Talk:Citipointe Christian College

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Citipointe Christian College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Citipointe Christian College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022[edit]

There is a spelling error "snd" should be replaced with "and" in the section "including homosexual snd bisexual acts" Also its better to list under alumni that Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner is Lord mayor from the 8th April 2019 or 2019-, rather than just lord mayor as of 2022 Blend42 (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Fixed the typo . For the second part , as of 2022 is works better . Kpgjhpjm 07:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022[edit]

The contract has been withdrawn as of early morning 3 Feb. Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-03/qld-former-citipointe-christian-college-contract-withdrawn/100800748 2001:4479:4A01:3A00:145D:1C3:7455:6C4B (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done casualdejekyll 00:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legal analysis[edit]

I have removed some of the "legal analysis" added by Vanadime, on the WP:UNDUE basis (and some copyediting issues), and having just looked up the source, find that the website cited is in fact a blog by Neil Foster, an associate professor of law and evangelical Christian. I don't have time to review it all now, but I'm not sure that this belongs in this article at all, and would like to see other editors' opinions on this. Perhaps it belongs in Sex Discrimination Act 1984, or somewhere else, but it doesn't seem appropriate to go into all this detail in an article about the school. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--- What is the basis for it not belonging? It is, so far, the only legal analysis by an expert about the lawfulness of Citipointe's (now withdrawn) contract. The article already includes references to brief comments by other legal practitioners and academics, whom have only provided mere comment, and have not analysed it's lawfulness. Laterthanyouthink's comment about him being an evangelical Christian is interesting as it has no bearing on the soundness of the legal analysis. Furthermore, until there is a more 'authoritative' source that provides the whole contract, I suggest that the pdf link I have included should remain- I have personally compiled the scanned images provided by Christian Hull ([1]) and converted it into a searchable pdf. You are free to verify that I have not altered or changed any of its contents.[2] Otherwise, there will be a lack of objectivity as the contract in its entire context has not been linked anywhere in this Wikipedia entry, only small excerpts of it and opinion pieces about it. Vanadime (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanadime. I'm waiting for others to comment - I have too much other work to concentrate on this one now. The whole section is a bit WP:UNDUE, largely owing to recentism, and remember WP:NOTTHENEWS. With regard to legal analysis, I'm not sure any of it (including the earlier speculation) is really warranted here, as there is no court case about this, and none of the opinions are in peer-reviewed journals. Your posting of your own version of the contract is, I think, subject to WP:OR. We have to keep in mind that this is an article about a school. If nobody else joins this discussion, I'll call in some experienced editors and/or admins to have a look. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with you Laterthanyouthink that the three paragraphs currently afforded to Neil Foster's analysis are too much, particularly now knowing that it's a self-published blog. It may or may not be worthy for inclusion as a "significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source", but I think the way it's framed should at least reflect that. I'd also agree with you that the preceding section (most of which I wrote) on other legal opinions could be considerably thinned now that this controversy has developed and fizzled out a bit. All this being said, getting some input from more experienced editors as you suggest seems like a good idea; I'm still a relative novice. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/christianhull/posts/524524962366042
  2. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VKfTlNsktL26S_5njnaderSqupKkttZT/view?usp=sharing

Phrasing around "sexual immorality"[edit]

It seems a good idea to discuss how the paragraph describing the declaration of faith is worded, as I think Vanadime and I may soon be nearly breaching the three-revert-rule on it. The main thing that I take issue with is how the declaration's paragraph on "sexual immorality" is quoted and presented. The idea that sexual immorality is "all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage" that you have added some number of times, Vanadime, is not anywhere in the cited secondary sources or indeed the full contract posted on Google Drive. The contract's discussion of sexual immorality simply says that homosexuality and bisexuality, alongside pedophilia, incest, beastiality, and so on, are examples of sexual immorality in and of themselves, without any reference to heterosexual marriage. I think this is a minor but significant difference in emphasis. It seems especially relevant in that a much-discussed section of this contract was its presentation of homosexuality and pedophilia, say, alongside each other; the wording currently used in the article would seem to me to minimise this aspect. I would therefore like to discuss this, and hopefully come to some consensus. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being a well-known Judeo-Christian belief, I am referring to the paragraph immediately preceding, and qualifying, the impugned list on page 15 of the contract (in the schedule outlining the excerpted statement of belief):
"We hold fast the biblical and Church's historical belief that a family begins with the covenantal institution and holy estate of marriage as ordained by God between a biological man (husband) and a biological woman (wife) mutually and exclusively entered into for life... We believe that God intends sexual intimacy to occur only between a man and a woman who are married to each other. We believe that God has commanded that no sexual activity be engaged in outside such marriage."
Are you arguing that it is inaccurate to distill this to meaning that sexual immorality is "all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage"? Vanadime (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citipointe_Christian_College&oldid=1206702519"