Talk:University Bible Fellowship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

References need checked

I am requesting that the following references be verified that they mention UBF and have anything worthy to contribute to the Controversy section. If proof cannot be provided, I suggest they be removed as non-verifiable references.

How do we know these mention UBF? How do we know these documents support the statements made in this article, especially the German article?

19. ^ Carmen Greco, Jr., "Cult Worries Surround Bible Group", Daily Herald (Chicago), 21 July 2003

23. ^ Greg Reage, "Shepherds no band of simple country folk", The Manitoban, VOL. LXXVIII No.9, PAGE 5, October 3, 1990

24. ^ Wendy Stephenson, "Cult personality draws people to Fellowship: Ex-Cult Member Still Feels Fear", The Winnipeg Sun, Vol. 10, No.90, Tuesday, April 17, 1990, page 5

25. ^ Dagmar Blesel, "Er hat eine totalitäre Machtstellung" ("He has a totalitarian power position"), Bonner General-Anzeiger (daily newspaper in Bonn, Germany), 8/23/2002

26. ^ "They Can Turn Your Mind Upside Down" "THE MANITOBAN" Vol. LXXVIII, No.5.PAGE 12-13 September 5, 1990.

29. ^ Winnipeg Free Press, Vol. 114., No. 322, page 1, Oct. 25 1986

30. ^ The Silhouette (the student newspaper of McMaster University), February 7, 1991 (Vol. 61, No.22) Page 11

Bkarcher (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This reference should be changed as well:

8. UBF Charter, MS, Sec. of State, #2649, bk. 221, pg 524

Bkarcher (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What is preventing you from checking them, and how would we know when we have arrived at a situation that constitutes "proof cannot be provided"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already tried online searches with little success. These are mostly student newspapers from Canada, and 17 or 18 years old at that! Do they really support the statements they are referencing? And how can the German reference be included? I think the argument to use it is weak.Bkarcher (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as proof, I want to see the actual articles, i.e. scanned images. Given that someone tried to use an article about the ICC in reference to UBF, I am curious to know if these articles truly do add to the controversy about UBF. My underlying point here is that UBF was more controversial in the past than it is today. UBF could have become like the ICC or others, but we have not gone that path. We are taking a better path and working with the greater Christian community more and more. I am not trying to hide controversy about UBF. I want to put the controversy in a correct perspective. Bkarcher (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a source be available on-line (see WP:V). For many of the best type of sources (academic books), availability on-line would not be possible -- so this will never be a requirement. Note also that there is no requirement that a source be available for free; such a requirement would prevent use here of good academic sources available to the general public only on payment of a fee. Availability for free -- or on-line -- does not make a source any more reliable; these are separate issues.

Having said all that, and in relation to the German article -- have a look here. The page is translated and hosted by a website other than the newspaper's, and the link provided at the top to the newspaper's website no longer works. But I see no reason to doubt that the article exists and says (in German) what the English translation says. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

UBF Entries in other languages

• The English UBF article here was started by an anonymous author (eerogg) as slander. Eerogg (an anagram for George) began the UBF wiki article with an extremely negative bias and made several false statements, such as UBF has "chapters in all major cities around the world" and "missing a meeting, for example, is not an option". Similar pages with strong negative bias against UBF were created in German, French and Spanish. The non-English articles appear to violate several Wikipedia rules and need cleaned up by native speakers. Bkarcher (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Case study?

• In the Churches That Abuse book, UBF was not a proper "case study". Ch. 5 is the story of one former member. Then Enroth discusses other ministries and unfairly lumps UBF in together, implying that all the terrible things mentioned refer to UBF. Bkarcher (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• A case study "relies on multiple sources of evidence". Enroth's mention of UBF in the book relies primarily on one 1 source. Bkarcher (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reading of case study is selective in an obviously self-serving way. Re-read the very first sentence of that article, e.g. "single instance". In other news, your opinion of Enroth's work is not relevant here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"...case study methods involve an in-depth, longitudinal examination of a single instance or event: a case." I just don't see how we can call Enroth's mention of UBF a case study. The chapter in the book is more of a case story or example. To focus on one example is valid; to rely on one source is problematic. I do not read any in-depth, longitudinal study or examination in the book regarding UBF. Yes, I've read the book twice. Bkarcher (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cut ties?

• While there may be those who feel this way, UBF does not encorage members "to cut ties with friends and family and submit to the demands of chapter leaders". In my more than 20 years with UBF ministry, I observerd that UBF stongly encouraged parents to be involved. I saw many parents attend conferences, meetings, etc. Bkarcher (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making clear the approach you are using to edit this article. Now please go re-read WP:V. Your own experiences are utterly irrelevant to editing here; the fact that you want them to be relevant helps remind other editors of your conflict of interest. We will report what reliable sources say. If that doesn't quickly become your approach to editing here, we will end up back at an admin noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clear by the edits of former members, such as eerogg and easternroot, that this article will become a forum for criticizing and condemning UBF if someone doesn't add a counter opinion. Why are the experiences of former members considered more relevant than my experiences? Bkarcher (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

But this is absurd. Eerogg has been gone for months, and Easternroot (unlike you) has been scrupulous in confining his participation here to the talk page as per WP:COI. The article is already quite generous in giving space to material based on UBF's own sources. Apart from that stuff, there is nothing on this article that is not supported by reliable sources (newspaper articles and the like); all the apologetics.com and rickross.com stuff is gone, and so it's a bit rich to say that the experiences of former members are somehow trumping your own. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, yes you are correct. Wait a couple months and check back. This article may end up more like the French, German or Spanish wiki articles about UBF. Bkarcher (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the idea that this article might be overrun with negative opinions about UBF is not so absurd (just look at how long this talk page is...) I've had these same discussions with these same former members using these same articles for the past 6 years. I am quite thankful for the Wikipedia framework. For the first time in 6 years, we've reached a point of neutrality. Bkarcher (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Guardian reference is about ICC

• Please do not confuse UBF with the ICC International Church of Christ. The Guardian article is about ICC. The only mention of UBF in the article is this: "The University Bible Fellowship is a name that crops up regularly in relation to student recruitment..." This has nothing to do with the Controversy section in this article. Bkarcher (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Request edit}}

I urge that the Guardian article be put back in. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4031255,00.html) Many articles on cult recruitment on campus mention the ICC prominently because they are/were a prominent group that recruits on campuses. That does not mean that those articles were about the ICC; the same applies to the Guardian article, as almost any rational person who reads it would conclude. The actual quote from the Guardian article is: "The University Bible Fellowship is a name that crops up regularly in relation to student recruitment, as is the Unification Church - and the ubiquitous International Church of Christ." Meaning: UBF has registered on British university authorities' radars as a group that students complain about, along with the UC and ICC. An article does not have to be exclusively about UBF to be included as a reference. I would hope that's obvious. Easternroot (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point in general (particularly the last sentence), but in this case I don't think the single sentence about UBF is sufficient to be connected to a statement here about cults and the like. To include it this way, we'd have to draw connections from other things said in the article about other groups. That sort of thing is usually referred to here as WP:OR. I don't doubt that the Guardian writer means what you conclude he means, but it's simply not explicit enough. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Easternroot (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

References need checked

I am requesting that the following references be verified that they mention UBF and have anything worthy to contribute to the Controversy section. If proof cannot be provided, I suggest they be removed as non-verifiable references.

How do we know these mention UBF? How do we know these documents support the statements made in this article, especially the German article?

19. ^ Carmen Greco, Jr., "Cult Worries Surround Bible Group", Daily Herald (Chicago), 21 July 2003

23. ^ Greg Reage, "Shepherds no band of simple country folk", The Manitoban, VOL. LXXVIII No.9, PAGE 5, October 3, 1990

24. ^ Wendy Stephenson, "Cult personality draws people to Fellowship: Ex-Cult Member Still Feels Fear", The Winnipeg Sun, Vol. 10, No.90, Tuesday, April 17, 1990, page 5

25. ^ Dagmar Blesel, "Er hat eine totalitäre Machtstellung" ("He has a totalitarian power position"), Bonner General-Anzeiger (daily newspaper in Bonn, Germany), 8/23/2002

26. ^ "They Can Turn Your Mind Upside Down" "THE MANITOBAN" Vol. LXXVIII, No.5.PAGE 12-13 September 5, 1990.

29. ^ Winnipeg Free Press, Vol. 114., No. 322, page 1, Oct. 25 1986

30. ^ The Silhouette (the student newspaper of McMaster University), February 7, 1991 (Vol. 61, No.22) Page 11

Bkarcher (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This reference should be changed as well:

8. UBF Charter, MS, Sec. of State, #2649, bk. 221, pg 524

Bkarcher (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What is preventing you from checking them, and how would we know when we have arrived at a situation that constitutes "proof cannot be provided"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already tried online searches with little success. These are mostly student newspapers from Canada, and 17 or 18 years old at that! Do they really support the statements they are referencing? And how can the German reference be included? I think the argument to use it is weak.Bkarcher (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as proof, I want to see the actual articles, i.e. scanned images. Given that someone tried to use an article about the ICC in reference to UBF, I am curious to know if these articles truly do add to the controversy about UBF. My underlying point here is that UBF was more controversial in the past than it is today. UBF could have become like the ICC or others, but we have not gone that path. We are taking a better path and working with the greater Christian community more and more. I am not trying to hide controversy about UBF. I want to put the controversy in a correct perspective. Bkarcher (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a source be available on-line (see WP:V). For many of the best type of sources (academic books), availability on-line would not be possible -- so this will never be a requirement. Note also that there is no requirement that a source be available for free; such a requirement would prevent use here of good academic sources available to the general public only on payment of a fee. Availability for free -- or on-line -- does not make a source any more reliable; these are separate issues.

Having said all that, and in relation to the German article -- have a look here. The page is translated and hosted by a website other than the newspaper's, and the link provided at the top to the newspaper's website no longer works. But I see no reason to doubt that the article exists and says (in German) what the English translation says. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead statement suggestion

In regard to the lead statement added recently:

"Some outside observers and former members describe the group as a cult and/or "abusive.""

• Very few "outside observers" describe UBF as a "cult" outright. Most of the references say "cult-like" or "authoritarian". In fact, several notable Christian pastors and organizations directly say that while UBF is controversial in some respects, UBF is not a cult. Bkarcher (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Request edit}} Proposed edit: "Some outside observers consider the ministry a vibrant, cross-cultural Christian community. Others, including some former members, describe the group as cult-like, abusive and/or authoritarian." Bkarcher (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I will change cult to cult-like. As for the additional sentence: there should be no presumption of "balance" in the way you appear to be considering. Most of the attention given in the media to this group has been critical, and the "Controversy" section is written accordingly. The lead reflects that section appropriately. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cult watching groups

As of 2011, UBF continues to be on the lists of several cult-watching groups, such as the Apologetics Index [29], the Rick Ross Institute [30] and the New England Institute of Religious Research [31]. Bkarcher (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Cult Information Services of Northeast Ohio, Inc. [1] also reviews sheep/shepherd groups, listing UBF as well. Bkarcher (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Beliefs and Characteristics

There are a lot of undocumented beliefs not mentioned here. I'm not sure how those can be documented in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps they cannot. But it is clear that one belief is missing: belief in the Holy Spirt as a key part of Christian ministry. 12.139.186.154 (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

COI Resolution

It looks like this article has made progress. What remains to resolve the COI flag? Bkarcher (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that progress has been made. The sections on characteristics, initiatives, and publications still contain no references and read as if they were written by an insider (I don't know who actually wrote them; they were done before I came to this page). The beliefs section could use a bit of work as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I condensed the beliefs/characteristics sections. I added the memberships as its own section, since I don't see any WP violation (but let me know if I'm wrong). Bkarcher (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs and Characteristics: "One of the main goals of the ministry is to evangelize college students based on the Great Commission. UBF trains ordinary people who have a desire to study and teach the Bible and do missionary work." Both are UBF pamphlet material, and both are lacking references. Easternroot (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine, mostly - but what is the point of a separate sentence on Enroth's book, instead of a "See also" listing? I'm not saying I object, but I'm curious as to the reason you prefer it this way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My main objection is because a See Also section with 1 entry gives undue weight on one mention of the ministry. This reasoning may apply to the Memberships section as well, which might be better served by being merged with History. Being a COI-burdned editor, I object to the mention of the book in any form, but I realize I have to accept the book's inclusion because it does reference the ministry. I can agree that the book references enough about the minstry to warrant it's own sentence, but not enough to warrant being highlighted in it's own section. Bkarcher (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"See Also" is a standard section, per WP:LAYOUT; I don't think it needs to be justified in the same way as other sections. But I also don't think there is a lot at stake between the two alternatives. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, either way is fine then. My preference is the sentence in the Controversy section. My main concern for these recent edits is to resolve the COI properly. Bkarcher (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What now remains to remove the COI flag? There may be more edits, but I consider the article to be free of COI as of now. Bkarcher (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The COI is resolved now in the English section (Thank you Nomoskedasticity). However, the Spanish entry for UBF needs the same work: [2]. Can this English version be translated to the Spanish article? Or is it ok for both articles to exist differently? 208.72.101.114 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense would say the different articles should be consistent. But we can't simply assume that the other articles should be made to conform to the English article. I imagine there would be no substitute for working on the talk pages to achieve consensus for editing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to avoid being an "American pig"...lol I'll just mark the Talk pages and leave it at that. Although I can contribute a bit more in French. Bkarcher (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I no longer have any of these objections raised above or below. Bkarcher (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversy suggestion

I suggest the following be added to the controversy section to demonstrate differing opinions. Please add the following:

"In addition to the criticism, various opinions about the ministry have been expressed. Some blame the accusations and criticisms of the ministry on cultural differences and stress the honesty of its members. Others highlight the work done in the Christian ministry and their discipline." Bkarcher (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose this edit. None of these references satisfy WP:RS. We've been over this before. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nomo, in looking back over this article now, I see you are correct. Sorry for trying to add my positive-only bias into this article. Bkarcher (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Um... I am living in Korea right now... I am a Canadian... and well... the cultural differences thing is well... a big fat LIE... None of what happened to me in UBF has happened in Korea... At the same time there are several things that have happened (negative)/(positive) to me in Korea that never happened in UBF. Those "experts" who said this simply took UBF's own word for it. I have more experience with Korean culture than any of them (at least to my knowledge none of them have spend a significant amount of time in Korea). While spending a large portion of your life with UBF Koreans can give you some knowledge of Korea culture, you end up with perhaps a hybrid version of Korean culture, so I dont think someone who has been with UBF truly has an understanding of NORMAL Korean Culture... Because well, UBF culture isnt 100 % equal to Korean culture. This being said, not all of UBF culture is negative. There are some things in UBF culture that I find superior to Korean culture. Anyways my main concern has always been with UBF's beliefs. I was taught several times that good works will earn me a place in the Kingdom of God... Well, this belief is not supported by the Bible... So if the Bible truly is the Ultimate Authority, why dont you do/believe what it says? PS> Also, while living in Canada, my Korean friends told me that what happened to me wasnt Korean culture. A large percentage of my social network is Korean... which is probably one reason I was orininally attracted to them (UBF) in the first place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.203.41.130 (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Undocumented Beliefs and Practices

It is very difficult to obtain a list of these, so here is a start. It often takes at least 5 years to discover these things.

1. Class system: sheep, shepherds, native leaders, Korean leaders

2. Directorship hierarchy: the idea of a tree structure of benevolent dictators.

3. Marriage by faith: Willingness to let a leader choose your future spouse.

4. Pioneering: Sending out one or more families to campuses around the world to setup a chapter of the organization, often without any valid support.

5. Covering: Willingness to cover all sins and not expose things that bother your conscience.

6. Loyalty to leaders: Willingness to obey and follow leaders above all other authority.

7. Separation: Willingness to be separated from friends, family and the world in order to join God’s true children.

8. Appeasement: Letting someone who speaks up have a task to do to keep them busy.

9. Propaganda: Speaking only positive things about leaders and the organization.

10. Duplicity: Willingness to ignore facts and adhere to double-standards, double-meanings and secret language.

11. Vertical communication: the idea that group discussion and communication methods (such as email) are bad.

12. Conscience binding: All Scripture must be bound to a UBF ideal or activity.

13. Empire building: Every nation should become a "priestly nation", which means people should become UBF-style people.

14. Numerical-driven performance: Members are judged and rewarded (or made to feel guilty) based on numbers: number of prayer sessions, number of times going "fishing", number of sheep, number of just about everything. Activities are geared toward molding ambitious people with a soldier, fighting spirit to conquer.

Bkarcher (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs and characteristics

UBF began as a parachurch organization. In time, the ministry became a church and began having Sunday worship services. UBF is conservative evangelical in doctrine and conservative in Korean values of leadership and mentorship. UBF believes that God is the creator of heaven and earth and all things. They affirm the Apostles' Creed and believe that the Bible is the word of God. They also believe in the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and that they must send out Missionaries to all nations. They invite students and others to study the Bible "inductively from the point of view of the Bible writers." Bible study in the ministry is primarily carried out on a "one-to-one" basis. The ministry also has small group Bible studies and weekly fellowship meetings. They seek to lead those who study the Bible with them to a "saving knowledge" of Jesus Christ, and to help them to grow as disciples of Jesus.

One of the main goals of the ministry is to evangelize college students based on the Great Commission. UBF trains ordinary people who have a desire to study and teach the Bible and do missionary work. The organization has a "medical mission" - Bethesda Mission Hospital in Uganda.

The characteristics of University Bible Fellowship have been reported to be varied between two extremes. A reporter for the University of Maryland, College Park campus newspaper described the local chapter as "...an organization that has students polarized. While some student members have grave concerns about the church, many members love it."

Some have characterized UBF as a cult. For example, in May 2006, Christianity Today magazine published a reader's letter that referred to UBF as a cult; after investigation in July 2006, the magazine published a correction in which the reader retracted the accusation.

UBF claims to have orthodox Christian beliefs and behaviors. At the same time, some observers and former participants characterize UBF's practices as authoritarian, abusive, and/or cult-like, as members are encouraged to cut ties with friends and family and submit to the demands of chapter leaders. These concerns have arisen at Canadian and German universities as well as in the United States.

The on-campus activities of UBF have been restricted by some universities, such as University of Illinois, University of Winnipeg, University of Guelph, University of Manitoba, and DePaul University.

The public images of UBF is one of a controlling group. UBF is used as one of the case studies in the book Churches That Abuse, published in 1991 by Dr. Ronald Enroth about Christian churches and organizations he perceives as "spiritually abusive" and the effects these groups can have on their members. As of 2012, UBF continues to be on the lists of several cult-watching groups in the United States, such as the Apologetics Index, the Rick Ross Institute, the New England Institute of Religious Research, the Apologetics Research Center and the Cult Information Services of Northeast Ohio, Inc. UBF is also listed on the Freedom of Mind website. In China, UBF is on the examination list of CGNER (Concern Group on Newly Emerged Religions).

Bkarcher (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

RickRoss website

Yworo, Thank you for your dictatorship-style explanation of not being able to link to rickross.com. I've added a link to a newspaper that mentions Rick Ross' concerns instead. Maybe you could provide some more details?

http://newspaperarchive.com/winnipeg-free-press/1986-10-25/page-47 Bkarcher (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Why should I answer given your tone? We have a strict mandate not to link to sites that violate copyright. Wikipedia could be sued for contributory copyright infringement. Have you browsed Rickross.com? It has copies of hundreds if not thousands of newspaper articles reprinted w/o permission. We can cite the articles, but we cannot link to copyright violations of the articles. We can link to the articles on the sites of the original publishers or on legitimate archives, but citations to newspapers are not required to be linked at all, and should never be linked to copyright violating copies. It's clearly prohibited as without exception in WP:EL. You do read our policies, don't you? Yworo (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the further details and explanation. Bkarcher (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yworo (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Responding here at the request of BKarcher on my talk page: Yworo is correct that we can't link to sites that violate copyright. Ideally, then, we'd have sources such as the newspaper article you added. So, it's worked out fine in this instance. Sometimes the struggle is to identify links for articles, especially older ones. But per WP:SOURCEACCESS links are not required. If you identify (perhaps via Rickross.com) a newspaper article that supports some text in an article but can't find a link for it, it would be sufficient to give a citation for the article even if it lacks a link. Obviously you would have read the article (perhaps at Rickross.com), making sure that it verifies the text in question -- but the lack of a link is not in itself an obstacle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks. This helps me understand better. Bkarcher (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

Pauline Yoo (from Canada). Perhaps we could discuss your unexplained edits in this talk section? What is it you want to contribute to this article? Bkarcher (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Augustine Suh, perhaps we could discuss what you mean by "balanced"? Bkarcher (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is UBF still a member of the National Association of Evangelicals?

According to the National Association of Evangelicals website UBF is no longer listed as a member. Are they still a member? UBF also isn't listed on the Wikipedia page for the National Association of Evangelicals. Does anyone have any evidence to support their continued membership?

I am going to call the National Association of Evangelicals. I would appreciate it if people do not delete my changes once I find out. Also, unless you have evidence to support them being part of the organization, their membership should not be listed. Thanks! (An outdated letter from 2008 doesn't count). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.100.220 (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

They likely are still a member. The new NAE website only lists large denominational members. ubf is just an organizational member. The 2008 letter is not outdated, it just shows when they joined. And regardless, referencing the joining letter as proof that they are no longer a member doesn't make sense. Bkarcher (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We should probably find a way to make this more accurate: they joined in 1995, were kicked out in 2004 and were re-admitted in 2008 after a change in NAE leadership. Bkarcher (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained edits by anonymous vandal

Article blanking is not allowed on Wikipedia. Bkarcher (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Former member books about UBF

ubfers are trying to blank out the negative material about their cult.

For those interested, there are several former member books written about ubf:

http://www.priestlynation.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Choose-Subtlety-Cults-Isabelle-Renaud-ebook/dp/B00HCML5S0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1439058180&sr=8-1&keywords=i+choose+cults

http://www.restunleashed.org/

http://www.restunleashed.org/goodnessfound/

Bkarcher (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Identity Snatchers

From the book, Identity Snatchers: Exposing a Korean Campus Bible Cult, pg 48:

These are the twelve topics I expounded on in this book. These are the reasons why I claim this group is a Korean Bible cult teaching a harmful ideology called UBFism on over 300 college campuses around the world:

1. Arranged marriages exclusively with group members
2. Replacement of identity with the Shepherd X identity
3. Lifelong moral supervision by a personal shepherd
4. Degradation of family as unspiritual
5. Koreanization of host cultures
6. Failure to adequately address various cases of abuse
7. Hagiographical re-writing of their own history
8. Traumatic process of leaving the group
9. Psychological issues found in former members
10. Theological departures from the tenets of Christianity
11. Reduction of the Bible canon to 12 books
12. Toxic leadership styles that foster hypocrisy

Bkarcher (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. But self-published, so unfortunately it doesn't meet WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of University Bible Fellowship - DRAFT OUTLINE

Doctrinal Criticisms

Shepherding Movement Teachings

Obedience, shunning of former members, labeling critics as spiritual poison

Authoritarian Leadership Teachings

"Coming from an impoverished and troubled nation sitting on the highly militarized fault line of the Cold War, the Korean missionaries matched their evangelical zeal and conservatism with dogged hard work and sacrifice as soldiers of Christ engaged in serious spiritual battle to save souls and raise disciples. Their work was also supported by a Confucian-influenced hierarchal, conformist, and military-like organizational system that pushed them to give their all and to engage in aggressive evangelism. –Rebecca Kim, The Spirit Moves West: Korean Missionaries in America, pg. 6

Social Criticisms

Change of Personality

"At this time I noticed an emotional change going on in her, which showed itself by her suddenly limiting the contact to us parents, seemingly being very nervous, restless and irritated. She looked bad and only spoke about the Bible, about UBF and about the mission of the world."

Control of Decisions

"I also went to the service of the UBF group in the Sunday afternoon and noticed that besides some young Germans only young Koreans sat around next to me. The sermon of Abraham Lee and the prayers of his helpers confused me very much. The primitive word-order and the superficial train of thought touched me strangely. I felt myself as if someone wanted to pull my leg. Besides that, the service was performed with much singing. As playing a part UBF members who were introduced as sheep, prayer servants and shepherds participated. The way I see it the program was aligned with a special emotional experience. After the service there were after-meetings and also a kind of continuation of the service in prayer form in little circles. The individual service participants had already made notes to themselves during the sermon. After my observation this after-meeting was merely a questioning of the thoughts the listeners had and represented an attempt to achieve an additional alignment of the individual persons to orientate the thoughts of the sermon by praise and reproaches at the desired aims of this cult. I am still convinced today that the young people present didn’t see through this skillful manipulation at all."

"The dangerousness of the UBF in my opinion is an intended mutation of mind. It is achieved by a brainwashing method which is exercised by the 1:1 Bible studies, the practice of Sogam sharing, the writing of life testimonies and life confessions and the re-education by praise and reproaches."

Arranging of Marriage

In the book, Cult-Proofing Your Kids, (Zondervan, 1993) Christian author Paul R. Martin classifies UBF as an aberrant Christian group whose practices and beliefs deviate from the standards of evangelical Protestant Christianity. UBF is also described in the book as a very authoritarian fringe church. Specific cultic practices reported about the UBF in the book include the use of mind control and enforced leader-arranged marriages.

Public Criticisms

High-pressure Recruiting

In December 1993, the UIC News, a weekly publication of the University of Illinois at Chicago, published an article headlined UIC worries about cult recruitment; three cases this fall. The article dealt mainly with UBF's activities on the UIC campus.

In October 1990, The Manitoban, the student newspaper of the University of Manitoba, published a series of articles about the banning of UBF from that university for cult-like activities.

In July 2003, the Daily Herald, a daily newspaper serving the Chicago suburbs, published an article about a controversial decision by Wheaton College to allow UBF to hold a regional conference on their campus. The article was headlined "Cult worries surround Bible group."

Religious Resource Groups

The Appologetcis Resrouce Center of Kansas City, Missouri, USA says this about the group: "Often in cult ministry we focus on groups that deny central aspects of the Christian faith such as the Trinity, deity of Christ, salvation by grace etc. Many Christians believe that if they simply look at a doctrinal statement, they will be able to spot potentially harmful organizations. Such may not be the case. There are many groups, such as University Bible Fellowship and International Church of Christ which look very good on paper but are involved in practices that can prove spiritually damaging. Our Kansas City office has recently become involved with one such group. It is important that believers are able to move beyond the doctrinal statements to recognize other telltale signs of danger."

The Apologetics Index says this about the group: "In short, we have seen nothing that suggests University Bible Fellowship's teachings and practices should not -- at the very least -- be cause of concern for Christians. In our opinion, the UBF is an unhealthy organization whose teachings and practices provide a breeding ground for spiritual elitism and abuse. Theologically, we consider the University Bible Fellowship to be at best an aberrant movement. In Christian theology, aberrant means, "Off-center or in error in some important way, such that the doctrine or practice should be rejected and those who accept it held to be sinning, even though they may very well be Christian." Our advice to Christians is not to get involved with the University Bible Fellowship."

Critical Books

Another Gospel - A comprehensive survey of cults, alternative religions and the New Age Movement (Zondervan, 1989), Ruth A. Tucker classifies UBF as an "authoritarian and isolationist fundamentalist fringe movement."

Churches That Abuse (Zondervan, 1992), Christian sociologist Ron Enroth devotes a chapter (chapter 5 – "Manipulation and Control: Abusive Churches Use Fear, Guilt and Threats') to describe the spiritual abuse of an American college student in the Chicago headquarters of UBF.

Cult-Proofing Your Kids (Zondervan, 1993), Christian author Paul R. Martin classifies UBF as an "aberrant Christian group" whose practices and beliefs deviate from the standards of evangelical Protestant Christianity. UBF is also described in the book as a "very authoritarian" "fringe church." Specific cultic practices reported about the UBF in the book include the use of mind control and enforced leader-arranged marriages.

I Choose: Subtlety in Cults (Amazon Digital Services, 2013), former member Isabelle Renaud describes the high-demand nature "The weeks following conferences were usually hard on UBF members. The high and the hype was gone. Back to sacrifice. During the weeks preceding the conferences most members hardly slept. Coming back from the conferences, we didn’t have time to rest and sleep much either. This time, the week following the conference was a tough one for me. I had hardly slept for the last month. What used to be great tiredness became total exhaustion. The Sunday evening following the conference, I had a panic attack. Starting a week of work and UBF activities seemed impossible. I couldn’t do it anymore." loc. 786 Kindle Edition

Identity Snatchers: Exposing a Korean Campus Bible Cult (CreateSpace, 2015), former member Brian Karcher describes in detail the seven stages of identity change that members of UBF typically experience, as well as providing a wealth of insider knowledge about the group. Bkarcher (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A note about cleansing this article

To the UBF members attempting to add your positive spin and remove the negativity of this article, I say please go fix your cult instead of waging propaganda wars on Wikipedia. instead of publishing self-aggrandized hagiographies on the internet, why don't you stop arranging marriages, stop covering up sexual abuse and stop appointing life-long shepherds to control college students? Bkarcher (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Integration of controversies section

I have made several edits to integrate the Controversies section into the main article. Please adjust if necessary. Bkarcher (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The two final sentences in the lead are not very clear -- "Many people have raised concerns about the group during the past 50 years" in particular carries almost no information. It also rather looks like synthesis: do any of the sources say that many people have raised concerns, or are they all examples of some people raising concerns? I think you could write a more precise, clear statement here, summarizing what is in the main text. (Ideally the references will also be in the body, not all stacked in the lead like that.) --JBL (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the feedback and the revert. I will make an attempt to clarify soon.Bkarcher (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I made an attempt to clean up the opening paragraph, leaving the longstanding sentence as it was. Bkarcher (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

What is UBF?

The group self describes as a normal Christian church. Most references call them a campus Bible study ministry which is the neutral term. Many other references call Ubf a cult or a cult like group. The group can be accurately described as a New Religious Movement on the fringes of fundamentalist Christianity with a Koeran/Eastern religious twist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarcher (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

UBF self promotion

Public notice: The UBF group has created a committee for self promotion on Wikipedia and elsewhere. They are testing the waters with minors edits, as can be seen in the recent logs.

The announcement is here: http://www.ubf.org/world-mission-news/international-hq/ubf-web-management-committee-report

Their committee reports:

• "Updated the Wikipedia page of UBF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Bible_Fellowship)
• Wikipedia committee created an updated version, but we need more resources to improve our page.

Bkarcher (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Lost one ref

I just moved a bit of excessive detail from the lead into the body. I didn't see any easy place to fit the sentence

Each continent where group members are present has a local headquarters.

and so I lost this ref: Korean Diaspora and Christian Mission By S. Hun Kim, Wonsuk Ma. (I also deleted two garbage refs from the lead, which I'm not worried about finding a home for.) --128.101.152.166 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine to leave this out, as not much is added by it. I was attempting to counter the new trend of the edits, which is to remove Korean references. So while it is true the international headquarters are in Chicago, there are other continental headquarters. In fact, I think the entire History section is far too detailed. The group has simply not done anything notable really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarcher (talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed History section - condensed

The UBF movement began in 1961 when students from Chun Nam and Chosun Universities gathered to study English Bible in the Christian Student Center, 176-1 Daein-dong, Kwangju Korea.[6] In 1964, UBF began expanding through missionary work, such as sending a graduate as a missionary to pioneer Cheju University in Cheju Island.

From 1970 to 1991, UBF established chapters in Africa, Europe, South America, Asia and North America. In 1975, the organization became incorporated in the state of Mississippi, USA.[7] Soon after the incorporation, the international headquarters of the group was relocated from Seoul to Chicago, USA. By 1975, UBF sent more that 700 self-supporting lay missionaries to 50 countries, including 22 immigrant sewing machine workers who pioneered Canada in 1983.[8]

Throughout the existence of the movement, the group faced criticism. Some universities restricted UBF's on-campus recruiting efforts, such as University of Illinois,[9] University of Winnipeg,[10] University of Guelph, University of Manitoba,[11][12] and DePaul University.[13] UBF is used as one of the case studies in the book Churches That Abuse, published in 1991 by Ronald Enroth about Christian churches and organizations he perceives as "spiritually abusive" and the effects these groups can have on their members.[14] In the United States and other countries, serious allegations of excessive control and intrusion into student's lives have been documented.[9][16] These concerns have arisen at Canadian and German universities as well as in the United States.[11][17][18][19][20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarcher (talk • contribs) 00:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Cult watch/other groups/media explicitly mentioning UBF

I notice the ubf Wikipidia committee is active here again, attempting to delete negative comments about the group. Here are some of the many references mentioning UBF explicitly:

Cult Education Institute
http://www.culteducation.com/group/1207-university-bible-fellowship.html

New England Institute of Religious Research
http://neirr.org/ncultlst.html

Freedom of Mind
https://freedomofmind.com/Info/

Apologetics Index
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/747-university-bible-fellowship-ubf

Apologetics Resource Center
https://arcapologetics.org/comparative-religion/marks-of-abusive-religious-groups/

Concern Group on Newly Emerged Religions
http://www.cgner.org/index.php/hk/news/activity/135-cu-20120411

Daily Herald
http://wwrn.org/articles/4579/?&place=north-america&section=other-nrms

If these further references to newspapers and TV media reports can be used, I have them linked on my website: http://www.priestlynation.com/newspapers/

Bkarcher (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving these responses here. In order to help transform this article to be as objective as possible, I think it might be good to create a balance of positive and negative articles/information about this organization. For example, if I am writing an article on ancient Roman civilization it would be considered bias if I only included information about the Romans' barbaric military tactics or their stance on the oppression of women and their rights without commenting on their great government structure and great works in science and philosophy. Anyway, I'm just saying that In order to make this article more objective, it might be good to try to include positive comments with the bad. What do you think? Spolvi2 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a Wikipedia article is not the place for "positive comments". The article is choppy, indeed, and had both positive and negative statements. The criticisms in the article are the tip of the iceberg. My book raises massive criticisms against this cultic group. Bkarcher (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If we want to be objective, then we need to understand the material I've gathered. An objective view may indeed be negative. Objectivity does not imply equal balance between positive and negative. In the case of this Bible cult group, it is dangerous to leave out the facts such as the arranged marriage requirements, the demand for sacrificing your family, the gradual destruction of your personal identity, and the many cases of suicide, dead-dog training, abortions as mission requirements and many kinds of physical and sexual abuse. There have been TV and newspaper reports as well.

http://www.restunleashed.org/

Bkarcher (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Notable memberships

The group may be a member of any number of organizations, but the recent additions of a Korean group and Nexxus are more self-promotion than helpful. What value does listing memberships have, other than the notable ones? Bkarcher (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Instead of blindly adding facts with no discussion, I would suggest the new accounts here learn about the terms notability and list cruft: WP:NN and WP:LISTCRUFT. Bkarcher (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

UBF is a Korean organization

All semi-reliable and reliable sources indicate this group is Korean. Why the sudden urge to erase the Korean element of the group? Bkarcher (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Korean links for reference:

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%99%EC%83%9D%EC%84%B1%EA%B2%BD%EC%9D%BD%EA%B8%B0%EC%84%A0%EA%B5%90%ED%9A%8C

http://ubf.kr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarcher (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This is getting old

These edit wars and section blanking on this article are getting old...this has been happening every few years: http://www.priestlynation.com/ubf-wikipedia-article/ Bkarcher (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversey and cleanup

After working on this article significantly years ago to help clean it up, I was surprised to see the state of this article today after the massive edits by COI editors. I am begging beginning a cleanup of this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (Copy edit to correct a typographical error Tiggerjay (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC))

Thanks again. The edit logs will show that UBF people keep coming here to "cleanse" the article of all negativity. My edits are in response. I will gladly stop editing. You might want to lock the article after you are done to prevent further section blanking. Bkarcher (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for Controversy section

Following the model of the Criticism_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses article, I suggest creating a "Criticism of University Bible Fellowship" article. Then the major criticisms can be sub-linked here in the main University Bible Fellowship article. Is this pattern/model acceptable and inline with guidelines? Bkarcher (talk)

Hello, after reading this article would agree that a separate controversy section would be a great idea. As it reads right now, it seems a little disorganized. It's hard to follow what the organization of ubf actually is without getting caught up in the criticism. I wonder if it's possible to create a separate section for the major criticisms? I'm new to this editing, but I thought that might be helpful in the overall flow of the article! Spolvi2 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines steer away from separating criticisms into a separate section. This was already discussed years ago here for this article. My proposal was to remove the Controversy section (which has already happened). I am talking about creating a separate article, and then referencing the article here. Bkarcher (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel like there used to be a controversy section. Was this blanked or was it removed on purpose and if so what was the rational. --Mlanier (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Tiggerjay cleaned that up. We attempted to integrate the controversy into the History section. WP:CRIT and WP:NPOV would seem to steer away from a controversy or criticism section. The separate criticism articles seem to be discouraged by most Wikipedians, but are allowed if the subject group is noteworthy enough. In the case of the ubf group, they are just not noteworthy to warrant a separate article; but maybe we should create one anyway and see how it goes. Bkarcher (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for comments from The Spirit Moves West

I think much of Kim's The Spirit Moves West could add to this article, in such a way that it explains the unique situation of having an "American" organization that is primarily rooted in Korean culture. I am not sure if it can be added, just want to make sure this is relevant and also not violating any copyrights.

"Despite the undeniable influences of American Christianity, Korean evangelical Protestantism is very much a Korean Religion...It is still distinguishable from others as a Korean evangelicalism. The [UBF] Korean missionaries in my study were hyperreflective of this evangelicalism."

https://books.google.com/books?id=7PBxBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false --Mlanier (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I have concerns about anything from that book, given the author is a daughter of UBF Korean missionairies. Her book would seem to violate a neutral point of view, just as my books would. That particular quote is wordy and adds no new value. Bkarcher (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Notable memberships & bad reference

Sorry everyone. Im a newbie to wikipedia. I made some changes to the wikipedia page yesterday and in the past but didnt mention it in the talk page. I didnt realize how this editing process works but Im slowly learning. Anyway I was sorry to see that the info was later erased. One thing i added yesterday was UBF's membership to Kimnet and Missio Nexus which are credible organizations. I think memberships are worth noting because it proves that UBF is a credible organization as well and is accepted by those in the Christian community.. I believe it would be best to include the lists of memberships back.

I would also like to state that some of the sources that are being cited are biased sources such as references 2,3,4, &5. These are actually websites of deprogammers who make money off of getting people out of religious groups. I would understand if someone used a reference such as the New York Times or Christianity today. But the person who cited those references isn't using a credible source. These website are self-promoting just like UBF websites. Therefore i think those references should be removed from the article. Not to mention those websites are SUPER old. Here is a more relevant, recent and more respected website about UBF: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/june-web-only/korean-evangelicals-on-steroids.html?visit_source=twitter&start=6

If you read, it says that UBF is a mainstream evangelical church. I dont know how, but i think it would be worth incorporating into this wikipedia page a well. Ok thanks for reading and have a great day Wikipedia community! :) [User:Aguynamedjohnlee]

The Beliefs and Characteristics section already says the essence of this, but without all the fan-cruft. Bkarcher (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

JohnLee: There are seven Mainline Protestant denominations, with millions of members. There is no source anywhere saying the ubf organization is affiliated with any of these denominations. In fact, the late founder, Samuel Lee, and the co-founder, Sarah Barry, broke ties with all mainline churches and created their own new religious movement. Back to the article... the fact that one reporter says something in one article is hardly proof of anything. Speaking of that CT article, maybe this is relevant: "I did know that UBF was seen as intense and cult-like." or this "Despite massive sacrifices and intense efforts, Kim laments that UBF has not been incredibly successful." Bkarcher (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of "super old" references, I added a referenced statement about the cult-like accusations, from a recent Canadian campus newspaper. It really doesn't matter too much if the references are old or new, but this campus newspaper is an example of the allegations from 2016 Bkarcher (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Greg, let's talk

Greg_iowa (talk), as you have found out, while Wikipedia encourages bold editing, this community does not take kindly to erasing negative material that you don't like. Instead, this community encourages dialogue. I invite you to discuss your proposed changes here in the talk section. As you can see, I mostly talk to myself here...lol. So I would gladly discuss your edits. What is your main purpose in making your edits? Bkarcher (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Greg, any chance you will discuss your edits here in the Talk section? What point are you attempting to clarify here? Bkarcher (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice try

Trying to create a new page for this group is a lame attempt at self-promotion. Bkarcher (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Bible_Fellowship,_USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarcher (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Mainstream evangelical group

It appears the end of the first paragraph is biased. I will add a source showing that UBF is actually a mainstream evangelical group. This is a more current source, unlike the old biased sources in [2],[3],[4],[5]. slopslip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the use this article is being put to by slopslip is ridiculous, but actually it's a decent article, and the book it's reviewing (Kim's "The Spirit Moves West") might also be a useful source for this article. --JBL (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Second UBF USA article

@Joel B. Lewis:, what do you make of this branch article? University Bible Fellowship, USA I am willing to improve both articles, but will need your help to check my edits. Bkarcher (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bkarcher: I don't see a need for a branch article. The four sentences that you've left standing could easily be incorporated in this present article without the need for a second article that could easily become a WP:COATRACK for POV pushing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with WikiDan61, and I think the administrator was wrong to turn down speedy deletion. (The only material that was on that article and not this one was lists of endorsements and chapters; the former is promotional and unencyclopedic, the latter is something one could have a conversation about including here but seems borderline at best.) I have proposed the other article for deletion, and if that gets turned down then I will take it to AfD. --JBL (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me. I see no need for a second article, but the request for speedy deletion was denied. Just tagging @Finnusertop: to weigh in. Bkarcher (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

COI Issues

All edits documented

• here
• here
• here
• here

display controversy of cultish behavior according to Neutrality guidelines. COI issues displayed

• here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willie d troudour (talk • contribs) 23:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Translation of Reference #3 using Google

Link: [3]

Title: "Gathering Message: Utopia in Kimchi - Exploring the Harm to Advocating Controlling Religions"

Introduction: In recent years, a number of zealous religious groups in South Korea were found on university campuses. Most of them attracted students to attend through rich cultural activities and then instilled their ideas through systematic Bible study. Among the original, many were denominated In the name of orthodox religion, self-proclaimed world rare heaven full of love and godliness, but it is actually a fictitious organization and led blind people abuse organizations, believers bring a lot of ideological control and poisoning, in order to explore these phenomena , We specially held this seminar and invited those who had been trapped in such sects to come to know how to distinguish the genuine and the problem sects and to discuss the impact of such school missionary activities on their classmates.

Speaker: Teng Jialin (Faculty of Theodore Theological Seminary, Associate Professor, Department of Cultural Studies) Pastor Hu Zhiwei (Director of the Church Renewal Campaign in Hong Kong) Former University Head, Research and Education Mission (UBF)

Date: 2012/04/11 (Wed)

Bkarcher (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference #3

I'm just wondering that reference #3, Concern Group on Newly Emerged Religions appears to not match with the site that it is linked to. It's also a Chinese language site, while this is an English article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake428 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Because UBF is an organization rooted in South Korea, the Chinese reference is valid. See translation below of the reference of the symposium held in 2012. Bkarcher (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

As historical analysis of the development of civilization reveals, cultural influence flowed from China to the Korean Peninsula, not the other way around. The claim that a Chinese reference is valid is simply not supported by the antecedent that the organization is rooted in South Korea. Therefore, this reference must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.97.122 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the translation. While that translation does speak of South Korea and harmful religious groups, there is no clear relationship there to University Bible Fellowship. The speaker listing is the only place where UBF is mentioned, but that doesn't establish how UBF relates to the topic. For example, if a speaker there was a former elder from Yoido Full Gospel Church, that fact would not directly mean that Yoido Full Gospel Church practices what is mentioned in the description of the symposium. Therefore reference #3 is not a valid reference for the point made in the article.Jake428 (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, "CGNER" is the correct title, since that organization keep tabs on the UBF group in Eastern region countries. They are building their own wiki currently, and list UBF as a concern group to be careful about (link: [4] They use some of the alternative names that UBF goes by, "UBF College Students Bible Study Mission" and "College students research mission". So the German group EZW and the Hong Kong group CGNER both keep tabs on UBF and have a rather large collection of documents about abuses in the group. Bkarcher (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Another year of lost money

I am not sure how to incorporate this into the Finances section appropriately, but UBF has again reported an operating loss. This is the 4th year in a row of losing between $40K and $60K per year. Offering is still over $2 million, but is dropping. Source: [5] Bkarcher (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this be incorporated? If so please make a specific edit request as COI editors are supposed to. If not please read WP:NOTAFORUM Meters (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

More financial numbers

More finance numbers are here: UBF Finances Bkarcher (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Meters (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Relevant News article

This is a highly revealing and relevant news article from Korea, regarding the expulsion of UBF leaders in 2000 (during the 3rd reform movement).

UBF, what will be reformed Leadership change, theological education, church change, transparent finance

"On October 5, 10 days before the on-the-go worship service, the UBF Board of Directors dropped 14 people, including eleven standing committees and three wives of the so-called UBF Reform Action Council." Bkarcher (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And again, WP:NOTAFORUM Meters (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop trying to erase this article!!

UBF Trolls: Please kindly stop blanking out the ONE SENTENCE that you don't like in this article. Stop the section blanking. This is WikiPedia vandalsim and will be reported.

34 times a UBF troll has tried to erase the "negative" statement here. Please stop.

Here is a list of vandalism by ubf members: 4/30/2018 4/7/2018 x2 3/29/2018 2/9/2018 10/27/2017 10/17/2017 8/8/2016 6/15/2016 x2 6/8/2016 x3 6/7/2016 x2 5/24/2016 x2 5/23/2016 4/26/2016 x3 3/3/2016 12/3/2015 11/5/2015 2/24/2015 2/20/2015 5/25/2013 3/17/2013 7/4/2012 5/28/2012 5/17/2012 3/24/2012 x2 9/28/2011

Trying to purge the internet of critical material about your group is surely the sign of a cult. Bkarcher (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that so-called "UBF trolls" deleted this material? In this day and age when IP addresses can readily be generated using proxy servers, these so-called "attacks" could have been engineered by someone knowledgeable in IT who has a motive to make it seem as if "UBF trolls" attempted these removals. A proper approach to understanding this behavior would involve collection of actual concrete evidence for such events. Furthermore, if sufficient evidence supports the conclusion that one or more of these events was committed by a so-called "UBF troll", in a proper scientific study, the statistical distribution of the confirmed events would be compared to the distribution of similar events for other pages in the same category. The distributions would then be compared using standard statistical tests for significance to ascertain whether the events under study are statistically significantly more frequent than normal. Without this kind of careful scientific investigation, the claim in this comment (that "UBF trolls" deleted content) is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. DrBill (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

We do have 4 new accounts (as well as your DrBill account) who are WP:SPA accounts. Bkarcher (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV Article

I've distilled the article down to a first attempt at a NPOV draft. Bkarcher (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm holding off on making edits due to my declared COI here, and to avoid sparking yet another edit war on this article. Below, I've taken some of the input from folks here over the past decade, as well as the latest comment regarding partnerships. Bkarcher (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal. I think we can start editing from your proposal if no objections in order to make this article more balanced following NPOV. Dlee612 (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I made significant clarifications and refinements this morning, attempting to follow WP:CRIT guidelines. Also I'm removing the draft here in Talk as it clutters up the discussion. Bkarcher (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Beliefs section update

The two-sentence Beliefs and Characteristics section was weak and merged in my latest updates. There are two reasons: 1) The first sentence is redundant self-promotion WP:NOT. 2) The second sentence has been added to the Reactions section, including the reference. Bkarcher (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If the section has two sentences, you are right, it would be weak. That's why it should be updated with more balanced contents instead of removing and merging. This group is a church organization so Beliefs, Ministries and / or its Characters are relevant to understand the group. If this page doesn't give such information, the Reactions can give biased opinions to readers. I am still thinking this page should have Beliefs and / or Ministries. I found that other religion groups and they have good contents for their history and ministries. It helped me to have good understanding them. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship Cru (Christian organization). I also found lots of information from UBF homepage such as UBF North America Local Chapter Guidelines, Endorsements, By-laws of the University Bible Fellowship, Summary of Work and so on. This page doesn't include such informative contents. If those contents are added, this page will be more balanced and the Reactions section would be more closed to NPOV. Once I have a proposal for the sections, will put here for discussion. Dlee612 (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

So instead of having a "Beliefs" section that is positive and a "Controversy" section that is negative, I've merged them both into a "Reactions" section. Bkarcher (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Beliefs are statements or declarations. It is what they believe. People react to what they believe with negative or positive opinions which are reactions. If you don't like it, you can say that their beliefs are wrong or cult-like. If you like it, you can say their beliefs are biblical. This page should have the Beliefs as it is and let readers judge based on the Beliefs, Ministries and Characteristics along with the Reactions. So it doesn't make sense to me to merge them into Reactions. Dlee612 (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dating site. If the edits were not made in good faith toward WP:NOCRIT then please explain why. I ran the text before and after the recent edits through Grammarly, and the score improved from 84 to 87, with a movement toward neutrality. Bkarcher (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It is very interesting how come my talk made you think of a "dating site". Please read carefully again what I said. My point is that Beliefs / Ministries / Characteristics shouldn't be merged into the Reactions section so that it can be more encyclopedia with "factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title" (extracted from the first paragraph). This page is about UBF church which is a religion group. So it should include what they believe and how they work for their ministry and what kind of works are done. And then in the Reactions section tells readers what kind of reactions are out there. If editors don't want to have such factual information of the church and have only Reactions, I think they try to give biased positive or negative impressions, which will make this page worse than a dating site. Readers should have a chance to understand why the Reactions have a mixed bag with what they believe and what/how they work. I think that would be a way of moving toward neutrality. Can you please explain why it is a problem to have Beliefs and Ministries separated to make this page neutral? Dlee612 (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As I've already explained, my edits are related to the [WP:NOCRIT] guidelines, namely: "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies." I'm not opposed to a Beliefs section (provided it is not self-promotion) but I did edit out the prior Beliefs section due to reasons already stated. Your lengthy comments here in support of the group and insistence that bland financial facts are somehow negatively biased indicate a conflict of interest. I would recommend declaring that COI, if you have one, so you might not get banned as the ubfwebteam and other WP:MEATPUPPET accounts did. Bkarcher (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about neutrality dispute resolution

How can the neutrality dispute be resolved on the University Bible Fellowship article? After 4 years (since 2016) the NPOV dispute tag is still on this article and no neutral party has commented on a resolution. Bkarcher (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Statements are not thoroughly relevant should be removed. "Controversies" section should be renamed per WP:NOCRIT. After that you can try removing the tag. Tessaracter (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Consolidations and refinements have been made and Controversies has been renamed to Reactions. Bkarcher (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bkarcher: Can you please explain why you changed the label to Reactions? I think it should be kept as "Controversies" for now. This section is filled with all negative references and I think there are people don't agree with them. It would make readers misunderstood and misled. For example, it is hard to access to the references #13. It is interesting and I don't understand why it refers to the student newspaper of McMaster regarding the issue at the University of Manitoba. I tried to find the news from their site but their archives provide with old news up to 11 years ago. I don't know if there is a way to see the news. I couldn't verify if the reference is valid. So not sure if it should be referenced here. Anyhow, I think there would be reliable sources with positive opinions or opposite references against them. Dlee612 (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The reactions section is one of several suggestions from WP:NOCRIT and is not entirely negative. If you have positive reactions, feel free to add them (I cannot find any). Wikipedia admins generally have discouraged the Controversies title. Keep in mind we are talking about public reaction, and that reaction is documented mostly in a negative light. We've been given flexibility by the Wiki Admins here-- this article shouldn't even exist but they've let the article stand so far with very few reliable sources. You may not like it, but you cannot change how people react to you. The fact also remains that for 60 years, the reactions have been rather consistent: more references Bkarcher (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

In regard to the 1991 article, it was a McMaster newspaper yes, but the story references both universities.- the Manitoban University of Winnipeg and University of Manitoba banning incidents. Are you sure you want to open that can of worms? Winnipeg is infamous in this group's history and reflects the group's true nature. The article content was retrieved and preserved here years ago: Sillhouette Article Bkarcher (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: - any comment on whether the NPOV tag could be removed from this article? Bkarcher (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

New Partnerships Section and Other Edits

Based on the reference https://www.wheaton.edu/academics/school-of-mission-ministry-and-leadership/partnerships/university-bible-fellowship/ and others, we could provide more details on University Bible Fellowship's partnerships and affiliations with other organizations.

I propose text like this for a new "Partnerships and Affiliations" Section: "Wheaton College has partnered with University Bible Fellowship to provide a cross-cultural ministry certification aimed at sharing the Gospel across the diverse demographics of university campuses."

The page overall does not share much about University Bible Fellowship; the information on controversies should be consolidated to that section and more added to the actual beliefs.

Others are OK with this approach? --Jake428 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You include one proposed sentence with an extremely weak source, and then throw in the aside that you'd also like to do some whitewashing while you're at it. So, no, I think it's unlikely that that will be ok. (If you just added the sentence you propose, with the source, I doubt that I'd bother to revert on the grounds of the poor sourcing.) --JBL (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be ok and is a good idea because this section can give balanced information along with the information on controversies. People should know that UBF has partnerships and affiliations with well-known and healthy christian community groups. I believe that if we keep adding more references, it will be very informative. --Dlee612 (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be ok too. It would create a more balanced view. Naraganseth (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding a Partnerships section does not appear to violate any standards here. JBL would know better than I do. But the idea that there needs to be "more added to the actual beliefs" is not what this page is about. Wikipedia is not a self promotion engine nor is this the place to say what you want about your own organization. This article is sparse because there is almost no credible resource to put any kind of information here. Nearly every credible source shows negative information so it is difficult to find a NPOV. Bkarcher (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed: Providing information that is balanced and true is important. Sadly, as a teacher I found that students who have positive views seldom come online to leave good comments about their teachers. It is those that are dissatisfied in some way that go online to leave negative reviews. When people reads these information, it is easy to make judgement that is one-sided, which is kind of sad; so I agree with the comments already made that - to be impartial, there need to balanced reviews here. Holynation78 (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a review site. Statements must be sourced from reliable sources and made with talk page consensus (which is not the same as voting). Bkarcher (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no real point in arguing with campaigns like this that violate WP:MEATPUPPET. If they try to make bad edits, they can be reverted, and if they try to insist, administrators will be happy to protect the page or to block. --JBL (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@JBL: Why did you put the reference WP:MEATPUPPET? Did you say I am a "meatpuppet"? I know you are a very active user for this page and respect your efforts. But I am not such newbie to make bad edits to please administrators. I hope you didn't intend to look down on me like meatpuppet. I am here and will do my best to make this page balanced and informative. Dlee612 (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In that case I'm sure you won't mind mentioning all the accounts you've used to edit Wikipedia in the past, since the account Dlee612 has never made a constructive edit to Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Since there is a sudden influx of new people interested in contributing to this article as their first attempt at Wiki editing, here is a suggestion: There are two reliably sourced statements that could be added to the Beliefs section: 1) A partnership with Wheaton College 2) The practice of shepherding. The primary characteristic of UBF is not listed and I agree should be: they practice a non-Charismatic, Koreanized version of the Shepherding Movement practices. I have a published source for this if anyone wants to add it. Bkarcher (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Resolved The partnership with Wheaton has been added. Bkarcher (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Financials section update

The ECFA report referenced with #22 doesn't show 2015 data so updated with 2019 financial data. Also the sentence is tweaked to be NPOV. The word "amassed" can give negative impression. It is like saying "some others claimed that blah blah blah". If the reference is reliable and verified, it should be like "some others said that blah blah blah". This section is about Financials so it should be described with factual data. That being said, I don't think this section is relevant to this page but some people may say it is. So this page can keep the section but it should be updated with more data to be NPOV. It has only total revenue, total expenses and net assets. It also should show any donation or relief work that the organization did, if they have. I will try to find and update the section with more factual data. Dlee612 (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bkarcher I am ok to fix grammar but please do not remove the total expenses. If you think total revenue is relevant, I believe that total expenses should be relevant for the section as well. Dlee612 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above talk, the Financials section should be described with factual data based on the group's reports. Any words or sentences which imply biased impression should be avoided. For example, initially, it used a word of "amassed" about net assets. That is unnecessary addition. It should say, "It reported or listed $13,907,906 in net assets." But it is again changed saying "has acquired $13,907,906" Why do you want to add the word "acquire"? Wha's your intention? I don't want to change it again. It would be back and forth. So I propose that this section should be described with informative factual data (like donation to other groups, if they have) and change the last sentence like "According to the ECFA, the group reported $2,149,367 USD as total revenue, $2,073,393 as total expenses and $13,907,906 USD in net assets as of the end of 2019."

Other people, what do you think about my proposal? Dlee612 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the word "amassed" seems inappropriate in this context (words matter) since the church body is not working for profit. Most churches receive freewill donations from members and this is ok if they are following EFCA guidelines on transparency and accountability.Holynation78 (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred has changed the word acquired to had and I am ok with that. So Bkarcher and Holynation78, if you guys have no objection, I'd like to say it is resolved so that no more talks are added here. What do you think? Dlee612 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The Financial section was neutral before you started editing it and complaining about benign wording. As I mentioned already "So yes, churches did something to acquire (or obtain or amass or gain or receive--pick any word) such assets." The "had" also fits the bill here. Bkarcher (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that you agree with the change. Thank you. I feel like that you are still insisting your wording was neutral and I didn't understand English but I disagree with you. If you want to continue to debate, please comment on this page and do not move to my talk page. If other people read the whole talk threads, they will better understand why it was not neutral for this section but unfortunately you've moved some threads to my talk page without asking. It made them miss the chance to read whole talks.

• Resolved: It has been updated with "had" by C.Fred and there is no objection. Dlee612 (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Archives and Other discussions

For anyone looking for "missing" discussions, there are multiple archive pages for this Talk page. If you are looking for archived (i.e. old and/or resolved) discussions you can click the links in the Archive section above:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

The discussion has also spread out to my talk page and also the talk page of Dlee612 Bkarcher (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)