist-laymen's Services and Industries a body of Adventist professionals.

Since he has resigned in disgrace, he has cancelled all speaking engagements so at the very least the tense needs to be changed to past tense and marked as {{cn}}, preferably, however, it should be simply removed pending a source (there is already too much unsourced material in this article). 184.158.59.207 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 Paragraph removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to cause trouble but I just noticed this edit request. I have several links which verify the information that was removed. May I request that the admin look over the sources and if possible insert them in along with the previously removed paragraph? I have found several RS links verifying this information. The first link is courtesy of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (http://www.pacificunionphoto.com/photocatalog.php?pc_id=158&cmd=detail&hash=), the second is in the calendar for an ASI Southern Union event where his name is listed 4 times as a speaker (http://asisouth.startlogic.com/events/event.php?event_id=33). Please let me know if this information is acceptable.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The links are not WP:RS and are insufficient. It should not be readded. Let's work on removing peacock language, shall we? 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And why are they not Reliable sources? What kind of source will you accept? Other than maybe an academic journal I can find that same information. Nevertheless, let's let the admin make the decision.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I will accept a source from a reliable source. Start with Adventist today or Spectrum. Furthermore, two small events is insufficient to say "frequent speaker at local and international conventions." 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you pick and choose your sources based on ideology then? The only 2 sources you gave are the same ones Bello would accept, which are definitely "alternative" compared to the mainstream or Conservative SDA sources. That's like only accepting MSNBC to report on Glenn Beck. Oh and these aren't "small events", however if you want I can provide links to 10+ more sources of various events. How many would you like? I can provide them.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Here’s an additional source, showing paragraph shouldn’t be removed (though tense should be changed to perfect tense). Introducing Pipim as the keynote speaker for the 2006 International ASI convention in Gaylord, Texas, the General Vice-President of ASI, mentioned that Pipim was also the devotional speaker at the 2005 Internation ASI convention, and also gave four reasons why Pipim is appreciated within ASI and youth circles. See, “Tell What Now”. Incidentally, this was one of the sources previously deleted by an IP address. Could it be that some IP addresses deliberately delete sources, enabling them (or others) to later suggest that certain paragraphs must be deleted because of “unsourced assertions.” Just wondering.--HopeAfrique (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Google video is not a reliable source, and could possibly be copyvio which we are not allowed to link to. 209.32.69.82 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The same ASI keynote address aired on 3ABN is available on the these two sites: [88] and [89] --HopeAfrique (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

YouTube is in the same boat as Google Video. Probable copyvio. I would assume yourvideos.net would be the same. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The video's are a red herring. There are several other sources which show the same thing. We are basically just trying to provide as many sources as possible since some random IP's are hell bent on deleting significant portions of this article. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The videos seem to be the only source provided so far. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss the ASI link? Or maybe the link from the Pacific Union Conference of SDA's? Oh and the Hope media link was not a video that I posted. Again I can post many more links as well that say the same things.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

ASI? What's ASI? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A leading Adventist organization where Pipim has been a keynote speaker.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not under the disambiguation page at ASI. Why is it notable? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's notable because he's a speaker there. Remember one need not have a wiki article to achieve notability.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's earned. And ASI had earned notability--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

How? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

By meeting the guidelines. Show me how this organization is not notable.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It doens't work like that. You have to show how it is notable. Notability is not assumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a leading organization, which is made up of thousands of members and business organizations within the SDA church. You read all about it. Adventist Layman's and Services Industries Inc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny how this "leading organization" doesn't get a single hit from Google News Archives. [90] 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but I could find you several sources on it. The organization is notable for information inside the topic of interest (the SDA church). Inside the church you can find numerous media reports on it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Various Adventist Review Articles, Journal articles, etc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Links? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They're coming, but you might have to give me a few minutes or even a few hours. I have them though.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Waiting. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait as long as you want. It's not your job to tell me how long I have to post sources or that I only have 10 minutes. The sources are coming. Be patient.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. It remains without sourcing while we wait. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why we're working on the article. It was protected exactly so things like this could be fixed instead of edit warred over.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It was protected because users insisted on re-adding unsourced material back into the article without explanation. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It was protected because a random IP kept trying to remove valid material.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay using Google News I was able to find several linked sources describing the organization ASI. Some are church based others are mainstream media type organizations. From the church based ones we have this link noting the local convention in South Africa [91], this link which lists the organization along with others [92], this story from the official Adventist News Network describing ASI in an evangelistic series [93]. Additionally there are non church sites such as this local news story from the USA [94]. This link [95] from a Jamaican newspaper describes the role of ASI is providing business and church growth information. Also this story from a Barbados news source [96] describes the role of religious business and the economy. ASI also helps in health as this news article shows [97]. Finally ASI was big on social needs in Africa as this international report describes [98]. Hopefully this is enough to prove it's notability.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Alma mater

I did a search and could not find any non-wiki sources that were reliable for this. The following sentence, tagged as unsourced, should either be sourced immediately or removed.

He holds a degree in engineering from the University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana,
where he subsequently served as a research and teaching assistant.

If sources are found for the school, then the additional info should still be removed unless a source is found. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources where this information exists. First is [99], which documents his "ministry". If this isn't acceptable however we have his website where he lists his credentials [100]. Yes this is self-sourced but we can use a biography of a person to say where they got their degree unless there is contrary evidence. There is also this source [101] which lists him along with other academic leaders on various religious topics. Again let's let the admin make the decision based off an analysis of the sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

His website would be a reliable source for where he went to school. As such, I ask that the admin add the drpipim.org website and still remove the additional "where he subsequently..." part. Thanks for finding that source, not sure how I missed it, Fountainviewkid! 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added the reference. I'm not sure if there is agreement to remove the second part of that sentence so I've left it in for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please remove the second paragraph as well. Thanks! 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do NOT remove the paragraph. We have provided several sources which are reliable and relate to the topic. Whatever else you need ask and I can provide. This is a better way to reach consensus than arbitrary removal of anything any random IP wishes to question.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not mean to ask to remove the paragraph. Simply the second part of the sentence which includes unsourced fluff about assignments. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove the second part either. It is not "unsourced fluff". It is reliable information about his work during his academic time.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliably not sourced information. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is reliably sourced. Here it my post from above. ":There are several sources where this information exists. First is [102], which documents his "ministry". If this isn't acceptable however we have his website where he lists his credentials [103]. Yes this is self-sourced but we can use a biography of a person to say where they got their degree unless there is contrary evidence. There is also this source [104] which lists him along with other academic leaders on various religious topics. Again let's let the admin make the decision based off an analysis of the sources".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The only reliable source there is his website, which we should avoid as self published, in addition to the fact that it is currently down. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not the only reliable source. There are the several others which I noted.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I see a joke of a site called hopevideo.com that has no indication of editorial oversight. Is that what you call a reliable source? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources which may be reliable. If you want I can list many more sources about Pipim's previous speaking engagements.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What does Pipim's speaking engagements have to do with anything? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait never mind sorry. But we have concluded based on an above statement "His website would be a reliable source for where he went to school". His website is reliable and not self-published for this.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what I get at his website. It seems to have been taken offline, likely because of his recent downfall. What are you getting? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine then we can use the "cached" version. It has the same information.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Link? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Its currently down but we can work on getting it up. Notice the other reliable source say the same thing.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

HopeVideo.com is not a reliable source. Please show evidence that these other sources have a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are reliable as they come from various organization within the church which are required to engage in oversight editorially. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That they include many speakers within the church, that they are widely used, etc. One does not have to sit back and be on the witness stand about every single source. They are from a noted media organization within the church.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

HopeVideo.com is a noted media organization within the church? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The media it has. The level of leadership speakers it deals with, etc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? How does that make an organization notable? And what does notability have to do with reliability? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's notability is based on it's connections is speakers, it's variety in the church, it's ability to have the rights to the various speakers messages, and it's position as a leading media organization.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What notability guideline does that satisfy? Definitely not WP:GNG. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It proves significant--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC) coverage of the subject.

Under what guideline? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The notability guidelines for organizations.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Link and quote? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's coming be patient.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can help you out here. The link is WP:NOTABILITY. Now, could you provide the quote? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's coming. Patience is a virtue, seldom found in fountainviewkid, never found in this random IP.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. How long does it take to click over to WP:NOTABILITY and show us where HopeVideo.org meets its requirements? An hour? Day? Year? Decade? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

However long it takes is not your job decide. That's for the admin, which you definitely are not.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but taking so long to post a rationale as to how this organization is notable would make most incredulous. Even if it is notable, that doesn't explain how it is a WP:RS. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again it's coming. It's not your job to determine how long it should or should not take.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All right. So I have the link that discussed where he went to school. His website is still available in the cached format. Here's the link [105]. The statement in the article is an exactly quote from the source pretty much, just as it should be. Hopefully this clears up the complains about unreliable sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also this link which says the same [106].--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Other links for this information include here [107], this book/paper [108], this link to one of his ministries [109], and his article in Spectrum Magazine, which you've admitted is a reliable source here [110]. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Spectrum article is the only reliable source. On what page does it note his work as a "teaching and research assistant" which is what we're trying to source here? I didn't see it. Anonymous websites like http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/ and http://www.womenministrytruth.com/ are not WP:RS. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

He and some of the other websites note it. And it's not your job to say what is and is not RS. That's the job for the admins. Right now this information is credibly sourced and should stay. As long as these sources get included.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You do not get to unilaterally declare sources reliable. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither do you. Spectrum is a reliable source. His website is a reliable source for his education. Reliable sources say exactly what is in the article. Why the confusion?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither of which say anything about his research and teaching assistant, or at least that I could see. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes his website does.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

BRI

I would ask that the following sentence tagged as not sourced be removed:

Between 1995 and 2000, Pipim served as a member of the Biblical Research Institute Committee (BRICOM).

64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are sources for his being on the BRICOM as well. The first is the listing of his biography [111]. There is also his biography on this Religious Media Network [112] which mentions his service. Finally this church website notes the same information [113]. This information does exist.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

None of those seem like reliable sources for a self-serving claim like serving on BRICOM. Did you check the SDA Yearbook? If it exists, it should be listed there. HopeVideo is not in any way credible, neither is an individual church website. Self-published sources are insufficient for a self-serving claim. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If we accept his website for the claim of where he went to school we can accept it for what committee's he has served on. We also have the media source. They should be reliable sources. We'll let the admin see.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's because saying he went to school at "x" is not controversial or self-serving. Saying he served on an important committee like BRICOM without any other reliable source saying it is self serving. That is the difference. To the admin, please view the "religious media ministry" website's about page [114] before approving it as a reliable source. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The information is verified and valid. We have him saying it and other reliable organizations listing it on their biography about him. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither HopeVideo or that random small church is a reliable organization. There is likely no credible editorial oversight over their websites. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And why do you say there is n oversight and that they aren't reliable? We have Pipim saying it and other biographies backing him up. The information is verified and valid.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides the sources mentioned by Fountainviewkid, Pipim’s name is also listed in the Introduction to the Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology [2000], which is volume 12 of the official “Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary” series. He is named as one of the BRICOM members who reviewed the scholarly articles contained in the volume.--HopeAfrique (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hope. That's a physical hard cover that I don't currently own. It's nice to also have a print source in addition to the electronic ones. It would make sense BRICOM would appear there.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I just looked that up and did not see it, Hope. Are you sure you are not making that up? We need verification through a scan or something of that sort to verify that it is actually there. 209.32.69.82 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at p.v., where all the the names of all the BRICOM members are listed. Pipim's name is there.--HopeAfrique (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't verify it. Perhaps the other IP will be able to confirm whether they found it or not.... 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have seen copies of this book. Here are links that describe the existence of the book. For example a location on Amazon where the book can be purchased [115], the description of the book from the committee which produced it where Pipim served [116], and an article from the official journal of the church describing the book's creation [117]. These should be verification enough. If not I can provide everything but the physical book itself (though I can be in possession of it within a week or so).--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I know the book exists. We just don't know whther Hope is telling the truth when he says that BRICOM members are listed and Pipim's name is there. I believe my church has a copy and I will check it then. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can do likewise but it will take a few days.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pipim's official bio indicates he served on BRICOM. Hope mentions it. I checked from the "Handbook . . ." where his name is listed alongside the other BRICOM members who produced the book. The reference page is "v" (Roman letter "v"). IP 209.32 was wondering if I made it up and IP 50.72 not sure if Hope is telling the truth. Could you confirm your findings to us? Thanks.--HopeAfrique (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just found two additional sources. The 1999 and 2000 “Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook” (the official book with the names of all denominational employees) list Pipim as a member of the BRICOM, alongside the other members whose names also appear on p.v. of the “Handbook of Adventist Theology”: See, [118][119]--HopeAfrique (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good sources. Thanks Hope.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

From the method section

The following sentence appears under "Method:"

Scholars who embraced the church's historical positions, however, were more supportive of the book.

• Citation: Besides the favorable review of the book by the Director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference, George W. Reid, “Book Review: Receiving the Word,” in Ministry, December 1997, 30-31, Receiving the Word was also endorsed by the following prominent thought leaders of the church: Norman R. Gulley, Paul Gordon, Raoul Dederen, Clifford Goldstein, Alberto R. Timm, William H. Shea, Keith Burton, C. Raymond Holmes, Artur A. Stele, and Randall W. Younker. Their endorsements appear at the back of the book, where Raoul Dederen sums up their evaluation of the book: "An amazingly clear and competent presentation which will supply Seventh-day Adventists with a reasoned statement of their own position and challenge liberals to reexamine their fundamental presuppositions. I wish it the widest circulation."

I take exception to the "embraced the church's historical positions" part. That portion of the sentence should be removed. Perhaps to "Some scholars, however, were supportive of the book." 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

How about if the term "embraced the church's fundamental beliefs". The SDA church has a clear set of beliefs and a spectrum on how widely those are "embraced". It's an openly known fact that Pipim's supporters are those which "embrace" the church's beliefs (which are generally in line with it's historical positions). --Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No its not, Spectrum writers represent the mainstream of the church, in my opinion. Your opinion differs. Hence, unless there is a reliable source, it is unacceptable to include such opinion. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what Spectrum has to do here. It's clear that certain SDA leaders embrace the "official" position more than others. Those leaders just happen to be the same ones that endorsed Pipim and who are listed above. Additionally the church's "historical positions" are not really that disputed, especially since there is even a page for "historic Adventist" which embrace the church's "historic positions".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum writers are not usually mainstream Perhaps in Spectrum's early days. But Spectrum's writers usually address mainstream practices and challenge them. This has been Spectrum's strength. Avant-garde Adventism, perhaps. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So we have a variance of opinion. This highlights why reliable sources to make the claim are crucial, and it should not be included and should not use synthesis to get to it. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Variance of opinion? You mean one new IP who disagrees with the other editors and is trying to remove anything that isn't sourced at the highest levels...ironically right along with a specific POV.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs verification. Particularly since there is disagreement, we need a source to lay it out without engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS. 209.32.69.82 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite its perceived strengths, 'Spectrum does NOT represent mainstream of the church.'' 'The Seventh-day Adventist church's position dissociating itself from the Association of Adventist Forums and its magazine, Spectrum, is found in General Conference President’s statement at the 1984 Annual Council. See "Association of Adventist Forums Report (See also, Myron K. Widmer, "1984 Annual Council--Part III," Adventist Review, November 15, 1984, pp. 4-5).--HopeAfrique (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. What matters is that the source provided is SYNTHESIS at best and is insufficient for the claims made. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is not synthesis. It explains what Spectrum's relationship is with the church. That is relevant as Spectrum has written a lot on Pipim, including sourcing for this article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with "Scholars who embraced the church's historical positions, however, were more supportive of the book." ???? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You need evidence that certain positions are the church's "historical positions"? If so look at the Historic Adventist page or the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Also look at the issues with the scholars are supporting. You will see that they were the ones which support this book. And no its not synthesis.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is textbook synthesis. You need a WP:RS to make the connection for you. We don't research and create conclusions that were not laid out by reliable sources on wikipedia. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not synthesis. These sources are reliable that we have posted on here. These conclusions are laid out the sources themselves.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is combining multiple reliable sources to create a statement that is not supported by any reliable sources. That is the textbook definition of synthesis. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not combining multiple sources to create a statement. It is using multiple source to back up and provide the background and information to a statement. There is a difference.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a quotation and link to the reliable source which says "scholars who supported the church's historic positons were supportive of the book." 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not everything on here has to be exactly quotes from other sources. The point is to get the main points, ideas, or thoughts by using the sources. Otherwise that would be "excessive quoting". The sources provide those ideas without using those exact words. Kinda like Pipim's ministerial credentials and the gender of the other.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to put it in the article, I asked you to provide evidence that a reliable source makes the connection you want to include in the article. Please do so under WP:BURDEN. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources describe the positions that Pipim holds, that the thought leaders hold and that the Spectrum group holds. They then endorse various positions.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quote? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again this will take some time to compile. I have to re-read it to find the specific quote I'm looking for. I don't have it offhand.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Waiting. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well have a little bit of patience. I know you're trying to keep me from being able to find the sources by starting arguments with me about every source on here, so it will take some time. Wikipedia sources don't just get posted in a few minutes. Have patience. Give time for consensus. Don't be in such a rush. You love to selectively choose and preach certain guidelines while ignoring others.

This article has been contentious for a while. You've edit warred on these sections without sources previously, you've had plenty of time to add sources, as the other IP suggested below. But, we're waiting. Let's see these sources. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you have engaged in edit wars. That and your pals. Just like you're engaging in edit war behaviors on several other articles (GYC for example). The sources will come. The admin will decide when the deadline has passed not you. You are an IP not an admin. You don't get to make those decisions.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I noted your edit warring to say that the sections have been contentious for a while. There has been plenty of time to add these sources. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would note you also have a history of edit warring. I am working on adding these sources. If you were truly working for the good of the article and consensus you would allow me the time. I am not asking for a month or many days. I also ask for a little time. Be it a few hours or a few days. But remember. It is the admin that makes this decision not me and definitely not you.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We're waiting for the sources. If there are sources, the paragraph needs to be written over again, anyway. Which is why it is better off deleted and then reposted. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And you will get the sources. If you weren't so focused with deleting half the article I'd have the time to find them. It is not better to delete it. It is better to edit it. Why delete and repost when you can simply reform?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it is not sourced and the tone is unencyclopedic anyway. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion which an admin will decide.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All right so I have the link talking about Pipim's views and the church's positions. This material comes largely from A research paper from a conference written by Dr. Timm. It can be found here [120] or [121] if the other one loads to slowly. Either way they are both the same and should not have copyright troubles. Here are some reactions to the book [122], and [123], as well as a shorter article by Timm over the whole controversy [124]. Other reviews which describe the church's "historical positions" and Pipim are here [125] & [126]. We also have the official statement on Spectrum from the SDA church above.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That does not source the claims without engaging in synthesis. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope the claims are there. You just have to read the source to see that, which you obviously didn't.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the quotation and page numbers then. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They might be coming. Patience. It's not your job to judge these things, it's the admins.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Admins don't have special powers over content, and any editor can challenge anything. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Another from the method section

Besides CAMPUS (Center for Adventist Ministry to Public University Students) and the Emmanuel Institute of
Evangelism, Michigan Conference's outreach school, Pipim also regularly teaches intensive courses on
hermeneutics to students enrolled at, AFCOE (Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism), ARISE (A Resource
Institute for Soul-winning and Evangelism), and LIFE (Lay Institute for Evangelism), supporting institutes
run by Adventist supporting organizations.

This is marked as not sourced and is puffery anyway. As such, it should be removed. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Again we can use his biography for this information [127] or [128], or even [129] which describes his leadership in various organizations.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

His official biography is insufficient for such sweeping claims. If it is included, a link should be included to the website of each organization which lists him under faculty or a WP:RS noting each organization. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm that's funny. You said Spectrum is a reliable source. I use Spectrum as a reliable source and you complain about my sourcing. Notice I listed a variety of sources. You conveniently chose to attack the one which was less reliable than the other 2. These organizations don't exactly have lists of "faculty" yet or include him since he's operates more as a "visiting" scholar. Nevertheless the information is reliably sourced depending on which source you choose.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Spectrum link you provided does not make the claims that are being challenged here. 209.32.69.82 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If his official biography is "insufficient," as per IP editor, allow for additional sources, instead of calling for the removal. There are sources that show he is a guest lecturer in some of the supporting institutes. For example, the “AFCOE” website and their “2009 Handbook” mention Pipim as a guest lecturer. Similarly, “ARISE” mentions him as an adjunct professor. I'm sure other editors may be able to look for additional sources to back information from his official biography.--HopeAfrique (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Spectrum" link provides information about some of the challenged claims such as his positions in various organizations (i.e. CAMPUS). Additionally Hope provided examples where the institutions do list him.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest it be edited as follows:

In addition to his, now resigned, position at CAMPUS (Center for Adventist Ministry
to Public University Students), Pipim wasa guest lecturer at the Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism in 2009.

That is what we have sources for at this point. The Spectrum link and either of the AFCOE sources will work for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea but instead of "now resigned" how about we say "former". To me that sound clearer and is still true and verifiable. Also we should keep the information about those other organizations in.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me:

In addition to his former position at CAMPUS (Center for Adventist Ministry
to Public University Students), Pipim was a guest lecturer at the Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism in 2009.

Maybe also link to Amazing Facts. Admin, please make the change. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes please add the citations in. I request that you not remove portions of the article, however.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the latest version now including ARISE using this source:

In addition to his former position at CAMPUS (Center for Adventist Ministry to Public University Students), Pipim
was a guest lecturer at the Amazing Facts Center of Evangelism in 2009 and has also taught at ARISE Institute.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 

I still don't support cutting that much. Let's add the sources but keep it basically how it is.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion as to whether documents posted anonymously to Google Docs can be linked to under WP:COPYVIO

You forgot ARISE. Hope found a list of sources you can post. And I think a few others.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be WP:COPYVIO. How do we show that it is not? The AFCOE website and the Spectrum article are the good sources we have... 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A school's handbook is not a WP:COPYVIO. We have used school handbooks and bulletin's numerous times.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize it is not a copyvio, if the school posted it to Google Docs. But the links given have no indication of who uploaded them. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the school handbook or bulletin. Handbooks and bulletins are reliable sources and are not violations, because they can be accessed by the public. Show me somewhere where we can't use college handbooks.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. It doesn't matter if it can be accessed by the public, is should not be posted to the internet unless the party that posted it owns the rights to it. Unless you can show the handbooks were 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Show me where college handbooks can't be used. I have look I have found no place which prohibits there use as reliable sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that they are reliable sources. They just aren't supposed to be linked to if they are copyvios, which these Google Docs uploads seem to be. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A school handbook is not a copyright violation.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is if posted by someone who didn't have permission in writing to post it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a school handbook. That's a reliable source. We could use a hard copy citation if you need.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you in possession of a hard copy? If not, then we can't use a hard copy. I agree, the school handbook is a reliable source. We just can't rely on some anonymous google docs user who posted it as a reliable source. Even if it is actually the school's handbook, it is probably copyvio and can't be linked. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The School's handbook is not a copyright violation. I can attain posession of the desired item though again not in this exact second.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said a school's handbook is a copy vio. It is, however, a copy vio when posted by an annoymous party to the internet, and THAT cannot be used or linked to. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The handbook is a relevant, and valid source.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said it isn't. A copy vio edition of it, however, is not. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A handbook is not a copyright violation.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is when published online by someone who didn't have permission, in writing, to do so. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A handbook is a reliable source. The statement comes from the handbook.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a hard copy that you're reading off of? Please quote from it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to quote from the hard copy.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So what are you quoting from? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Handbook.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And where did you access this handbook? How can it be verified? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in print or I think we can find it online outside of Google Docs.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please point out where online a non-copyvio version of it is available. Otherwise, please confirm that you are reading from a hard copy. We cannot do things based on copy vios. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I could say I'm reading from a hard copy and make up a source that sounds reliable. You don't know. Just like an 4 IP's could be one and we wouldn't know. I can however find the source, but again I need a few seconds to do such.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So are you confirming that you do not posses a hard copy? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have neither confirmed nor denied. Though I could speak an untruth and you would not know. Much as you could do the same when claiming you have 4 IP's agreeing with you.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay so I see the situation with the ARISE bulletin. When you search and try to open up a PDF of it (which looks like it will work) it takes you to the website but says it can't be found. If however you simply click "Quick View" the PDF handbook pops right out through Google Docs. We do know however that a handbook was there and it had Pipim in it. ARISE is going through changes so that's why the handbook probably isn't up. I was able to solve the problem though by going to another ARISE handbook (perhaps a different year). This link [130] opens to a PDF which lists the "adjunct instructors" one of whom is "Dr. Samuel Koranteng-Pipim". Hopefully this clears everything up.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes us think that http://www.mission-extreme.org/, a rather random website, had permission to post the handbook? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the coursebook and the Handbook. Mission Extreme is a partner of ARISE. They work together on classes/credits and stuff. This is the handbook and it says Pipim is an adjunct professor. It's legal to be there. Until an admin says otherwise it's a reliable source.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof? Mission Extreme does not even have an about page to read about them (or at least none that I saw), please provide documentation for their claim that they are a partner of ARISE and authorized by ARISE to post their handbook. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's your proof [131].--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will add Arise to the edit request. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Finally we agreed on something. See how much nicer that is?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Youth empowerment

This dream became a reality in 2002, when GYC was inaugurated at Pine Springs Ranch, California.

This is unsourced and should be removed as peacock language anyway. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a true statement that can be sourced. It's true "the dream" could be considered "peacock" but that could easily be edited to "Pipim's dream came to fulfillment"...in 2002... The sources for GYC can be found here [132] and the connection with Pipim here [133].--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic language, perhaps. But peacock? I'm not seeing it. - SudoGhost™ 04:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There are sources. For example, documenting the history of the first seven years of GYC, the official 388-page GYC book “For This Purpose” clearly states Pipim’s critical role in the formation of the movement that was inaugurated in 2002 (pp. 2-4; 156). Besides his other messages, the book also includes the entire sermon delivered by Pipim during the inauguration of GYC at Pine Springs Ranch (pp. 28-45). See Sikhululekile Hlatshwayo, Justin Kim, and Stephanie Quick, eds., For this Purpose: A Compilation of Sermons and Presentations from GYC. (Generation of Youth for Christ, 2008); ISBN 978-1890014-10-0. The book fleshes out what was briefly mentioned in [3” and on p. 14 of [4].--HopeAfrique (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Why" and "Excellence" Bible lectures

This section contains exactly one (1) source [134] which does not substantiate the assertions in the section. The assertions that are unsourced include "Since 2006, Pipim's name has become well-known in university circles of Africa," "imploring students to be part of the solution in transforming the African situation, Pipim insists that there is no reason to wait until after school," and most of the rest of the paragraph. I would ask that it be removed pending the finding of more sources with a brief (one sentence) summary of the source given included under the "liberating the african mind" section. 184.158.66.196 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that some of the sources to an older version were blanked out in the possible vandalism by certain IP addresses. These “edited” versions were then subsequently tagged as needing references. (See concerns raised under “IP editing”). I would suggest that we either retain the current version while efforts are made to improve upon it with additional sources, or we revert to the version that existed before “edits” by 75.128.235.12.--HopeAfrique (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. The fact is the section, as it currently exists, is not sourced. As this is a biography of a living person, any material that is not sourced and is challenged must be removed. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than simply requesting a "removal" of material it might be better to allow others to add the sources in. I suggest holding of on removing whole sections until the debate is settled. One new IP shouldn't=consensus.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This sentence is a large cause of the peacock and puffery issues plaguing this article. It needs to be removed until such sourced can be found, and at such time, it should be rewritten from a neutral point of view. 64.91.64.101 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than removal this section needs reformation. It can be worked on and can have many more reliable sources added in. We should wait before going to extreme cutting lengths.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNSOURCED says that the removal of unsourced content is not on an immediate timeline. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Given the overall state of the article (currently at Full protection), this should not happen quickly, as full protection occurs when editors have not discussed changes to an article to the point that the entire article needs to be locked to promote discussion. Editors wishing to keep the contentious information in the article should, within a reasonable timeframe, find sources to back up the content. - SudoGhost™ 01:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sudo. That is exactly what I'm trying to do. On the other edits I've been able to find reliable sources that can be added for the various statements. The information in the paragraph is not exactly "contentious", except one newly editing IP has objected to it. Because it's a whole paragraph it would be easier to simply work on it once the article becomes unprotected. Until that point I can suggest sources but it's hard because it's not just one or two sentences. That is why I think any action on this particular paragraph should not occur until multiple editors get a chance to work on it. I can, however, begin posting sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This article has been contentious for a while as well as removal of this section. There has been weeks, that's a reasonable time frame. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If no sources can be found by the time full protections ends, then I would agree with the removal of the content. That gives others a reasonable amount of time to find sources for the contentious information. Immediate removal is not required, as there is no deadline. - SudoGhost™ 02:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

See below for the sources. As I said the IP will definitely challenge them, but we need time to work them in while editing the paragraph. In the meantime these sources should be enough to keep the entire paragraph from being removed.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It may help if you started a sandbox, copied the paragraph (or however long it is) into the sandbox, and added references to it there, and then share the sandbox's location with us here, so we can discuss the information and we'll have an idea of what will be sourced and how it will look. - SudoGhost™ 05:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. The thing is I've never done a sandbox but I have some "adviser/mentors" who could give me some tips. We still have a week or so till the article is free so that gives us some time. Just so long as it doesn't get deleted we should be good. Thanks for the tips Sudo.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

All right so I found many sources that could be inserted into the article which can back up the content. Of course the paragraph need editing but I'll simply give some of the sources. There's no need to go to the extremes the new IP is suggesting. For example the quote about "chicken and eagles" can be linked to an African news article [135], [136] and Pipim's own sermons [137], [138]. His work with ALIVE focusing on the African mindset can be linked to his site and a Journal article discussing the work of ALIVE & Pipim on pg. 12 [139]. The information on the "WHY" and "Excellence" series can be sourced here [140] or [141]. While you may not accept all these sources, at least some of them could be added to the paragraph to strengthen it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Instead of “removing” material, it might be better to allow others to add the sources in. For example, a version of Pipim's “Why” lecture series on university campuses was aired on Amazing Discoveries TV channel as “Why? Questions Demanding Answers”. One can also find references to his “Excellence” series at Audioverse: [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], and [148].--HopeAfrique (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea about the draft. Per WP:SUB see Talk:Samuel Koranteng-Pipim/Why and Excellence. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a better way to go.--HopeAfrique (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please go ahead and remove this unsourced section until the sandbox version is ready. Thank you. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No please do not remove this item. Feel free to add in these valid references, but don't remove the section. We don't need to destroy this article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As it currently exists in either version, it doesn't (wouldn't) add anything to the article anyway. It is not destroying this article to remove it, but simply removing information that is not sourced and not written in wikipedia's tone anyway. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This information is relevant and needs to stay in the article. It is sourced and we can source it some more. Also it's being worked on and it's not that far outside of the appropriate tone. A few tweaks would be better than taking a chainsaw do this article as the random IP keeps trying to do.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then please create a suitable version in sandbox. Otherwise, it needs to go as it is unsourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not unsourced. We have several sources here for these statements. Also a sandbox is being worked on which I believe is including other sources in addition to these.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Have you even looked at the sandbox? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have and the sources are going in there.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The sandbox has only added one additional source that is not marked for being insufficient in some way. That additional source does not even mention Pipim. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Who's judging what is "insufficient"? One IP does not get to determine the guideline for wikipedia. Especially one who may masquerade as others. Several of the sources I posted mentioned Pipim.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The point remains that the one at the sandbox is no better than the current one. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's being worked on. Wikipedia is a "progressive" encyclopedia in the sense that things constantly get changed and updated. This takes some time though and won't happen overnight.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The parts that are sourced can easily be readded. that is not an argument to keep unsouced material. See WP:BURDEN. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What material exactly is unsourced?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything that isn't sourced by the lone source. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow that was VERY specific. Thanks for your help.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly was. Unfortunate that such a large amount of information is unsourced. Do you need it laid out better for you? How's this:

Since 2006, Pipim's name has become well-known in university circles of Africa because of his unique
one-week Bible Lecture Series, notably his “WHY” and “Excellence” series. These lectures grew out of
presentations he first gave to different groups in the United States, but which he now adapts for
students, faculty, and staff on African university campuses.

Not sourced.

Pipim considers the “Why” and “Excellence” Bible lecture series as his personal contribution to the
intellectual and moral transformation of the African people. Believing that the “African mindset” is
the problem, and not the “African mind,” Pipim's lectures his audiences to think differently, take
responsibility for the destiny of their lives, their institutions and their nations. He frequently tells
his audiences to “change the world, by first being changed.”

Not sourced.

Imploring students to be part of the solution in transforming the African situation, Pipim insists
that there is no reason to wait until after school. “If not now, we're late,” he says. He passionately
believes that the change that Africa needs today can be (or must be) brought about by its young
people. 

Not sourced.

The titles of the “Why” lectures are rhetorical in nature, providing biblical solutions to everyday
questions he considers relevant to students and to the larger African society.

Not sourced.

The change Pipim is promoting is one which moves Africans from the “chicken mindset to eagle
mindset,” from mediocrity to excellence. He derives the chicken/eagle metaphor from the statement
by James E. K. Aggrey (1875–1927), one of his esteemed African role-models: “My people of Africa,
we were created in the image of God, but men have made us think that we are chickens, and we still
think we are, but we are eagles. Stretch forth your wings and fly! Don't be content with the food of Chickens.”

Not sourced. (Source for quotation in sandbox but not for Pipim's usage of it)

As the title of the “Excellence” series suggests, Pipim invites Africans to aim high, to strive for excellence
in all aspects of life—academic, professional, and spiritual.[45][non-primary source needed] For example
in his lecture titled "The Need for Excellence" or “Shine Like Gold” (here, “gold” is a metaphor for such
desirable virtues as diligence, integrity, selflessness, simplicity, compassion, patience, kindness, and
others), he urges his fellow Africans: “Don't lose your gold; don't substitute brass for gold; and don't
be content with anything less than gold.”

Not sourced or not reliably sourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You ignored the body or sources I compiled about these statements. These statements are sourced. Below I have re pasted my original post with some of the sources which you claim don't exist.

Of course the paragraph need editing but I'll simply give some of the sources. There's no need to go to the extremes the new IP is suggesting. For example the quote about "chicken and eagles" can be linked to an African news article [149], [150] and Pipim's own sermons [151], [152]. His work with ALIVE focusing on the African mindset can be linked to his site and a Journal article discussing the work of ALIVE & Pipim on pg. 12 [153]. The information on the "WHY" and "Excellence" series can be sourced here [154] or [155]. While you may not accept all these sources, at least some of them could be added to the paragraph to strengthen it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They are not in the article. Out of the ones you posted, news.myjoyonline.com seems to be the only reliable one. Which statement does that one source?50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Several of the sources are reliable. They are from various organizations of significance in the SDA church. The my joy online discusses the African mindset and the quote Pipim uses.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What sentence(s), specifically, does it source? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All of the ones about Africa, the African mindset, the eagle/chicken analogy, etc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifically? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

the ones about Africa, the African mindset, the eagle/chicken analogy, etc.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifically? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

the ones about Africa, the African mindset, the eagle/chicken analogy, etc. how much more specific can I get?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

By quoting them instead of vaguely describing them. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I did exactly what you did in the request.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't 'make the edit request. But fine, here goes:

In lieu of the above, vague, edit request. I would like to ask that the paragraphs and statements above which are noted to be without sourcing be removed, without prejudice to future addition should proper sourcing be found. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The statements have sourcing. Additionally we have proposed additional reliable sources. This has already been discussed. No need to make a repeat edit request just because the first one got denied. Here I have re pasted my original post with some of the sources which you claim don't exist.Of course the paragraph need editing but I'll simply give some of the sources. There's no need to go to the extremes the new IP is suggesting. For example the quote about "chicken and eagles" can be linked to an African news article [156], [157] and Pipim's own sermons [158], [159]. His work with ALIVE focusing on the African mindset can be linked to his site and a Journal article discussing the work of ALIVE & Pipim on pg. 12 [160]. The information on the "WHY" and "Excellence" series can be sourced here [161] or [162]. While you may not accept all these sources, at least some of them could be added to the paragraph to strengthen it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The first one did not get denied, and the sources you have suggested have been shown to be non-reliable with the exception of myjoyonline.com. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Shown to be non-reliable? Really? An admin made this decision or a random IP?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Any serious editor could figure out that reviveonline.org and 247nigeria.com and HopeVideo.com are NOT reliable. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult. Perhaps I should report you like you would me? Any serious editor might stop hiding behind an IP maybe (that or possible more than one?) Honestly I don't know. Let's hope you're all independent. The integrity of the process needs to stay preserved.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up the fact that I am an IP? IP editors have just the same right to edit as you do, sorry that bothers you so much. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are several IP's. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin removing valid references

I noticed that an administrator recently removed a whole large section from the article which had several references and was going to receive more. The section was in "Youth empowerment" and described Pipim in relationship to the GYC and GC. I would ask that any administrators which are acting on this article please delay removing any sections until a proper discussion can be had. This is important to allow time for those of us working to strengthen the article to find and suggest proper sources which can be inserted into the article. That is a better way than simply cutting. This also occurred in the "Theology" section discussing ASI. If these don't get re-added now we can wait and once the page is unprotected we should be able to have the proper references to put those paragraphs back in.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I add my voice to the above. Besides the relevant and compelling sources deleted, there are additional sources that establish the close connection between Pipim (via CAMPUS) and GYC. Even his letter of resignation addressed to his “Colleagues in ministry, etc.”, assumes the general knowledge that CAMPUS (which he founded and directed), is “the birth place, headquarters, and sponsor of GYC.” See also a response by one of “GYC’s founders and second President”.--HopeAfrique (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want content added back create a new section, add {{editprotected}}, and type your addition with sources.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

More sources to be added later

I have several reliable sources that should be added to this article to strengthen it especially which relate Pipim and GYC. Maybe these could go into the sandbox or something. One source which could be used is this news story the magazine of an Adventist University [163]. I used the cached version because the website was having trouble, though this magazine is also in print so either option is available. GYC also lists Pipim as one of their presenters and describes his work [164], which I think could go very nice in this section. Pipim's also wrote an article which appears in several of his books of his connection with the GYC movement.It can be found in several places, but the easiest link was to his website here [165]. Additionally both these article from Spectrum Magazine (which the IP sees as a reliable source) mention Pipim's work with GYC [166] and note him as one of the "founders" [167]. Finally this article [168] from Adventist Today describes Pipim and GYC specifically on the role the two have played in relationship to each other.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Later isn't going to cut it with this many IPs targeting the article and an admin who is quick to change the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know where to begin. Especially on a fully protected article. I've never used sandbox before. Hope has though so basically I'm doing the job of providing sources and letting Hope insert them in. The admin has also been (somewhat) helpful in adding them in as well. Too bad he has an insane 2 day arbitrary deadline.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Are records of discussions of on this Talk page kept so that we can retrieve important information and sources? As I stated elsewhere a short while ago, in the course of the discussions on this Talk page numerous sources have been uncovered. I just hope that none of these will be left out in the article, lest some IP editors resurface again with claims that paragraphs are not properly sourced.--HopeAfrique (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remove this

I don't know how to ask. From the Theology program

Following the publication of his first two books (in 1995 and 1996), Pipim emerged as a serious theological thinker, albeit a polarizing figure in his church. This fact is illustrated by the 14 comments from the leading church scholars that appear on the back cover of his first two books. For example, in the debate over women's ordination, Roy Gane, then Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Languages at the church's leading theological institution at Andrews University, wrote the following concerning Pipim's Searching the Scriptures (1995): “Whether or not a reader agrees with all of the author's interpretations or conclusions, several characteristics of this work make it helpful for focusing discussion and for challenging thinking. These include: its isolation of central questions, its consistent reasoning regarding these questions, and its careful search for authoritative principles through investigating a broad base of biblical data.” Similarly, Randall W. Younker, then Director of the PhD/ThD Program the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, endorsed Pipim's Receiving the Word (1996) in these words: “Koranteng-Pipim represents a growing number of young, perceptive, Bible-believing scholars who, while not afraid to `call it as they see it,' present challenging issues with a spirit of love and compassion. He correctly perceives that the key issue that causes division among many of us is how we view God's Word and the way we interpret it. This book is a must read for anyone who wants to be aware of the critical issues that are confronting our church in these days just prior to our blessed Lord's return.” His theological views generate considerable interest within his church, with reactions varying according to a person's theological leaning. Some conservative Seventh-day Adventist websites sites tend to promote his views as representing the mainstream Adventist position, while liberal or progressive ones tend to be critical of his views, sometimes dismissing them as relics of “religious fundamentalism.”[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.4 (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel this should be removed? Simply asking isn't sufficient reason. - SudoGhost™ 23:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because its a bunch of opinion withoutcitations, and is very opinionated as well.

Would you like some more sources? First there already are sources in the article which provide this information. I can however provide many many sources on this. For example the book which Pipim edited titled "Here We Stand" contains chapters about key issues in the church. Dr. Younker in on record endorsing. If you want I can post the citation. I don't have a scanner so I'm not sure I can scan it but I can post everything else. I can also post links to where it would exist online so you can see it's the same. Would that be acceptable?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Please remove the unsourced opinion. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Another IP? Wow what a shock. How do we know whether or not these IP's are the same or different. There is no need to remove these statements. There are sources for them and I can add more sources. I speak especially to the admin which has been cutting a lot of the article. Please don't remove unless I can't find any sources. If I can't find any I will let you know. That's probably the best way to have consensus. Way better than single-handedly allowing random IP's to take over the article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we know if these IPs are the same or different? Let's start with Geography. Michigan, Louisiana, Minnesota, Vancouver, Pennsylvania... Even if you really think we were the same person, do you really think we travelled that much? IPs have the same right to edit that you do. It is all a bunch of unsourced opinion and should be removed... it was removed at one point and readded so it has been contentious for a while. There has been plenty of time to source it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't mean you aren't part of a group working towards a specific POV goal. This is not a bunch of unsourced opinion. There are many reliable facts in here that yes were wrongly removed temporarily by other IP's (ironically). The sources are there and I can add more. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quit with your ad hominem. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What if it's true. What if you are like tatababy whom Bello Wello "accidentally" got involved with another dispute? How do we know? Basically here on wiki it's one's word against anothers. That's the danger (or for the deceptive) blessing in using an IP. Those edits and terms are all very much the same. It's ironic to have so many new IP's.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who User:Bello Wello is, and the other user seems to be blocked indefinitely. Stop with the ad hominem and lets fix this pov promo piece. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the POV attack by calling this article "promo piece". If you don't know who Bello is, that's fine, but his edits and POV were very much like the IP's on here. Supporting only Spectrum/Adventist Today sources, and attacking the use of qualified sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I quote from the top of the article:

This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information.
Please remove or replace such wording, unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization.

That is exactly what us IPs are trying to do. It is not a "POV attack" when it is clearly written at the top of the article. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that may be the goal, but in the process the IP's are getting some very good information removed. This information informs rather than just "promotes". That is why I support "replace" rather than "remove". Yes the article needs work, but there are enough sources out there to make it possible to edit without going to these extreme lengths.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What good information? If there was sourced good information removed, make an edit request for it to be added back. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What part of this is good information? Most of it. The description about his books, the statements from leading church scholars, the issues covered are all relevant. The statements from Dr. Gane, a leading expert on the Near East and the Sanctuary are also good to have in here. These quotes are useful because they show Pipim's relationship with various church leaders on key theological issues. The statement about his view being based on the way one leans is definitely relevant because it provides context. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They are also not sourced, and violate the policy on biographies of living persons until they are sourced by reliable sources. Since these statements are not pipim, they cannot be sourced to books/articles/etc. that are published or related to Pipim. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are in various books such as "receiving the word". I don't currently own it, but I've read it and read these statements. I could probably post a citation from the book, though I don't know if could get the page number. Others such as Hope probably good though.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy on self published sources do not allow the subject of an article to be a reliable source on other people, only on himself. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not self published. These are simply the endorsements of others that show up on his book or at other places. You are allowed to post endorsements of others about another's work. It's not the author himself who said it. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it needs to be published by either the source of the endorsment (the guy that supposedly endorsed it) or in some other reliable source independent of the subject with editorial oversight. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We can post those as well, however where does it say we can't use endorsements from a book. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS. Self-published sources can only make non-self serving claims about themselves. Pipim's book is a self-published source. It cannot make claims that are self serving, which endorsments are. It also cannot make claims about other people, which endorsements also are. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not making a claim about itself. It's merely reprinting a claim a third party has already made about the book or person. Endorsements are not self-serving unless it is the person endorsing themself.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"It is not making a claim about itself." That is exactly the reason why this self published source is insufficient. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not self-published.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Its written by him. Hence, it is not independent of him, that means we handle it as a self published source under WP:RS. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The book is written by him. The reviews and the endorsements are not. They are written ABOUT him, which is not considered self-published.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Does't matter. Its in a book that he published. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They're endorsements ABOUT him. There's a difference.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In a book he published. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The endorsements are not his. Also they are in reviews which he did not publish. They are in both locations, which makes your argument moot. Whether in the book he published or in reviews about his book.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then link to the reviews and this disagreement is irrelevant. I have no problem with them as long as they are sourced to something other than the back cover of his book. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can source them to several places. The problem is you want everything perfect in seconds or you will call for deletions in the article. I can get the sources but I have to first organize them and present them in a logical manner. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The way it is currently written isn't useful anyway. It can be readded when the sources appear. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No it's useful. And the sources strengthen the arguments made. This should not be removed.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are currently no sources. Please remove it and it can be added again when the sources appear. This is under WP:BLP since it is sourcing statements to living persons without citations. As such, it should be removed immediately until reliable sources are found for these statements from living persons. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No please do not remove it. This article was protected so IP's like this couldn't run rampant and just delete everything they felt wasn't in their good graces. It was also protected so that it could be worked on through consensus and Talk. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations must be removed immediately as a matter of policy. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly on here is a WP:BLP violation?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotations attributed to living persons without reliable sourcing. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh there's reliable sourcing.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Link? Otherwise, it must be removed as a WP:BLP vio and added again when sources are found. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They're coming. Be patient.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It remains a WP:BLP violation while we wait. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a violation.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Argument by assertion doesn't cut it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why you're not deciding. The admin is.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, once again, while failing to explain how this is not a WP:BLP violation other than simply claiming it is not. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again the admin will decide. Thankfully it's him and not you.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very clear reply to my post that didn't sidestep the point at all, and of course, was all material that nobody would have known otherwise! 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome for your condescending attitude.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

False puffery under theology and then method

In addition to challenging the method of moderate liberalism, Pipim's book also worked to make a strong case for his church's 1986 “Methods of Bible Study” statement, which “urge[ed] Adventist Bible students to avoid relying on the use of the presuppositions and the resultant deductions associated with the historical-critical method.”[14]

Please edit this. In fact, the book did not make a "strong" case at all. It made a very weak case, if we use the word at all. Please edit the sentence to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.4 (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states it made a "weak case"? I strongly urge you to thoroughly read WP:NPOV and WP:COI. - SudoGhost™ 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No. But the source that says he made a "strong" case is an organization he is affiliated with. Why should he be able to self-declare that his case was "strong?" Why should I read COI?

That you have no source showing that it was a "weak case", but asking us to change the wording to such, suggests a possible conflict of interest in regards to the article's subject. - SudoGhost™ 00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true that from an ideological perspective one may disagree with the terminology of "strong". I will say however that there are ways to measure appeals and success. We have evidence that whatever he wrote regarding the statement it was widely praised and further raised him up as a leading thinker in Adventism. Several of the sources currently on the article discuss this, including Alberto Timm, the leading SDA theologian in South America where the document comes from. Timm has a long research paper on it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Alberto Timm is a leading Adventist church historian. His “History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844–2000)” is considered “the definitive study” on the subject.[169]. According to Dr. Timm, in the Adventist debate over the inspiration and authority of the Bible in the 1990s, Pipim’s Receiving the Word was “one of the most influential landmarks in that debate” and one of “the two main conflicting poles around which gravitate[d] the contemporary discussions on [the Bible's] inspiration” during the second half of the 1990s (see pp. 534-535 of [170]. It is, therefore, not without reason that scholars who embraced the church's official 1986 "Methods of Bible Study" statement also endorsed Pipim's book. This fact is amply evidenced by the strong endorsements the book received by leading scholars of the church--important sources that some of the IP editors want to remove (see discussion above under the heading "From the method section"). To avoid giving credence to questionable calls for the removal of paragraphs, these relevant sources should be included in the article.--HopeAfrique (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• If we include Alberto Timm's opinion, it should be with attribution. Admin, please either remove this puffery or attribute it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove these statements. We can include with attribution if needed. These sources are valid and need to be added into the article rather than having the article torn to pieces by new IP editors who all seem to have the same agenda.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

IP editors have the same right to edit that you do. If it is included, it needs to be attributed to this Trimm dude, which then raises the question why his opinion is significant. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you have the same right, but there is no conclusive way to know if this is all part of an organized group or just random individuals who happen to stumble upon the same article, but only choose to stay as IP's. Why is Trimm's opinion significant? Because he is the leading SDA theologian in South America.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

First attribute it and then that discussion could follow. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can and will. Right now the article is protected so I can't really edit. I can only post sources and suggestions. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You can start an article for Alberto Trimm to prove his notability. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to start any article to prove his notability. Notability is not based only on having an article here on wikipedia. Notability is based on success and knowledge and sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability is proven here on wikipedia by passing the notability policy for articles. You can just create a one sentence stub if you want. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again I don't need to even create a "one sentence stub" to prove notability. Last I checked that was not a requirement for sources. Timm is however cited on several other pages on Adventist history and theology. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Let's get it attributed first (as an improvement) and then we can argue about his notability. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All right I'll be posting the links from Timm and about this shortly.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess I have a different definition of "shortly" than this other guy......50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Than the admin, yes you will. For you shortly= a few seconds. For me shortly=in a recent period of time such as a few days.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please edit this unsourced and pov sentence from "Youth Empowerment"

Writing about the history of GYC, a retired communication director of the General Conference of the
Seventh-day Adventists, mentions that the students who started GYC were attracted to Pipim's “can-do,
tell-it-like-it-is, traditional Adventism” and his “‘higher than the highest’ philosophy of excellence” that
was advocated at CAMPUS.

This is an unbalanced opinion and should not be included without proper counter opinions. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest other sources to add. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remove this unsourced and pov sentence from "Youth Empowerment"

From the start, the GYC “experiment” that was conceived and birthed by idealistic students was
misunderstood, dismissed, and criticized by both the professional youth leadership of the church
and liberal Adventist thought leaders.

As the title says. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

These statements can be sourced.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then please provide the source. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's coming. Patience little IP patience.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your condescending attitude adds little to improve the article. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As does your impatience.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Asking for sources to be provided does help improve the article. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Patience--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sentence sourced only to self-published source

They denounced and opposed it, not only because GYC was youth-initiated and youth-led, but
more especially because of the conservative CAMPUS ideals and leadership behind the movement.

• Source: http://www.drpipim.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=126&Itemid=57

The source is dead anyway, but even if it wasn't, self published sources are only acceptable for one's own opinion, not for claiming someone else's. I ask that this be removed. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

These statements can be attributed elsewhere. I will be posting some links (but it might not be in the next 10 minutes).--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? I'll believe it when I see it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll see it. Thankfully you're not the one dictating the timing.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations of liberal in "Youth Empowerment"

In the eyes of its liberal critics, the grassroots youth organization was an “emotional, anti-intellectual [and]
conservative movement" that doesn't accomplish much long-term. Other liberal critics saw GYC as the means
by which “very conservative and even reactionary forces” wanted to advance “fundamentalism” in the North
American church — a veiled reference to the CAMPUS leadership that was empowering the youth.

There is no justification for calling it a veiled reference except the extremely poor sourcing/commentary:

• These early criticisms have been echoed in recent times (2011) in liberal Adventist publications or blogs. See, for example, Hanson, Andrew, "Reviewing the Review: GYC Edition", Spectrum Magazine, January 24, 2011, accessed March 27, 2011. He writes: “What I am saying is that emotional, anti-intellectual, conservative movements like GYC don't accomplish much in the long run in spite of all the hoopla. They are ineffective in achieving their own long-term goals and can be spiritually harmful to the young innocents who blame themselves for delaying the Second Advent.” Taylor, Ervin (January 20, 2011) writes in a similar vein in his “Creating Myths: Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC) Origins”, Adventist Today, January 20, 2011, accessed March 27, 2011: “Prior to the election of Ted Wilson [as General Conference President in 2010], the GYC was viewed for what it actually was--a well-financed means to advance fundamentalist North American Adventism supported by well-known very conservative and even reactionary forces who also support and advance the Adventist Theological Society. With his election, there has been a rapid change. The agenda of the GYC has been embraced by the new GC leadership and now is being pushed by the current editor of the AR [Adventist Review].”

There is no justification to call these commentators "liberal." Please remove that. Also, please remove the original research that says it is a "veiled reference.." to CAMPUS leadership, etc. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This section needs editing, not removal.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I asked for. The removal of "liberal" and the "veiled reference" stuff. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Right but I don't think the removal of those statements is necessary. I think I may be able to find some references that use those terms. If so and they are reliable we can keep it. Thankfully you're not the one removing so hopefully the admin will give me a little bit of time.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The part about liberal is a WP:BLP violation, so it needs to be removed ASAP. The other part can wait, since apparently, there is no deadline, although Sudo suggested the end of full protection above, which is a week. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A BLP violation? I don't see any living person specifically called "liberal".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, basic reading skills are sparse on here (or among certain users, not that I am talking about anyone specifically, of course)... The persons named as liberal are what are termed "critics," of course. The ones named are Ervin Taylor and Andrew Hanson, both of whom are not liberal in the least bit. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the complements. It seems doubling skills are good on here as well (or among certain users, not anyone specific though). These individuals that you named are definitely on record as critics of Pipim. They are also considered liberal by the SDA church's standards, and politically as well, especially Taylor.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof? And why should it be mentioned here? We don't have "liberals" in the Adventist Church, just progressives. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The proof is coming be patient little IP, be patient. Don't be like how bello was.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your condescending attitude is much appreciated. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bug I got from this random IP. The same one who likes to edit war on GYC.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny how that doesn't change the fact that something is unsourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's partially sourced and it will be sourced more. Just be patient.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there has been plenty of time for this. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests under "Youth Empowerment"

lead

Between 1999 and 2011 Pipim served as the director of CAMPUS (Center for Adventist Ministry to
Public University Students), a division of Michigan Conference Public Campus Ministries department. 

This is unsourced. Please remove it unless it is sourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This can easily be sourced. We've already post a ton of citations saying this. The Spectrum article or Adventist Today for starters.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then please edit the edit request to add the citations. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I will be suggesting the citations here. I'd don't engage in "edit requests" to protected articles. I believe it's better to talk and discuss before making such unilateral decisions.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Making an edit request to add citations to an article, provided they are WP:RS, is always uncontroversial. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unlike your edit requests?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

location

It is located near the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, the programs and
events at CAMPUS have attracted and earned the trust of many students and young people.

The first part of the sentence is irrelevant to the article, this article is about Pipim, not CAMPUS. Please remove it. The second part is unsourced opinion. Please remove that also. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant. He has been the leader of the organization. A tiny bit (such as the location) of the organization is not irrelevant.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The second part is still opinion. Besides, why should these two sentences be linked? If anything, it should say "CAMPUS (located near the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) or something to that effect. Furthermore, it is unsourced. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can source it quite easily and these sentences are linked b/c they are discussing his ministry and it's location.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt the first part can be sourced. The second part, I'll believe it when I see it. The source has to be independent of the subject, obviously. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll see it, but again...it takes time.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-serving claim

Since 1999, the missionary training program at CAMPUS has developed student leaders to engage the world.

Please edit this to say:

Since 1999, CAMPUS has accepted students in their missionary training program.

This is to remove the weasel language, "engage." 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit isn't necessarily a best suggestion either. It's not that "weasel" to say "engage". All "engage" means it to act and work with. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is more neutral point of view. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice opinion. We'll let the admin decide that one too.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

From the citation for this sentence

Please remove:

Testimonies of some past students of the missionary training program can be found in his Not for Sale:
Integrity in a Culture of Silence. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Berean Books, 2008. pp. 129-152; ISBN 978-1890014-09-4.

This is not a reliable source and seems to be there for entirely promotional reasons. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is one of his books. His books can be cited in certain places like this. Notice it's not going into a huge promo section. It merely mentions it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is in a reference and it does not reference anything stated. Why exactly should it be included? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it provides addition information where people can go if they want hear more about the program. It's strikes a balancing of not promoting, while yet informing people where they can go. Like having a website link.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not what we're here to do. We're not here to provide links to promotional materials. It does not verify any content in the article, and is hence, by definition, not a reference. If you want to include, make an edit request after its removed, to add it as "further reading" 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not promotional. It's provides information as well as the ability to gain further information.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right. Because what we do in references is put a bunch of links fluffy promotional content as "further information." Awesome, let them go around talking about how they think the Pope is the antichrist and they want to convince the rest of the world of that. That's awesome (NOT!), but we don't have to link to that. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You call this a bunch of links with that are fluffy? First of all I see one links. And your last statement reminds me very much of that other user Wikiman one. that's not awesome. that's scary.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm out of line to ask that if you insist on constantly naming users, you actually explain who they are. User:Bello Wello does not exist. User:WIkiman doesn't seem to have edited much at all. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah they're history is gone. All I'm saying is you made certain statements just like those 2 users did. You also seem to have a similar ideology and style, but that's beside the point.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So why should I care? This is all irrelevance. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you should care. Just thought I'd bring up something I noticed which was unique.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Interestingly, it has nothing at all to do with the value of including a citation which is irrelevant to the claims made. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced assertion under biography

 Since that time, Pipim's theological ideas and philosophy of youth empowerment have inspired students
and young people, and propelled them into a powerful force of change within North American Adventism.

The source (which is too close to the subject to be considered independent of him) does not make the claims that are made here. Even if they did, it would not be sufficient for such a self-serving claim. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is independent. The fact that he spoke at it's gathering does not harm it's independence. He doesn't have any "official" ties to the source. Additionally, I can find more sources that make these claims as I've been doing up above.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually he does. Amazing Facts, where he is an "adjunct professor" is a member of ASI, as is GYC where he is a member of their Board of Directors. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's a member and GYC. Still he's separate from the power structure of ASI. That fact that he's been involved with organizations which are related is only because this is a church that is smaller and more connected. He is independent of the organization. ASI is not self-published or self-serving. They are independent.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just showed you how he is affiliated with this organization. That means it is no longer independent. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

He is independent. His "affiliation" is loose. ASI is still a reliable source for claims on him. If you see that as affiliated then technically any Adventist source would be "affiliated". That would destroy just about every reference. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get "any Adventist source?" We were talking about ASI. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because if ASI is not independent then pretty much all the SDA sources are "affiliated".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but being employed by a member organization makes you affiliated. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then technically all SDA church workers are "affiliated" since they are employed by the same organization. Guess any pastor that writes in Spectrum can't comment on Pipim.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum is independent of church control and is not a member of ASI. However, lets not get sidetracked here. ASI is affiliated, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As is many other organizations. ASI is an independent source.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just showed you how he is affiliated with ASI. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Which in that case would make all the SDA's affiliated.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is completely irrelevant as to whether ASI is affiliated or not. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is. Because if you were to accept it as affiliated it would have huge implications. It's like saying the National Review, Fox News, or MSNBC are not independent because they are "affiliated" with certain ideologies or organizations.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement suggesting that Pipim’s ideas inspired students to start GYC is properly sourced to an article by a retired Communication Director of the General Conference. and ASI—an independent source. The fact that Pipim has spokne at ASI conventions doesn’t make a report on the history of GYC unreliable. Moreover, where is the evidence that Pipim is a member of ASI (an organization for Adventist lay persons and professionals)? Am I the only person noticing a pattern by some IP editors who urge the removal of certain sources, and then later on urge that paragraphs or sections based on those sources be “removed”, “condensed,” "re-written," etc. because there are no proper sources to back up assertions in those paragraphs, or that those paragraphs are fluffy?--HopeAfrique (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Resorting to Ad Hominem does little to aid your cause. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not true, you are comparing apples to oranges. Prove that ASI is not affiliated without making ridiculous analogies. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

IP, the admin made the decision. You can disagree, but it's been decided to deny your edit request (as well as the hundred other ones you made). --Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. They simply denied it as no-consensus (or at least that is my understanding). As an admin said, the IPs on this page seem to know what they are doing better than the registered users. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Poorly worded statement under Theological Method

Please edit:

In a work on “Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration,” a colleague of Pipim's judged
Receiving the Word as “one of the most influential landmarks in that debate” and one of “the two
main conflicting poles around which gravitate[d] the contemporary discussions on [the Bible's] inspiration”
during the second half of the 1990s.

to read

A closely related colleague of Pipim's, Alberto Trimm, called Receiving the Word “one of the most influential
landmarks" in the debate on Adventist views on biblical and prophetic inspiration.

It cuts out unnecessary fluff, and also notes Trimm and Pipim's closeness. Note that the source for this statement is the ATS journal, an organization Pipim helped found and which he helped lead for a significant amount of time. It may actually fall under the prohibition of self-published sources. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT a self published source. Pipim never led this organization. You can see a list of it's President's here Adventist Theological Society. Notice Pipim's name is NOT there. And this is not a good change. The wording as it currently is is much better than the suggestion.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice I never said he was "the leader," I simply noted that he was one of the leaders of this organization, which he helped found. The old version is much more promotional. Are we here to cut out the promotional language or not? Or perhaps, I should ask you, what do you suggest be changed to cut out the promotional language? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice "weasel" phrase "one of the leaders". He did contribute papers to this organization, but that doesn't make him a leader in it. The new version seeks to try and make claims that are more POV, as well as remove part of a necessary quote. Using the term "colleague" is more profession than simple "closely related". That is being done to make it sound like it's not independent.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You can cut out "closely related" if you'd like, but there is no reason for the full quote. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And why not? Does it make Pipim look "too good" or something? Perhaps we should knock him down a peg? That's what you want?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? This article already suffers from minute detail and over reliance on quotes. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it provides information on a review of one of his key works. It's also not that long.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

“Minute details”? The IP edit claims to cut out “unnecessary fluff, and also notes Timm and Pipim's closeness.” First, those who care for the facts may want to know these pertinent details. Second, without explaining the nature of their relationship, merely saying Timm is a “colleague” of Pipim downplays his evaluation of the book. Both Timm and Pipim are trained scholars who both belong to a professional organization called Adventist Theological Society. Dr. Timm’s work is cited not because he is a mere “colleague” of Pipim, but because he is an Adventist church historian, whose comprehensive work “History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844–2000)” is considered “the definitive study” on the subject.[171]. A better edit should also indicate why this leading church historian considers the work significant. I suggest this reading:

According to Alberto Timm, an Adventist church historian and colleague of Pipim, in the Adventist debate over the inspiration and authority of the Bible in the 1990s, Pipim’s Receiving the Word was “one of the most influential landmarks in that debate” and one of “the two main conflicting poles around which gravitate[d] the contemporary discussions on [the Bible's] inspiration” during the second half of the 1990s.--HopeAfrique (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced assertion under biography

 Since that time, Pipim's theological ideas and philosophy of youth empowerment have inspired students
and young people, and propelled them into a powerful force of change within North American Adventism.

The source (which is too close to the subject to be considered independent of him) does not make the claims that are made here. Even if they did, it would not be sufficient for such a self-serving claim. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is independent. The fact that he spoke at it's gathering does not harm it's independence. He doesn't have any "official" ties to the source. Additionally, I can find more sources that make these claims as I've been doing up above.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually he does. Amazing Facts, where he is an "adjunct professor" is a member of ASI, as is GYC where he is a member of their Board of Directors. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's a member and GYC. Still he's separate from the power structure of ASI. That fact that he's been involved with organizations which are related is only because this is a church that is smaller and more connected. He is independent of the organization. ASI is not self-published or self-serving. They are independent.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just showed you how he is affiliated with this organization. That means it is no longer independent. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

He is independent. His "affiliation" is loose. ASI is still a reliable source for claims on him. If you see that as affiliated then technically any Adventist source would be "affiliated". That would destroy just about every reference. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get "any Adventist source?" We were talking about ASI. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because if ASI is not independent then pretty much all the SDA sources are "affiliated".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but being employed by a member organization makes you affiliated. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then technically all SDA church workers are "affiliated" since they are employed by the same organization. Guess any pastor that writes in Spectrum can't comment on Pipim.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum is independent of church control and is not a member of ASI. However, lets not get sidetracked here. ASI is affiliated, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As is many other organizations. ASI is an independent source.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just showed you how he is affiliated with ASI. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Which in that case would make all the SDA's affiliated.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is completely irrelevant as to whether ASI is affiliated or not. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is. Because if you were to accept it as affiliated it would have huge implications. It's like saying the National Review, Fox News, or MSNBC are not independent because they are "affiliated" with certain ideologies or organizations.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not true, you are comparing apples to oranges. Prove that ASI is not affiliated without making ridiculous analogies. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's "not in source" then the value of the source is irrelevant. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

Thank you Rich, even if the ASI source is allowed, the sentence should hence be removed. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Poorly worded statement under Theological Method

Please edit:

In a work on “Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration,” a colleague of Pipim's judged
Receiving the Word as “one of the most influential landmarks in that debate” and one of “the two
main conflicting poles around which gravitate[d] the contemporary discussions on [the Bible's] inspiration”
during the second half of the 1990s.

to read

A closely related colleague of Pipim's, Alberto Trimm, called Receiving the Word “one of the most influential
landmarks" in the debate on Adventist views on biblical and prophetic inspiration.

It cuts out unnecessary fluff, and also notes Trimm and Pipim's closeness. Note that the source for this statement is the ATS journal, an organization Pipim helped found and which he helped lead for a significant amount of time. It may actually fall under the prohibition of self-published sources. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT a self published source. Pipim never led this organization. You can see a list of it's President's here Adventist Theological Society. Notice Pipim's name is NOT there. And this is not a good change. The wording as it currently is is much better than the suggestion.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice I never said he was "the leader," I simply noted that he was one of the leaders of this organization, which he helped found. The old version is much more promotional. Are we here to cut out the promotional language or not? Or perhaps, I should ask you, what do you suggest be changed to cut out the promotional language? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice "weasel" phrase "one of the leaders". He did contribute papers to this organization, but that doesn't make him a leader in it. The new version seeks to try and make claims that are more POV, as well as remove part of a necessary quote. Using the term "colleague" is more profession than simple "closely related". That is being done to make it sound like it's not independent.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You can cut out "closely related" if you'd like, but there is no reason for the full quote. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And why not? Does it make Pipim look "too good" or something? Perhaps we should knock him down a peg? That's what you want?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? This article already suffers from minute detail and over reliance on quotes. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it provides information on a review of one of his key works. It's also not that long.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

“Minute details”? The IP edit claims to cut out “unnecessary fluff, and also notes Timm and Pipim's closeness.” First, those who care for the facts may want to know these pertinent details. Second, without explaining the nature of their relationship, merely saying Timm is a “colleague” of Pipim downplays his evaluation of the book. Both Timm and Pipim are trained scholars who both belong to a professional organization called Adventist Theological Society. Dr. Timm’s work is cited not because he is a mere “colleague” of Pipim, but because he is an Adventist church historian, whose comprehensive work “History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844–2000)” is considered “the definitive study” on the subject.[172]. A better edit also include the reason why Timm considers Pipim's book as significant. I suggest the following edit:

According to Alberto Timm, an Adventist church historian and colleague of Pipim, in the Adventist debate over the inspiration and authority of the Bible in the 1990s, Pipim’s Receiving the Word was “one of the most influential landmarks in that debate” and one of “the two main conflicting poles around which gravitate[d] the contemporary discussions on [the Bible's] inspiration” during the second half of the 1990s.--HopeAfrique (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That retains content which appears to be there to only promote the subject. Hence, it is unaceptable. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The admin answered the edit request. We will be working on the article. Plese feel free to work on revising and reforming the article rather than chopping it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an admin replying to this. Please stop using Wikipedia as a means of promotion. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1