This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Churches of Christ article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about International Churches of Christ. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about International Churches of Christ at the Reference desk.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. JamieBrown2011 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. Meta Voyager (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

To follow the WP:NPOV, since this material appears in the article also, this comment can be added to the summary of the cult discussion in the Lead. "Others have found the church to not be a cult." Cite: https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19980901-1.2.31.11?qt=church,%20not,%20a,%20cult&q=church%20not%20a%20cult

Editaddict (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one discussed this and since it is complicit with the WP:NPOV policy, I will add it to the article. Editaddict (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and verifiability[edit]

Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include:

•    Ensure that the material is supported by reliable sources

•    Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it

•     Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance

Editaddict (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have NO consensus for your edits, I strongly suggest you revert yourself. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how my simple suggestion does not follow the WP:NPOV policy to create neutrality and balance. My understanding is that the WP policy is what we follow and not just people's opinions. Editaddict (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained to you, your conflict of interest means you should avoid editing the article directly and instead post edit requests here and gain consensus for any proposed changes. I oppose this addition because the source doesn't really support the claim that "Others have found the church to not be a cult"; all it says is that the Court of Appeal in Singapore overturned a High Court ruling that newspapers that had called the Central Christian Church a cult had not defamed it. We should perhaps add something to that effect to the Court cases and lawsuits section of the article, but the statement you've added isn't supported and doesn't belong in the lede. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article doesn't establish that the Central Christian Church was affiliated with the International Churches of Christ, so that would need to be established with a good source. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is on their website https://centralchristianchurch.sg/

Is that a good enough source? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the website doesn't state that the church was affiliated with the International Churches of Christ at the time of the court case in 1998. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misread. The headline reads: "The Appeals Court has ruled that the two newspapers defamed the Central Christian Church by labelling it a 'cult." Please give a good reason this addition to the lead does not follow the WP:NPOV "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance." Just saying it does not belong there does not make it so. Editaddict (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance does not say that, it says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." which is a very different statement Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So there are accusations or the church being a cult, then there are articles where the churches of Christ, the 1,6million member body from where the ICOC came, where the representatives of the COC apologized for using the word “cult” to describe the ICOC https://christianchronicle.org/icoc-mainline-leaders-meet-at-abilene-christian-1/ And there is a law case where an expert testified: “Church not a cult, says expert witness Tan Ooi Boon Central Christian Church hearings By Testifies that its practices were not 'strange, unnatural or harmful' AN EXPERT on religious studies yesterday said that the Central Christian Church here was not a cult because Us practices were "neither strange, unnatural or …” https://web.archive.org/web/20130928102343/http:/newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/SearchResults.aspx?keyword=central%20christian%20church%20hearings. And @CordlessLarry you believe the only Reliable sources are the ones accusing the church of being a “cult”? Tell me you are not serious? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about believing or not believing the sources; it's about accurately reporting what they say. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you excluding these sources and what they are saying from your editing in the LEAD and elsewhere? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lede should summarise the main content of the article, so the material shouldn't simply be added there when it's not in the article. I don't oppose its inclusion in the body article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was already in the body of the article, unless you removed it over the past 6 months.

If no-one objects, I am going to remove the contested section and we can replace it once we have consensus here on the Talk page JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information is already in the article. It is how I found it. You have yet to answer the question "How is including it in the lead summary not following the WP:POV? Your opinions are not the bar for inclusion. Editaddict (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - there are a couple of sentences on it. A single defamation case in Singapore (and we still don't have a source stating that the church was part of ICOC) doesn't merit inclusion in the lede to my mind. Per WP:LEDE, the lede "is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". This isn't particularly important content. There's also the problem that "Others have found the church to not be a cult" isn't really supported by the source - it's original research to make that claim based on a single primary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This explanation is very confusing. Perhaps it is because you misread and misremembered the article twice now. How does including this statement and reference to the Singapore case and the cult expert not fit this WP policy: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Editaddict (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean I've misread the source or the Wikipedia article? I made a mistake in stating that the material wasn't covered in the body of the article, but I don't see where I've misrepresented the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, what you are stating is the WP:NPOV principle I am trying to follow to achieve a neutral point of view by presenting balance. It is simply a small addition that summarizes content that is already in the article and refers to a reputable disinterested source. Please show how this addition violates this principle. Editaddict (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the “original research” point @[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry] is making, he is right. On the RS and NPOV issue, @Editaddict you raise a valid point, why is the Singapore court case which is written about in the Strait Times (a Singapore newspaper) being ignored? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being ignored - it gets two sentences at the start of the court cases section. I'm happy to discuss whether that's the appropriate weight to give the case (I think it probably is), but first you need to demonstrate that with secondary sources that the Singapore church involved in the case is indeed "a part of the ICOC family of churches", with suitable secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So firstly it is on their own website that they are an ICOC church (I have given the reference above already). 2ndly in the ICOCHistory website the court case and the results are covered in detail https://icochistory.org/download/la-story-courage-under-fire/?wpdmdl=754&refresh=659b9831268ab1704695857 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their website is a primary source and it doesn't establish that they were an ICOC church at the time of the court cases. The PDF you just linked is also a primary source (written by the ICOC's General Counsel); it does at least establish the connection, but it would be better to have a secondary source. I'm going to open an RfC on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3rdly, the court case is discussed in the Singapore newspaper “The Strait Times” https://web.archive.org/web/20130928102343/http:/newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/SearchResults.aspx?keyword=central%20christian%20church%20hearings JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be better sources, but do they mention ICOC? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry (talk) The paragraph in question in the Lead appears to fail Wikipedia Policies in a number of key aspects. For the following reasons, the paragraph should be removed in its entirety or moved to be merged with the Court Cases and Lawsuits section of the article. According to WP:LEAD, "[T]he lead . . .should . . . establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (from a neutral point of view). The context and notability of allegations of the church as a cult have not been established by referencing the "Former members" through a mere citation to a Rolling Stone article or the "view" of Janja Lalich, an individual identified as an expert on cults and coercion, who states that the church has "some of the hallmarks of a cult." The relative number of former members who are making cult allegations to the current members, former members or those from the general population who are not is not ascertainable by these general statements of opinion and do not "establish context" or “explain why the topic is notable” for the allegations that the church is a cult. To position in the Lead the viewpoint of what appears to be a minority is inconsistent with WP:UNDUE that states, "[g]enerally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." --Meta Voyager (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:UNDUE, you'll notice that it starts "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" - which is different to being in proportion to the number of former members making the allegations, as you seem to be suggesting. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:UNDUE, "[U]ndue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to . . . prominence of placement." The church article contains nearly forty paragraphs about its origin, historical development, various governance arrangements, and its beliefs and practices that take up many pages and which are supported by nearly eighty credible source citations, while the section on Court Cases and Lawsuits, that includes a reference to lawsuits and a cult allegation, is a mere two paragraphs at the end of the article with mostly news media sourcing. To attribute one of three paragraphs in the Lead on the topic of cult allegations and lawsuits that are thinly sourced is out of proportion with the overall substance of the article and its most important points. Meta Voyager (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though much of the article content is based on primary sources and quite a lot of it needs to be removed if secondary sources can't be found. At least the lawsuits and cult allegations material is based on good, secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last two replies in this thread appear to be an effort to divert from the primary policy discussion about what is appropriate for the Lead and, instead, turn the discussion to a general statement about neutral point of view and the distinction between primary and secondary sourcing in the body of the article. In my view, the overarching concern about the reference to opinions on the cult status of the church in the third paragraph of the Lead is that these opinions don’t belong in the Lead at all according to WP:LEAD. The Lead should “establish context” and “explain why the topic is notable.” The “former members” reference in the Lead accomplishes neither.  It is sourced from a Rolling Stone article that ties the cult allegation to two lawsuits in Los Angeles County Court brought by a total of 7 individuals. In contrast, the church is described elsewhere in this Wiki article as having more than 100,000 adherents and in the Wiki article on the Restoration Movement as a church having origins in the American Restoration Movement and Churches of Christ in the United States that reach back to the 19^th century.  The WP:UNDUE policies on “prominence of placement” further support why the opinions of a limited number of former members on the topic of cult status do not belong in the Lead.  According to recent reporting by the church, there are more than 700 church congregations associated with the International Churches of Christ, mostly outside the USA. Focusing on 2 cases in a Los Angeles, California court in the USA seems out of place. I am aware of the 2 subsequent cases filed in Los Angeles and my point remains the same. In all sincerity, I don’t find this issue to be a close call and that the third paragraph in the Lead should be removed; however, I’m interested in policy-based arguments that would suggest otherwise.  Can we return in this thread to a discussion of the key policies about the Lead an how they apply to the paragraph in question? Meta Voyager (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting WP:LEDE selectively, leaving out the bit that says it should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". The cult allegations aren't just made in the Rolling Stone article in relation to the lawsuits but are a common feature of coverage of the church in secondary sources. For some further examples, see this ("International Churches of Christ...is largely seen as a cult"), this ("a reputed cult, the International Church of Christ") and this ("Imagine now, this very same healing community that most members describe as an awesome family portrayed as a 'dangerous cult'. Who makes such claims about this healing group? Ex-members, former leaders, anti-cult groups, and many university officials who have banned the group from campuses because of their 'deceptive recruiting techniques' and authoritarian structure"). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra articles. The "former members" reference is also used to support an accusation of the church "covering up sexual abuse of children" and includes citations to single news articles in The Guardian and Los Angeles Times. The nature of the cover up accusations by former members is alarming and troubling, but, standing alone, does not make the reference sufficient to justify inclusion in the Lead. The paragraph in question also states that "[a]s of August 2023, some US branches of the church were the subject of multiple lawsuits." These references appear to be an effort to justify the inclusion of the paragraph as a "prominent controversy" WP:LEAD. However, the reference to a controversy related to the church is already acknowledged in the prior paragraph in the Lead and does not need to be repeated in another paragraph. A simple cross-reference to the Court Cases and Lawsuits section in the body of the article would be a sufficient way to alert the reader to controversy involving the church. Further and significantly, as of August, 2023 there were in fact no individual International Church of Christ congregations named in the cited lawsuits - only one congregation from the International Christian Church, a distinct and different church group that is recognized more appropriately in a separate Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_McKean#International_Christian_Church. This date stamped reference to lawsuits and the conflation of matters involving the International Churches of Christ and those of the International Christian Church are inaccuracies and represent original research that is prohibited by WP:OR as "a synthesis of published materials that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Meta Voyager (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "multiple lawsuits" that are being reported in the news media as of a recent date also runs up against WP:RECENTISM "where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events." The referenced lawsuits in state court are reported to be preceded by cases that the plaintiffs withdrew from federal court and refiled. Who can say at this early stage of litigation whether the current lawsuits will also be withdrawn or significantly amended by the plaintiffs? While a reference to pending court cases might be appropriate in another section of the article, it carries the characteristics of "breaking news" that are addressed in WP:NOTNEWS, “. . . breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.” This description of pending court cases doesn't represent an enduring description of the subject matter in the International Churches of Christ article and is not appropriate for a prominent placement in the Lead. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Singapore court case

Post-RfC

TarnishedPath, you've removed a sentence from the lede, citing this RfC close, but the sentence wasn't about the Singapore case. Has there been a mix-up? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry, my apologies. I'm half dead from lack of sleep after being woken up by a 21 month old before I got a full night's sleep. I've reverted myself. TarnishedPath^talk 07:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that - and thanks! Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CordLessLarry has placed a tag on the page concerning using primary sources for the beliefs section. Is this justified? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section is almost entirely based on sources affiliated with the ICOC. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CordLessLarry, this is simply not true or accurate, there are at least three outside sources.

- The Christian Chronicle: ^[1]

- Pepperdine University ^[2]

- The Encylopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement ^[3] JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an additional outside source that summarizes their views of the ICOC beliefs. https://christianstandard.com/2023/03/who-are-the-international-churches-of-christ/ Editaddict (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interview with the ICOC's former leader and a statement by it are clearly not independent of the ICOC. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry. This section is about the ICOC’s beliefs. It would then be appropriate for them to describe what their beliefs are. It is within policy (WP:SELFSOURCE) for an organization to write about themselves “especially in articles about themselves.” There would be no issue of neutrality here since what is stated in the sources is being presented in the belief section. I also note that you have not given a policy that this section breaks. You stated that it is not “independent of the ICOC.” Within this section, the source does not need to be independent of the ICOC. XZealous (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we don't simply trust organisations or individuals to give honest and reliable accounts of their own beliefs, unmediated by secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to a specific WP policy that states that. It seems very unprofessional that you cannot simply state this is what an organization states it believes. And how can we know any other source is more trustworthy on what they believe? Editaddict (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:INDEPENDENT. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

: Unless restricted by another policy,

1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

According to WP, Primary sources may be used if stated factually. Cautions are against analysis, evaluation, interpretation, etc. So how is it not valid to factually quote an organization's listing of their beliefs? Editaddict (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that we can't report the organisation's explanation of its own beliefs. The problem is the section being based almost exclusively on such sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"we don't simply trust organisations or individuals to give honest and reliable accounts of their own beliefs, unmediated by secondary sources." seems to be the definition of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, etc." that WP:RSPRIMARY warns against. Editaddict (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're mistaken. WP:RSPRIMARY warns against engaging in that interpretation of primary sources in articles. The quote above is from my comment here on the talk page, where I'm explaining why we shouldn't rely solely on sources associated with an article subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have already analyzed, evaluated and interpreted that "we don't simply trust organisations or individuals to give honest and reliable accounts of their own beliefs, unmediated by secondary sources." haven't you already done what WP:RSPRIMARY is warning against in your editing philosophy that impacts how you approach primary sources on their own beliefs? Editaddict (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm just explaining why that policy exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the interview were done by any other independent source wouldn't it count? Why discriminate against the Christian Chronicle? Editaddict (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fact that it's an interview that's the problem, not the publisher. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry. I referred back to the policies you stated. There is still no issue for the sources being used in the “Belief” section. Even with WP:RSPRIMARY (as you mentioned) states a primary source “ can be both reliable and useful in certain situations.” Using them with caution to avoid “original research.” The “Belief” section does not follow under “original research” because it is sourced, and only information from those sources are being used. Therefore, it becomes appropriate for the primary sources to be used here.

WP:BESTSOURCES (as you mentioned) aims to achieve the most authoritative source. When it comes to a section on beliefs, the organization stating beliefs is the most authoritative. An outside source cannot decide an organization's beliefs.

It seems we are forgetting the context of this section. WP:REPUTABLE even notes that proper sourcing “always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment.” You are claiming that it needs a tag only because it mainly uses primary sources (which, as noted above, there are a few secondary sources used in this section). However, in view of the context, that source is actually the most appropriate for this section. In a section about an organization's subjective beliefs, they become the authority on reporting such. How can an outside author determine an organization's beliefs better than the organization’s self reporting? This section only aims to report what the ICOC reports about their own beliefs, not an interpretation of them.

Noting that it is also within WP to self report in an appropriate way (WP:SELFSOURCE) as long as it follows the 5 guidelines given.

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
   1. The “Belief” section only claims to report beliefs on the ICOC, no exceptional claims.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
   1. The “Belief” section only includes belief statements abotu the ICOC, no other outside organization
   2. The only debatable point on this would be this sentence: “The ICOC like the Christian Church, in contrast to the CoC, consider permissible practices that the New Testament does not expressly forbid”
      1. Albeit this sentence is sourced from a book not affiliated with the ICOC as far as I can tell
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
   1. The “Belief” section only involves claims about ICOC beliefs, nothing else
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
   1. The “Belief” section is sourced from the ICOC itself, therefore giving it the best authenticity
5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.
   1. The “Belief” section is not the entire article, and as stated before this section is appropriate for WP:SELFSOURCE

WP:SELFSOURCE also states that the great majority of the article must use independent sources. The “Belief” section does not make up a “great majority” of the article. If there are still issues with sourcing from other sections, we can continue that discussion in the “Do we still have any ‘unreliable sources’?” section of the talk page. XZealous (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you argue the same for a political party (that the organisation itself is the best source)? It seems a very strange attitude that third-party sources aren't required for describing the beliefs of an article subject because it allows for all sorts of potential self-interested misrepresentation. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it for any organization being able to state their own beliefs. As it happens, many organizations have a "statement of belief" on their own website. However, how the beliefs are played out in history, the agreeableness of them, and its current application are appropriate to use secondary sources for. I would argue that it is more likely that third-party sources would have "self-interested misrepresentation" of other people's beliefs. We should allow a person or organization to clearly state their own beliefs themselves. XZealous (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you find it strange, it is within WP to allow the ICOC to report on their own beliefs in the "Belief" section. XZealous (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat myself (see above): I'm not suggesting that we can't report the organisation's explanation of its own beliefs. The problem is the section being based almost exclusively on such sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your issue with the section. However, as explained above, it does not go against WP. XZealous (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that this tag was added without first making a discussion of it on the talk page. Being that this is an active talk page, it would be appropriate to address it here first. WP:WTRMT rule 4 states this as ground for removing the tag.

If it needs to be re-added, we should come to a consensus on the talk page first. "Responsible Tagging" includes editors "label the problem with the appropriate tag. As needed they then leave information clarifying what should be done on the talk page." Being this talk page is frequently used, it will be needed to discuss tags on the talk page.

Please refer to WP:RESPTAG, WP:TAGBOMB, and WP:MTR for guidelines on appropriate tagging. XZealous (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My honest reaction to the article is that it is longwinded and hard to read. Unless someone is directly researching the ICOC it contains way too much information. The article makes it sound like the ICOC is a very important organization when it is not. The article says the ICOC believes in the Bible, Jesus Christ, some sort of discipling system, and that they are the one true church. The ICOC may or may not be a cult because of their aggressive recruiting tactics and the leaders of the ICOC are being accused of child abuse. That's basically the gist of the article. The encyclopedia entry needs to be shortened a lot. Someone is putting too much work and/or care into advertising the ICOC through this wikipedia article. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:B424:F403:D668:72F (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input @User:2600:1700:4260:35D0:B424:F403:D668:72F. However, "this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Churches of Christ article.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." as referred to by the top of this page. If you have suggestions on how to improve this page, feel free to start a new topic thread. Thanks. XZealous (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP above is explicitly saying what they think is wrong with the article and how they think it can be improved -- i.e. it's too long, reads like an advertisement, and it can be shortened to focus a few key concepts. At no point do they say anything about ICOC itself. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs to be rewritten and shortened. The outline of the article seems to be locked in the past, in part due to the current debate among editors about what is appropriate sourcing for information about the church. I believe a significant restructuring and shortening of the article is possible with a more generous view on the value of "about self" sourcing so that factual information from church sources could be considered for inclusion in the article and clearly identified as to the source. This approach would seem particularly appropriate for the "Beliefs" section of the article. In a significant rewrite of the article, the narrative sections that may be viewed as promotional or advertising could also be addressed through the Wikipedia editing process. In another section of the Talk page, I propose a more lenient approach to "about self" sourcing when appropriate. Meta Voyager (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestion that this tag needs to be removed if there is no record of a discussion first occurring on the Talk Page as specified by the WP:WTRMT rule 4 Editaddict (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such requirement for a discussion before that tag is placed but in any case, the discussion is now taking place. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why WP:WTRMT Rule 4 does not apply here. "When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it);" Editaddict (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that page doesn't document a policy, so it's not really a rule, but clearly discussion has been initiated here and in any case, the wording of the template message doesn't request such a discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why we should take your word as a judgment when WP:WTRMT clearly states this is a How To Guide and gives Rules. Can one editor consider himself the sole authority? Editaddict (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask for a second opinion on this. WP:TEAHOUSE would be a good place for you to ask as a novice editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion so far about the application of WP:ABOUTSELF in regard to the "Belief" paragraph, it seems to me that a consensus has been reached that the sources used in this paragraph are appropriate and within policy. I have reread this thread a number of times and 3 editors in this thread are fine with the sources, one is not.

I will wait for any further comment. Otherwise, by consensus of arguing policy, I will remove the tag WP:WTRMT (1)(5) XZealous (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't judged solely by numbers, but I think you need to take into account the fact that at least some of the editors who wish to see the template removed have a clear conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles about religious organizations often contain a “beliefs” section that describes the beliefs and practices of the organization and its members. Is About Self sourcing on the organization’s beliefs or practices acceptable as Reliable Sourcing when the information is derived directly from the religious organization or published by an employee or member of the organization irrespective of whether secondary sourcing is available? This RfC assumes that all other Wikipedia editing policies are observed. Meta Voyager (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• No, we should rely on independent, secondary sources as much as possible for this. Some non-independent sourcing might be acceptable here, but per WP:ABOUTSELF, only when the claims concerned are uncontroversial - and given how much controversy surrounds the ICOC and its practices, I'd suggest that not much is uncontroversial here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If it was a staightforward uncontroversial enclyclopedic summary of their beliefs, IMO yes. But for what I see in the article, no because it is not those things. It is prose wordsmith-ed with all of their objectives in mind. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW by "uncontroversial" I meant as a statement of their beliefs. For example, it is uncontroversial that the flat earth society professes that the earth is flat, even if the belief is controversial.North8000 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000I agree with you about making this section a "straightforward uncontroversial encyclopedic summary of their beliefs". Could you point out what you find as "prose wordsmith-ed?" That should help out with making this section more fitting. XZealous (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My 14:31, 17 April 2024 post below is a first attempt at reflecting on that. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For most major religions, this should be fine, but I can think of several high control organisations where what is outwardly claimed about the religion's beliefs doesn't neccesarily match all that well with what is claimed internally, and where external sources might be necessary to get a good perspective, think scientology.--Licks-rocks (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that the ICOC is not a prominent enough organization to generate many secondary sources on their beliefs, do you think it is necessary to have these sources as well?

  Also, would an outside perspective of beliefs fit within the "Beliefs" section, or would that garner a whole other section on outside views on the ICOC? There has to be some discrepancy between an internal statement and an outside source's experience of the application of those statements.

  Maybe you can put here on the talk page if you find a big discrepancy between the internal and external statements of belief? XZealous (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the organisation isn't prominent enough to generate coverage when there's an entire scholarly book about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since this came up again (I was even tagged!) I see the need to clarify my position: If a fact referenced to WP:ABOUTSELF-sources is being contested, it is almost always going to end up having to be supported by secondary sources, and secondary sources are always preferable. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but my vote shouldn't be used to defend the use of WP:ABOUTSSELF sources when that use is contested. by "this should be fine, but", in this case, I meant "It's better not to", rather than "Please do". I also think the (attempt at?) self-closure below was in very poor form. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Very much agree with what North8000 has said, for uncontroversial statements it should be fine. However for controversial groups whose believes and practices may not match what they profess publicly such statements may go against points 1 (unduly self-serving) and 4 (reasonable doubt) of WP:ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It might be helpful to this RFC to explain what is deemed as "controversial" in the beliefs section? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the challenges in editing this article has been that there is very little recent RS published about the ICOC since the early 2000s. This is when its founder resigned/was ousted and they underwent a major reorganization. That reorganization included a very public (although not very specific) renunciation by its leadership of the organization being "too judgmental". So the dilemma, as I see it, is if the article's beliefs section relies primarily on RS, it will be out-of-date, since most RS was generated at a time when the ICOC was more controversial than it is today. If, on the other hand, we want to make the beliefs section current, then there is very little RS available and we have to rely on primary sources with all of the difficulties associated with that. Any thoughts on how to resolve this dilemma? Are there other precedents where the issue of article currency vs the availability of RS was addressed? Nowa (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great point @Nowa, there are some articles written at the Christian Chronicle about those changes and also at Disciples Today. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Christian Chronicle a newsletter/newspaper/news source published by the ICOC? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:98FA:4FF1:C7BD:BCE7 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful comments received thus far. The origin of this RfC is to improve the article by making thoughtful edits that conform to Wikipedia policies. As further context, for the past 8 months this article has been closely monitored and my attempts to edit have been tightly controlled by the suggestion that I have a conflict of interest as a lay member of the church. I have directly expressed my disagreement on this position with the responsible administrator but have chosen in good faith to confine my suggested edits to the Talk page and use the tools afforded by Wikipedia policy to reach consensus. There is a Statement of Shared Beliefs contained within a self-published Plan For United Cooperation dated March 11, 2006 that is a representation of the belief system of several hundred church congregations who have chosen to participate. In my view, it is non-controversial and similar to other statements of faith appearing in articles for other religious organizations (e.g., Catechism of the Catholic Church). My hope is that this RfC will provide consensus on the appropriateness of making a change of this type (i.e., About Self sourcing) to the article’s belief section. It appears the consensus so far is represented by North8000’s opinion that “a straightforward uncontroversial encyclopedic summary of their beliefs” is permitted. If this consensus holds, the issue of whether the Statement of Shared Beliefs is controversial will have an appropriate airing on the Talk page, prior to posting. Meta Voyager (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That selective quote from North8000's comment makes it sound like they approve of the current state of the section, which I don't believe is the case from reading the full comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Meta Voyager is trying to point out that the consensus is that if the section were to be "a straightforward uncontroversial encyclopedic summary of their beliefs", then the sources should be fine.

It seems like there would be agreement to use these sources if the Belief section were to be simplified in its writing to avoid being "wordsmith-ed." XZealous (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not taken the deep dive to learn enough to say too much. But to make just a quick reading of the quoted portion, it is not very informative for such a large amount words. 95% of it is a just statement of the of the core points of all of the "Primacy of the Bible" churches and organizations with perhaps billions of members. The other 5% is "every member's participation in the Great Commission to Seek and save what was lost" which, by using undefined internal jargon for it's core statement, does not inform the reader at all. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on my last point, whenever somebody uses undefined jargon which they control the definition of to "explain" something, e.g. "every member's participation in the Great Commission to Seek and save what was lost" I consider it to be problematic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other "95%" is covered in the other text in that section. I might boldly zap that whole quote section just to try to help here and request that if anybody disagrees to please revert me. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these clarifications on the sections that have been "wordsmithed." My view, as stated elsewhere on the Talk page, is that there are many sections of the article that would benefit from being rewritten and one of the intentions of this RfC is to better understand how to do so consistent with WP editing policies.. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case my use of the word "wordsmithing" might have been an overreach, I didn't mean it in a negative or manipulative sense. Just that the wording is crafted to serve all of the objectives and constraints of the writers in whatever context they wrote it. Which is different that trying to give a third party enclyclopedic description. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the article, but the RFC question makes me wonder whether editors are remembering that Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent.

On the general subject, though, I'm surprised that this question is being asked. Anyone with even a small amount of experience should already know that an encyclopedia article about a religious organization will always outline the organization's beliefs (WP:BALASP policy) and that editors should use the WP:BESTSOURCES available to them. Therefore, if the best sources about the org's religious beliefs are from the org, then use them. And if the best sources are not from the org, then use those. This is not rocket science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further clarification on the use of secondary sourcing that is not independent. I agree with this assessment and your acknowledgement that the best available source on a religious organization's beliefs is often times the organization itself. Meta Voyager (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the wording of the RfC, if it was me posting it, I'd have asked about the suitability of non-independent sources for the beliefs section of this specific article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @WhatamIdoing it makes perfect sense what you are saying, especially the point on secondary sources not always being independent or the best. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do generally discourage editors from interpreting the Bible or other religious texts themselves (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion). A primary source like the organization's website is a safer choice for editors than a primary source like the Bible itself. So primary sources aren't bad, and may sometimes even be best, but they're not always preferred, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your input is clear and very helpful 👍 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it might be unclear (including what I said about the quote) I agree with what WhatamIdoing said. And they did not respond for the particulars here, they just said that there is no reason to preclude such a source, and that it often may be the best source. What's there now (after I took the quote out) IMO has the appearance of OK, with the caveat that I'm not deep in / knowledgeable enough on the topic/sources to evaluate more deeply than that. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I do a simple google search the search will return hundreds of articles that call this organization a cult. How can I trust that what the ICOC says happens and believes is really what is happening in the ICOC? Maybe the ICOC is lying? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:98FA:4FF1:C7BD:BCE7 (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No (Summoned by bot) we should prefer secondary WP:RS, with a strong preference for academic sources from subject matter experts. WP:ABOUTSELF should only be utilised when there are gaps and then care should be taken to not present the information from ABOUTSELF sources as fact, only as self-attributed claims. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you here about the importance of secondary WP:RS The belief section should use WP:ABOUTSELF for the self attributed claims of its own beliefs. I am not sure that WP:ABOUTSELF "should only be utilised when there are gaps." That statement is not within the policy confine of WP:ABOUTSELF. Noting that this section is a statement of ICOC beliefs as stated by the ICOC themselves, it falls within all guidelines to use WP:ABOUTSELF for this section.

  There is also a great discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC concerning WP:ABOUTSELF XZealous (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My statement "should only be utilised when there are gaps" is to say that secondary WP:RS, especially from academic sources in which the author is a subject matter expert (if available), are vastly superior than WP:ABOUTSELF. WP:ABOUTSELF are obviously primary sources and are almost universally are self-serving. I don't think it's controversial to state that reliable secondary sources are preferable to primary sources which have a tendency towards being self-serving. To me the statement that WP:ABOUTSELF sources "should only be utilised when there are gaps" follows. We should always prefer to best sources. TarnishedPath^talk 02:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This RfC has received open comment and discussion for more than 10 days and appears to have achieved a majority view on acceptable uses of About Self sourcing on the beliefs section of a religious organization's article under certain circumstances. To avoid COI concerns and in light of the backlog on Wikipedia Closure requests, I request that @WhatamIdoing, as an editor uninvolved with the article, consider writing a brief closing summary of the discussion on this RfC (ideally with a determination of consensus), after which I intend to formally end the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meta Voyager (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An editor who has contributed to the discussion is involved, so shouldn't be the one to close it and summarise the consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Objection noted. Since closing summaries are not required, I’ll proceed with ending the discussion. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. In case my thanking of disinterested editors for their input hasn't made my position clear. I am supportive of using WP:ABOUTSELF as a reliable source, as was mentioned by @Horse Eyes Back on the Reliable Sources Board over here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Reliability and independence of sources for International Churches of Christ JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, there are really two questions, and this discussion has really been about #1:

1. Prohibit vs. do not prohibit using self as a source
2. Decide that what's there is what will be in the article.

IMO folks have mostly decided "do not prohibit" on #1, but that should not be interpreted as "locking in" what is currently in there. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just having a look at the lede and there seems to be some statements which are presented as fact which are supported by WP:ABOUTSELF references. I find this problematic. In fact that there is anything supported by WP:ABOUTSELF in the lede I think is WP:UNDUE. Anything supported by WP:ABOUTSELF should be in a beliefs section. Glaring example from the second paragraph in the lede: "They are structured with the intent to avoid two extremes: "overly centralised authority" on the one side and "disconnected autonomy" on the other side" which is completely supported by two references from ICOC's website. That is a statement of fact, not a statement of belief and it contradicts statements in the first paragraph of the lede that ICOC is "religiously conservative and racially integrated" which is supported by a reliable source being the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Further there are statements about the size of the congregations in the second paragraph which are supported by sources which are not independent. TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few more RS and am in the process of improving the Discipling section. First step is fixing refs and cleaning up. I removed the quote from Kip McKean since its from an interview in 2004 when he was no longer a spokesperson for the ICOC. The original citation for that quote was to an unrelated Time article. I found the correct source and fixed the reference before removing the quote in case anyone disagrees with the quote removal.

On a related note, there appears to be a number of reference errors in the article. It wouldn't hurt to clean those up. Nowa (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Yi dissertation as RS. This has a lot of information about beliefs. Nowa (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on this! The "Those who left the ICOC were to be shunned" sentence is based off an interview of Ms. Yun Kim. Is it appropriate to take her statement and solidify it as a practice in the Discipling section? If you want to keep it, I think it should at least be clarified that it is a quote from one person, not representative as a solid practice.

Noting that the interview represents Ms. Yun Kim's either experience or perspective should be noted in the article. WP:BIASED and WP:INTEXT should be noted if you want to keep the statement in the article.

Let me know what you think, thanks! XZealous (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points. The Jenkins reference "Awesome Families"(2005) has a lot more information about the practice of discipling under McKean. I am in the process of reviewing Jenkins now in order to update the article. In the meantime, I'll put in an additional reference about "shunning". Nowa (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nowa for all your work on this, but I think you have overused Yi as a source and currently have 2/3rd of the discipling section attributed entirely to her. Over 300 words, and nothing from the church itself on the practice. WP:BALANCE JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I presume you mean "Jenkins 2005" instead of "Yi". Since Jenkins is a published PhD dissertation largely focused on the practice of discipling in the ICOC as it existed under McKean, I think it's current weight as a source for this section is reasonable. As far as there being "nothing from the church itself", if you can propose a reference that we should consider, then it would certainly be worth looking at. Nowa (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it should be - academic sources are to be preferred over primary, non-independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the citation after "shunned." I was more noting that it should be clarified that this was an interview of an individual. The sentence makes it seems as if it was a actualized belief of the ICOC. It should be noted, maybe by WP:INTEXT, that this was taken from an interview which represents a person's perspective of the ICOC. XZealous (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for "shunned" is to Jenkins 2005, page 55, not the individual interview in Yi. Jenkins' assertion was based on multiple interviews with members. Having said that, I have no problem with an INTEXT reference to Jenkins. Nowa (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the plans of the ICOC for 2020 is not particularly notable (i.e., not covered by any RS) and out-of-date. Do we still need it? Nowa (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section is poor. At the very least, it could do with updating, but given the lack of secondary sources about it, it might not merit inclusion in the first place. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a "second" from one editor. If one or two other editors concur, I'll take that as consensus and delete the section. Nowa (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to deleting the section but believe that the entire article suffers from there being few updates about current beliefs and practices. As you've observed in your research there is an ongoing effort at reform in the church that is not able to be recognized by the way the article is currently being administered. I posted the RfC on About Self sourcing in an effort to develop an acceptable process for including more recent events that have limited independent sourcing. I will be posting some suggestions on the Talk page about proposed changes to the Beliefs and Practices section that I hope will be helpful. Thank you for your ongoing efforts to improve the article. Meta Voyager (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Sounds like we have consensus to remove the 2020 plans section. I will go ahead and do so. Nowa (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the findings of the recent RfC on About Self sourcing and the challenge of finding relevant, independent sourcing since 2010 as reported by @Nowa elsewhere on the Talk page, I propose that the following introduction and Statement of Shared Beliefs (Abridged) from the ICOC's "Plan for United Cooperation" be added to the Beliefs and practices of the ICOC section of the ICOC article on the basis of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BESTSOURCES and that redundant paragraphs in the section be deleted:

On or about March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches around the world who collectively identified as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. On August 5, 2009, the “Cooperation Plan” was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches.  https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. The Plan for United Cooperation contained a Statement of Shared Beliefs by churches participating in the International Churches of Christ that is presented below in abridged form.

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (Abridged)

“May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” John 17:23 NIV

The following longstanding biblical doctrines and cooperative ideals have already guided us well on our journey thus far. These statements begin with the highest historical Christian essentials and move toward our common aspirations to be well-connected in Christ.

GOD: Father, Son and Holy Spirit We believe in and we surrender our lives to the one God who made the heavens and earth and who breathed life into humanity. We worship and praise the Father who spoke the world into existence. We worship and praise Jesus, the Son, who died upon the cross to redeem us from sin. We worship and praise the Holy Spirit who is the seal of our salvation.

1. Our eternal purpose is to know God and to glorify him as God, and let our life shine so others will see God.

2. The cornerstone of our faith is our belief in Jesus Christ.

3. The Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is sharp, powerful, effective, challenging, exposing, and encouraging when it is revered, studied, preached, taught, and obeyed because it is from our Creator and therefore relevant for all generations.

GOSPEL: the work of God The culminating event of the Christian faith occurred between the time of the Passover and Pentecost at the end of the Gospels through early Acts. The death, burial and resurrection of the perfect Lamb of God are the substance of our faith. What the first twenty chapters of Exodus are to the Jews (as God rescued and brought them to Sinai to hear the law) is very much what the events in Jerusalem were for disciples. Many were eyewitnesses to events of the atonement, the risen Jesus as “both Lord and Christ”, and heard the promise that was for everyone, even “those who are far off”.

4. Our salvation totally depends on the work of God, prompted by his own mercy and grace, not our good deeds. That work redeems those who hear, believe and obey the Gospel message through baptism into Christ through their faith in God’s power and continue to remain faithful unto death.

5. Our earthly mission involves every member’s participation in the Great Commission to “Seek and save what was lost,” in bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to all parts of the world.

6. Our motivation to love God, love each other and love the lost is prompted by God’s love for us, demonstrated in its greatest form by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on a cross for our behalf.

The INDIVIDUAL Response: the surrender of God’s children. As disciples of Jesus, we surrender our lives to his Lordship. We rejoice in our adoption as God’s children, and each accepts the call to be holy and follow the example of Jesus.

7. Our conversion begins with belief in Jesus as God’s Son, and in his death and resurrection from the dead.

8. Our personal discipleship to Christ begins with our total commitment to the Father, who is over all and through all and in all.

9. Our holiness in daily living is a command from God.

THE CHURCH COMMUNITY: sharing in fellowship and strengthening  As members of the body, we are bonded by our immersion in water that united us with Christ’s death and brought with it the promise of absolute forgiveness, the Holy Spirit and a new life; our hope of heaven and the gift of eternal life; the church body and our devotion to being members of the family of God—a community that helps its members grow to be like Jesus.

10. Our membership in each congregation constitutes baptized disciples, men and women who have pledged to live their lives as saints of God in the holiness he requires.

11. Our community worship includes our devotion to God’s Word, prayer, fellowship, and the Lord’s Supper as a weekly sharing in the presence of Christ as a sacred event—breaking the bread and drinking the fruit of the vine together.

12. We believe in the church supporting women as they serve a vital ministry role in evangelizing, baptizing, teaching, counseling, and training other women. In addition, we recognize the value and significant influence that all sisters can have in the lives of the brothers.

13. The decision-making responsibilities of established congregations belong to the individual congregation.

14. Our communication within the church and outside of our brotherhood should always be genuine, respectful and never deliberately antagonistic.

15. Mature conflict resolution is a priority to our churches and may sometimes require help from outside our own congregation. We agree to obey the scriptures that insist on godly conflict resolution, renouncing gossip and slander. Meta Voyager (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is far too detailed and too large an amount of text from a non-independent source to include in the article. Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise what reliable sources say about a topic, not reproduce large chunks of content from those sources (and especially not from non-independent sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have similar concerns as User:Cordless_Larry about this draft beliefs section:

• I agree that it's too long.
• To me, it reads like WP:Promotion.
• It's written in the first person (e.g., "We believe...") Wikipedia should be written in the third person (e.g., "Member churches of the ICOC believe....")

Regarding where to find additional RS, I see from the ICOC web site that they have an international network of regional communications directors. Are these communications directors getting any local coverage for the ICOC? If so, that might be a source of RS on notable beliefs. Nowa (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~80% of that is the "Motherhood and apple pie" stuff that is in common with all "primacy of the bible" religions/belief sects. (I hope that the "Motherhood..." euphemism is de-codable outside of the US :-) ) So making 80% of it "motherhood and apple pie" stuff is sort of self-promotional and also not very informative, which is what we're here to do. To be informative, we need shorten that part and cover the items that are unique or somewhat unique to this group. The current section has some of that in it. One way to think of it: "How are their beliefs different than a common "Bible Church". North8000 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the proposed text and posting these messages with helpful comments. The proposed text is lifted word-for-word from a longer version from the source document and was offered in an abridged format in recognition of the need for something briefer. No WP:Promotion was intended. I find that North8000's 80% Motherhood comment offers another approach to presenting the information and I will turn to editing down the information for further consideration. I believe the RS comments offered by Cordless Larry and Nowa are at the core of this editing challenge as the current beliefs and practices of the churches that identify as ICOC do not now attract the same degree of external coverage as was the case during a prior, more controversial era of the church. Most of the citations relied upon in the article as RS are reporting on events that predate the 2010 reorganization that is reflected in Nowa's research and the Plan for United Cooperation, so, in my view, some tolerance for About Self sourcing will be needed to update current beliefs and practices. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Churches of Christ article has a comprehensive Beliefs section as well as a section describing the separation of the International Churches of Christ. At the time of separation, a distinguishing belief of the ICOC was that they taught that they were the One true church and only baptisms by the ICOC were legitimate. With the departure of McKean and the ICOC reorganization in 2003, however, they modified this belief to acknowledge that baptisms outside of the ICOC could be legitimate. Are there now any other distinguishing beliefs of the ICOC relative to the COC? Are these distinguishing beliefs pointed out in any references (RS or primary)? Can we somehow capture these in the article without straying into OR or SYNTH? Nowa (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're in danger of confusing different types of source in all of this discussion. Primary sources and non-independent sources aren't necessarily the same thing, and likewise, sources can be primary and reliable! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. By "primary" I meant "non-independent". Nowa (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the renewed attention to the Beliefs section, I thought I would take a look and see if the current references need clean up. Indeed they do. For now, I'll put in "citation needed" tags if a former citation is no longer valid. Hopefully we can get valid citations. Otherwise unsourced material should probably be removed. Nowa (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the source cited fully supports the text "Women lead other women, but not allowed to hold certain pastoral positions" (it's also ungrammatical). The source quotes one former member as stating "As a leader, I was given women that I had to 'disciple'", but that's not really proof that that's the general picture (it might be that some women leaders "disciple" men, for all the quote tells us). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a better way to say it. There's also a timeliness issue. Under McKean, only women could disciple women and only men could disciple men. It's not clear if the discipling system still exits anymore, so it may be a moot point. Also "certain pastoral positions" is vague. I wouldn't mind taking the whole "women" sentence out. Nowa (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached? XZealous (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)XZealous 9:26, 2 May 2024[reply]

Discussion

This should be addressed, but discussed with caution and care noting the subject matter and the inclusion of living persons (WP:BLP)

Noting WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:BALASP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:RECENT, is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached?

The people named in these court cases are “low-profile individuals (WP:LPI) in which "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.” (WP:BLPCRIME)

Not that it is always a bad idea, but it should also be discussed if the paragraph on the court cases is “actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time.” (WP:RECENT).

Note that these are 4 cases in the state of California. This brings up WP:BALASP in consideration of its significance in relation to the ICOC as a whole.

In order to be careful with low profile living individuals, I propose that it will only be appropriate to include information on these cases if/once a conviction is reached. It will then become clear what, if anything, will be appropriate for this ICOC article.

Due to the sensitive and controversial nature of this specific paragraph, I look forward to careful, constructive, and respectful input. XZealous (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be my lack of understanding of US law, but I didn't think lawsuits resulted in convictions? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I took the quote the from WP:BLPCRIME page. There may, however, be a more legally correct term. XZealous (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is correct. A civil case can potentially result in a finding of liability, not a conviction, and the standard used is preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! XZealous (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that most civil cases are settled, so there may never be any sort of ruling by the court. Nowa (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes (Summoned by bot), if the court case has sufficient sourcing then it should be covered in the article. However if the individuals have a low profile, I'd steer away from naming them at all in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment XZealous, an RfC should only take place after a matter has already been discussed to a reasonable extent, and that discussion has reached an impasse and failed to achieve consensus. If such discussion has taken place, I sure can't find it, so could you include a pointer to it so that those commenting on the RfC can also read through it and see what points were raised there? If that hasn't happened yet, then this RfC is premature, and needs to be closed in favor of just trying a regular discussion first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There have been ongoing attempts by editors with COIs to have material perceived as critical of the ICOC removed from the article, of which this appears to be the latest attempt. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cordless Larry I would advise to follow WP:GF. If you have doubts about my behavior/editing here you can "substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence." My goal is not and has not been to remove "material perceived as critical of the ICOC." I have tried my best to suggest edits according to and citing policies.

  I have noted that you put me on the COI notice board for removing the tag on the belief section. However, the previous RfC (posted after my removal of the tag) has concluded my action to be appropriate. Feel free to discuss any further concerns about my behavior/editing on my talk page.

  I will also WP:DGF in listening to and understand that you also are aiming to improve this article by discussing and following policy. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, which RfC has confirmed that you were correct to remove the third-party sources tag? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "This RfC has received open comment and discussion for more than 10 days and appears to have achieved a majority view on acceptable uses of About Self sourcing on the beliefs section of a religious organization's article under certain circumstances." XZealous (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're citing Meta Voyager's assessment of their own RfC as demonstrating consensus for removal of a template that the RfC wasn't even about! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cordless Larry yes, agreed that's some odd reasoning. TarnishedPath^talk 13:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That was a completely inappropriate close, and I've reversed it. Meta Voyager, editors involved in a discussion cannot decide to "end" that discussion. In the case of something like an RfC, you may ask (for example at requests for closure) that an uninvolved editor close and summarize the discussion once it has run long enough; in the case of an RfC that's 30 days, not 10. Please ensure not to do anything like that again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I take issue with your characterization of my actions as "a completely inappropriate close." According to WP:RfC, keeping the discussion open for 30 days after which it will be ended by removal by Legobot is one option. Seeking a Wikipedia:Closure request is another option, but I found the requests for uninvolved editors to be currently backlogged and, frankly, discouraged. A third option is to manually end the discussion if one of the reasons to end RfCs applies. I chose to manually end the discussion without a closing summary based upon my belief that the discussion had run its course, an "undoubtedly clear" consensus written by either an uninvolved or involved editor was unlikely and one editor suggested that a closing summary by an involved editor was inappropriate. I announced my intention to manually end the discussion and did so a few hours later. I also note that WP:RfC provides for a RfC discussion to be extended which is what you have appeared to have done, so I have no objection. Do you still see it the same way? Meta Voyager (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. It's okay if the RfC just comes to a natural end if all the participants agree that it has or it just peters out, and not every RfC requires a formal close, but once Cordless Larry objected to you doing what you did, you don't do that. In that case, leave it open until someone uninvolved (and that, by the way, is a "you get who you get", not someone of your choice) closes it, or until the discussion just ends on its own accord. But someone involved should not shut down the discussion if anyone involved in that discussion objects to them doing so. Generally speaking, if anyone at all involved in the discussion objects to it being closed or summarized by someone else involved, that should not happen. And the discussion had not clearly reached a natural end—the last comment in it was made just a couple of hours before you did your close, and it's entirely possible people might have liked to respond to that or say more. You don't just get to decide "Well, that's enough here then" and unilaterally shut it down. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cordless Larry, I initially removed your sourcing tag because I knew that it was fine for the Belief section to use the sources that it already had, it did not need your tag stating "This section may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject,"

  @Meta Voyager's RfC was about this very topic. Can the belief section use WP:ABOUTSELF for its sourcing? The consensus (I now see that the Rfc has been re-opened for further discussion) was that ABOUTSELF is fine for that section. Therefore, your tag is not necessary. XZealous (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfC didn't ask specifically about this article though but rather about religious organisations in general, which is why responses included things like "For most major religions, this should be fine, but..." and "But for what I see in the article, no because it is not those things". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of the responses you quoted were not from replies that had issues with the sourcing themselves. The issue was with the application of the sources. @Licks-rocks was mentioning about organizations with high discrepancy between internal and external claims which might need more than just primary sourcing. And @North8000's issue was with the wording of the belief section, not just the source used. They later stated they was fine with the sourcing as long as the wording of the section was cleaned up.

  I actually didn't notice that the RfC wasn't about this article. I assumed it was because it was posted on this talk page. I'm not sure how much of a difference the same RfC would make if it was restated to be about this page, as most of the answers were still helpful XZealous (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please avoid quoting me to defend using primary sources where better sources are available. I listed one scenario where the use of primary sources can lead to problems, as an example for why you shouldn't. See also above. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Im sorry if it seemed I misquoted you. I wasn't using you to defend the use of Primary sourcing. I was noting your comment on high control organizations being an issue for using Primary sourcing, and how in those situations there should be more than just primary sourcing. I see you clarified your comment above, thanks for that! XZealous (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @XZealous, that wasn't my reading of consensus. I certainly spoke about only using WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing when there was gaps in other sourcing and then only with care. Another editor agreed with me. I'd wait for a formal close before claiming to know what consensus is one way or another. Ps, I've called for a formal close at WP:CR. TarnishedPath^talk 02:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I've been (Summoned by bot), I might as well give my input, premature RfC or not. Yes, it's absolutely appropriate to have a section on an on-going lawsuit with non-public figures, just as long as their names aren't given. Lawsuits can take years, and are extremely important to the affected organizations/people. Omitting them just because they're delicate subjects that need to be treated with care would be negligent. Ships & Space_(Edits) 15:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was already discussion on this topic in the above section entitled WP:RECENT, the point was made that there are 5 court cases all confined to the State of California. The ICOC is a church in over 150 nations of the world, with the majority of churches outside the US. Therefore the policy of WP:UNDUE would apply. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as it seems like someone's saying that there was at least some prior discussion on this (though I can't find it), then as to the question itself: The article of course should include information about the lawsuit; it's clearly been noted as significant by reliable sources. If lower-profile individuals are involved in the court filings, they should not be mentioned by names, but it is fine to mention the name of church leaders and the like if the sources which discuss the matter do. I don't like having a "Controversies" section in articles and prefer that such material just be integrated in, but that's a question of article style. It certainly belongs in the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "prior discussion" that is being referred to is in Talk Archive 9 Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_9#WP:RECENT The discussion was whether or not what the article says about the lawsuits should be updated based on primary sources (e.g. court records). The article currently discusses a set of related cases filed in US Federal Court. Court records indicate that these cases have been dismissed without prejudice at the request of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. Court records have also indicated that a similar set of related cases have been subsequently filed in CA State Court. These cases are ongoing. The consensus at the time was not use any primary sources and wait until if/when RS provides an update. There was no discussion of "people who are not public figures". Nowa (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Nowa, you are right. The issue I remember you highlighting is whether a few cases in one US state are notable. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that's not quite the issue I was highlighting. The issue was not the notability of the state cases, but whether or not we should update the article based on primary sources or wait until RS becomes available. Nowa (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The cases are notable because they've been covered in multiple high-quality independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cordless, just because it is in the news doesn't mean that 5 cases isolated to one US state should be used to describe 755 churches in 150+ nations in the world. If you had court cases in multiple nations, that would change the picture. WP:BALANCE states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The lawsuits implicate the founder of the ICOC, Kip McLean; they're not just about isolated parts of the organisation. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  McKean hasn't been a part of the ICOC for almost 20 years now, and he has his own page on Wikipedia if you wish to post over there. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The way the question was worded, the answer is yes. It is appropriate to include a section about ongoing litigation, if it is WP:DUE and referenced and avoids the names of non-notables... etc. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Cunado, I think the argument is that it is not WP:DUE. The 5 cases are all filed in California and are limited in jurisdiction to that one state. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when has extent of jurisdiction mattered when evaluating due weight? On its face that appears to be absurd Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Horse Eye's Back agreed. If there is extensive reporting in RS then there's extensive reporting in RS. TarnishedPath^talk 16:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  “Since when has extent of jurisdiction mattered when evaluating due weight? On its face that appears to be absurd”.

  Great question… I would say since your fellow Administrator said this:

  “A single defamation case in Singapore (and we still don't have a source stating that the church was part of ICOC) doesn't merit inclusion in the lede to my mind. CordlessLarry 5th Jan”

  “WP:WEIGHT requires us to give due weight to the prominence of each viewpoint in reliable sources. The Singapore case largely received local attention, @CordlessLarry 17th January”

  Feel free to read all the arguments in their full context on the section above regarding the Singapore court case. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Singapore case received mostly local attention (and is still covered in the article), whereas the LA lawsuits have received international press coverage. It feels very much like you and other COI editors are grasping around for a policy rationale to justify the outcome that you desire because of your association with the ICOC. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Larry's comment you're grasping at straws with your argument. We go with the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources. You bringing up questions of jurisdiction is a frivolous and transparent attempt to muddy the water. It's obvious you are engaging in WP:ADVOCACY because you have a WP:COI as disclosed here. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for acknowledging that I have self disclosed that I am a member of the church. It is interesting that you would choose that attacking the messenger is your best form of argument. I answered the question I was asked about jurisdiction by quoting an administrators statements made on this very Talk page… Can we get away from personal attacks and return to the purpose of this RFC?

  - On that note, the court cases mentioned in the sources that are referenced in the LEDE are dated 19th of March 2023 for the Guardian and 28th of February for the LA Times. The cases mentioned in those articles have all been dismissed by judge Otis D Wright II on the 14th of July 2023. If we do not have a reliable source dated after July 2023 describing the state cases, may I ask why is this included in the page? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm confused. Are you saying that the state cases are mentioned in the article? Where? Nowa (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm glad to see this topic resurfacing in this thread. The prior cases that were reported on in the cited news articles and that have been relied upon as secondary sourcing for the Legal Issues section of the article were published in early 2023. If the prior editor is correct, those federal cases were dismissed on July 14, 2023. Thus, the prior news articles are outdated and can not serve as secondary sourcing for any subsequent cases are refiled. A series of 4 state cases appear to have been filed in California beginning on July 13, 2023 based on Los Angeles court records. No matter your view on this RfC, the current state cases do not appear to be appropriately sourced with secondary sources and any interpretation of the content of these cases such as has been done under the section entitled "Lawsuits related to alleged coverup of sexual abuse" would be premature and prohibited by WP:NOR. According to WP:LAWRS as elaborated upon by SamuelRiv elsewhere on this Talk page, “Editors cannot interpret anything in primary sources of law or court rulings beyond its plain text (not how they apply, not what they imply -- same goes with any WP:Primary source). A newspaper is not a RS on legal interpretation unless they have a specialist correspondent or expert commentator." Meta Voyager (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When you say "interpretation of the content of these cases ", are you referring to the federal cases or the state cases? Nowa (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Based upon WP:LAWRS, interpreting legal court decisions should be left to legal experts. Briefs or legal memorandum are "probably a primary source and should be considered as advocacy for one adversary for which balance from an opposing party is needed and even the balance is often insufficient. While they may quote reliable sources, they are not reliable regarding those other sources, because the quoting is itself a form of one-sided advocacy." Based on this guidance, my view is that interpreting the pleadings from either the federal or state cases is not appropriate and does not constitute RS for purposes of supporting the paragraph in question. Meta Voyager (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We're not interpreting legal findings. We're relying on the LA Times and Guardian, which are reliable sources, reporting on the lawsuits. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, I just want to be sure that you are not saying that the state cases are currently described in the article. If you do feel they are described, please show where. Nowa (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We can only update the material if we have reliable sources. Even if the lawsuits failed, it would still be appropriate to cover them in the article because they've been covered in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m making a point about the lack of reliable sourcing in the cited articles on legal matters based on Wikipedia policy. The authors referenced in the LA Times and Guardian articles do not have special expertise on legal matters. Authors of the LA Times article are Ngai Yeung, a healthcare tech reporter with recent degrees in Journalism and Political Economy and Samantha Moscow, a multimedia journalist with degrees in Journalism and Political Science. Natalia Borecka who authored the Guardian article is a freelance journalist and photographer based in San Francisco with degrees in English Literature and Journalism. Neither are qualified to interpret legal matters. If you feel it’s important to broadly acknowledge that there have been lawsuits, that’s one thing, but to say anything further about what they imply based upon these sources is not RS. The current paragraph under the heading on "Lawsuits related to alleged coverup of sexual abuse" should be deleted from the article. Meta Voyager (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which part of the current article do you feel is a legal interpretation? Can you point to a specific sentence? Nowa (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for seeking clarity on my prior comments. I hope the following information is helpful. Whoever authored the paragraph in the Legal Issues section of the article under the heading, “Lawsuits related to alleged coverup of sexual abuse” makes statements throughout about what is contained in the complaints that were filed by plaintiffs in the referenced federal lawsuits. The entire heading to the paragraph and the paragraph itself are a legal interpretation that is not supported by RS. These interpretations are about allegations in the initial complaints of lawsuits that were never tested in a court of law before the lawsuits were withdrawn. The paragraph's author(s) apparently rely on two news articles written by three journalists who do not appear to be legal experts and who are not according to WP:LAWRS reliable sources. Every allegation in a complaint is rightfully subjected to interpretation by the judge and jury in the lawsuit after considering relevant responsive pleadings and evidence. That's what happened in the Singapore lawsuit that is also reported in the Legal Issues section where the findings of a final judgment by the court were reported by a RS. However, Wikipedia policy makes it clear that it is not up to editors or journalists without special legal expertise to include in the Wikipedia encyclopedia their interpretations on legal matters. Meta Voyager (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clarifying note.

  Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law) is a Wikipedia:Essays, not a Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If it's helpful, great, if not, then we are not bound by it.

  The essay has suggestions to help editors evaluate "books about laws and articles about laws" that might be suitable RS for a Wikipedia article that talked about a law.

  But the current article isn't about a law. It is simply summarizing what RS newspapers say about the status of particular cases. Citing RS news sources about the status of particular cases is common practice in Wikipedia. Take a look at any article about an ongoing case and you will see how other editors are doing this. Nowa (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I understand that essays are not binding, but this particular essay highlights the special care given to editing and sourcing on legal matters. The essay also encompasses court decisions. In any event, I appreciate the interest that you've taken in editing this article. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not only is it an essay, but WP:LAWRS defines the scope of the essay in the very first sentence, "Law sources such as books about laws and articles about laws in magazines and academic journals may be reliable sources". Clearly it is not meant to cover WP:RS which are news articles about court cases. Please give up your attempts at WP:WIKILAWYERING. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your additional advice. I urge you to consider the second sentence in the WP:LAWRS essay that says, "Whether a law source is reliable or not needs to be assessed separately for each source" and the entire section on News Media and Broadcasts that includes the sentence, "Reliability varies between general media and legal media, the latter probably being more reliable on average." Nonetheless, I take your point and appreciate the willingness of those on this talk page to consider a differing viewpoint on a given issue. Meta Voyager (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In relation to the last snippet you quoted, there is a follow on putting it contect "When time has passed and more stable sources have been published, generally the latter should be used instead of older news media". We need to bear in mind that academic journals in the field of law or professional magazines are not going to cover every court case that occurs, especially not ones which might be dismissed because of settlement of some sort or other. To try and suggest that just because the reliable sources used in the article are not academind journals or professoinal magazines in the field of law that they all of sudden become not reliable sources is bizarre in the extreme and not in keeping with actual Wikipedia policy found at WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes If there is sufficient reliable sources about the law suit and it is sourced what the suit is about and it is relevant to COC, then it would be appropriate to include the law suits in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your input. Could you guide me to the policy that led you to this conclusion? Thanks! XZealous (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for all that have put your input so far! Some have said that it is fine to keep the lawsuits in as long as the non public figures are not named. What policy does that come from? I see in WP:BLPCRIME that "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.”

Would appreciate further input on this, thanks! XZealous (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PUBLICFIGURE Nowa (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That policy is regarding public figures. The lawsuits involve (as far as I am aware), non public figures. XZealous (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any non public figures mentioned in the article? Nowa (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the cases they are not mentioned by name (depending on how public you view Kip Mckean to be). In my reading of WP:BLPCRIME, there should be nothing in an article about a non-public figure in a court case unless a conviction has been secured.

It seems like the discussion is between not naming them, but keep the case - or don't keep the case.

This revolves around "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

Thanks for your input! XZealous (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "depending on how public you view Kip Mckean to be", are you saying Kip McKean is not a public figure? Nowa (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JamieBrown2011, given that you have an establish actual conflect of interest in regards to the article, can you please cease making furhter WP:COI edits like you did at Special:Diff/1222994242 and Special:Diff/1222994487. If you wish to request an edit to the article can you please utilise the ((edit COI)) template in a talk thread. Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 06:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, you may want to read the policies in full

- Making uncontroversial edits

Shortcuts

WP:COIADVICE

WP:COIU

Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits (but see WP:FINANCIALCOI). They may:

remove spam and unambiguous vandalism,

remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living personspolicy,

fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors,

repair broken links,

remove their own COI edits, and

add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.

If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. If an article has few uninvolved editors, ask at the talk page of a related WikiProject or at the COI noticeboard. See also WP:COITALK.

Supplying photographs and media files

Editors with a COI are encouraged to upload high-quality media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject. For more information, follow the instructions at Commons. In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is controversial.

The use of non-free contents are restricted. Generally, using press photos or images provided by client who wish to feature them in the article but unwilling to irrevocably release the copyright under Creative Commons is unacceptable. Editors may not upload images provided by client for "Wikipedia article purpose only" and falsely claim they're licensed under CC BY-SA, as such photos are fundamentally incompatible with free content principles. Only the copyright owner or their authorized representatives may grant permission to use a work under a Creative Commons license, not the photographed subject or their public relations agent. If the same image is found copyrighted elsewhere prior to the upload date, it may be removed as a copyright violation. If you are the copyright owner and want to release content to Creative Commons for use on Wikipedia, see Commons:Volunteer Response Team § Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've quoted it the pertinent bits are "although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add" and "If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit". I object to any edit made by an COI editor, therefore any edit you make to this article is not an uncontroversial edit, to quote policy. So please use the ((edit COI)) template in talk in future. Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 10:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath this seems like a childish response. You are going to preemptively object to all future @JamieBrown2011 edits in a wikilawyering way of blocking all of his edits? He has disclosed a COI, and has stuck to making non-controversial edits. If he happens to make a controversial edit, it will be seen and undone. For this instance, he has even offered for someone to revert his edit if they think it is out of line. However, lets be realistic, all he did was remove a section that was unsourced. XZealous (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XZealous No, I'm not objected to all future edits. That should be completely clear. I'm objecting to them conducting them directly and advising that I have a preference for them making edit requests here using the ((edit COI)). They did more than remove a section that was unsourced. I provided two diffs. They also introduced unsourced information which another editor then put a citation needed template on. No as per your personal attack, I advise you to retract it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of JamieBrown2011's edits are controversial. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBrown2011 also tries to block others without COI from editing this page. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should also keep in mind "COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content." XZealous (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TarnishedPath. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask where you got "Since 2010" from? It doesn't appear in the (non-independent) source cited at the end of the paragraph. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally good with declared COI folks making gnome edits. But IMO the first edit at that first diff crosses that line. Not sure about the second. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I see it is that humans, almost universally, lack complete objectivity when it comes to themselves and whether what they're doing is uncontroversial or whether others might object to what they're doing and what the reasons for those objections might be. This is a perfect example where Jamie has made at least one edit that is not uncontroversial and they think it is. I think it's best if they just don't edit the article given they have a COI and use the edit COI template if/when they want to make any suggestions for updates/corrections. TarnishedPath^talk 13:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expressing your opinion on these matters.

- Firstly, to respond to some earlier questions, the "2010" date that I added to the article is found here ^[1]

- Secondly, I removed unsourced WP:OR, it was even tagged as having no citation. In my 15 years or so of editing wikipedia I have never once heard that kind of edit described as anything else but "unambiguously uncontroversial." If the statement had a reliable source, or any source at all, of course that would be a completely different matter. (If someone wants to add that sentence back in with a RS, that is perfectly fine)

- Thirdly, whether the polarised editors on this page, who have made it clear they are anything but neutral or unbiased in their view of the church acknowledge it or not, you actually need editors like myself who actually know something about the ICOC. For example, CordlessLarry didn't even know that McKean had been disfellowshipped from the church almost 20 years ago or that the Singapore church (mentioned in the Court Cases section) was even an ICOC church. There are many other examples like that. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaking me arguing that we need a source to verify something with me not realising something was the case, at least as far as your Singapore example goes. Here's how I put it above: "I believe that the church is part of the ICOC. That doesn't mean we don't need a reliable source for the purposes of WP:VERIFY". I'm not sure which of my comments your reference to McKean concerns, but please don't misrepresent my arguments when I've already clarified them. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see how that source supports the statement that the Ministry Training Academy was established in 2010. It doesn't mention the Ministry Training Academy by name but seems to be about planning for such a body, ahead of it actually being established. It could have been established in 2011, 2012, etc. as far as the source tells us. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get clear on something. JamieBrown2011 has consistently shown that he/she is trying to keep negative factual information about the pages topic out of the article. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One side note, I think that the COI connection here is a very weak one.North8000 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That they're member of the church is a weak COI? TarnishedPath^talk 14:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the majority of their edits are in relation to this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim any knowledge of this particular situation which would be more relevant. But answering your question, I'd call just being a member 1/100th the strength of paid editing COI. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the strength of bonds that religious affiliations can provide, combined with the controversial nature of this particular church, I'd judge this to be a similar strength of COI to paid editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing generically about just being a member, because some comments seemed based on just being a member. The particulars are more important, and you folks know those better than me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. That this is an actual conflict of interest rather than a perceived or potential conflict of interest is the only distinction I would draw between it and other types of conflicts of interest. TarnishedPath^talk 04:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that JamieBrown2011 is being paid by the International Churches of Christ to edit this Wikipedia page? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being paid by the organization that is the topic of this page to edit this page would certainly be a conflict of interest? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest don't occur only when there are payments involved. TarnishedPath^talk 04:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBrown2011 did once mention that he/she is a member of the International Churches of Christ. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've already established that. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]