Talk:New Covenant Ministries International

Recent Revision

I have totally re:did this article. There was simple too many statements that were not backed up. Ghfjdkslatyrueiwoqp continues to revert the "Critics" section to something that does not reference or explain the concerns raised. As stated before, Critics exist, they deserve mention, but the section should not try justify the concerns, but should make the reader aware!

Morcomm (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just replaced the vision statement or introduction which can all be referenced from the ncmi.net site that was removed by Morcomm, I have also amended the critics statements to remove bias and generalizations of NCMI compared to allegations made by Morcomm of two individual churches. Contrary to being accused I have no problem with a critics section, as I personally support, as does NCMI people having freedom to express their concerns. I would just state that when someone is making direct allegations (only supported by blog media and the web page created by Morcomm) I would ask and suggest they take those allegations to the churches directly and if relevant the appropriate authorities. To make sexual abuse allegations and name churches with the only reference being a blog, I believe is high unethical and could even be defamation! I would also state that although Morcomm says he has had contact with 20 - 40 people with concerns, I have personally had contact with 1000's of people, within and leading churches from around the world who believe in and support NCMI. I'm not in any sense stating that NCMI as a team is perfect, or that the churches who relate to this team are perfect, we're not! As NCMI is a translocal team our commitment is to work with churches as they invite us and can only do that in the areas of the church where that is welcomed. NCMI is not a denomination so we don't have control over what churches may choose to do, we can only give input as they ask.

Ghfjdkslatyrueiwoqp or Darren Prosser

Ghfjdkslatyrueiwoqp (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what were you are coming from believe it or not, but in order for the article to be fully informative, there has to be facts presented. I do not wish the Critic section to be accusing. I accuse NCMI in my personal capacity, and I will continue to do so, but this article needs to paint the full picture. The fact is, Critics exist, and the mention should be made. The objection that I had to your edits was that you were answering questions that had not been presented namely that churches do not think about their effects on the established church community within a city/town before planting a church there. I do not agree that NCMI takes over, at the detriment of other churches at that was NEVER brought up by me! I might be the author of the blog that is referenced, but I am willing to work with you here to create a article that is not biased.

Also, as a point of major concern, the introduction is totally un-referenced. We need to sort that out. I will take it that you are a expert on the subject of NCMI, and that what you say is true, but it is not backed up by any reference. I will search and see if I can find any, but a earlier attempt failed to bring anything up. If I still can't find anything, I will be removing segments.

Morcomm (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about Shepherding in NCMI: these comments were deleted (or "amended" as one editor has put it) from this Talk section and I am reposting them to highlight a major concern that has been expressed (although those comments were also deleted) and which I am now reaffirming about shepherding/excessive control. All that I am writing is backed up by personal involvement as a person who attended and taught in an NCMI church. In fact, I attended an NCMI Church for over 4 years and had the chance to sit under the ministry of a number of NCMI Apostolic/Prophetic team members. There were some exceptions, but there often tended to be an 'elitist spirit' that manifested itself in belittling other expressions of the Body of Christ, and encouraging members to essentially cut all previous ties they may have had with different churches and/or ministries. Basically, the message was "we are doing Church Biblically, and everyone else who deviates from our model and understanding are simply wrong/unBiblical". Most of the members of the Church I attended actually were converted to Christ in other Churches/movements and now the leadership was teaching them to dissociate with the very people who God used to bring them into His Kingdom. In the name of being "Apostolic", what they were doing was actually the antithesis of true Apostolic ministry. The Apostle Paul refused to build on another man's foundation, and therefore wouldn't 'sheep steal'. Most in our Church represented 'transfer growth' (coming from other Churches), not true Apostolic Church growth (conversions).

Whereas they would not "recognize" others (other Churches, other Christian leadership), they expected others to "recognize" them. As time went on, the Church I attended became more and more isolated from other Churches in the city. Members were strongly encouraged not to attend other Christian meetings in the city - like prayer meetings and home Bible studies that weren't officially 'under' the oversight of the local NCMI Elders. People were told that these groups weren't "properly covered" implying that it could be/would be dangerous to attend such meetings. If it was limited to this one Church, I could write off my concern as an isolated case that wasn't representative of the larger group. However, I have seen the same tendencies in 3 other surrounding countries, most recently where a group from another NCMI Church was told they couldn't attend a Christian meeting in the home of some NCMI Church attenders because there would be guests there who the leadership "didn't know". Do they not trust their members to use their own discernment? Inviting some Christians to your house for fellowship and to share some testimonies about what God is doing doesn't need 'Eldership approval'. This begins to approach one of the serious problems that developed in the original Shepherding Movement in the 70's. The "sheep" weren't allowed to make their own decisions.

Probably the saddest thing is that their inability to receive from other streams/movements ultimately means they are missing out on much of what God is doing on the earth. If you think that "we are what God is doing", then you by definition aren't looking to other flows around the world to enhance what you have. Many in the Apostolic Movement are not at all like this, and are encouraged strongly to go out and receive from other Churches, other moves of God. The more involved I saw people get involved in the NMCI model (at least in the Church I attended), the less likely they were to attend conferences and/or receive from other Christians outside of their NCMI Network. At best, the Scriptures teach us that "we know IN PART". God designed the Church this way so that we would need others in the Body of Christ.

Prophet Rick Joyner in his book "The Apostolic Ministry" speaks about a false Apostolic Movement arising on the earth before the emergence of the true Apostolic is restored. What was interesting about what he wrote, is that the Lord showed them that this precursor Apostolic Movement would be more controlling than the Shepherding Movement of the 70's. Whereas I haven't seen the kinds of extreme things I heard about that happened in the Shepherding Movement of the 70's, I have definitely seen a controlling spirit in the NCMI Churches I am most familiar with, and I pray that wherever these tendencies are manifesting themselves in this movement, that they would heed the warning of this recognized Prophetic man to ensure they avoid being a part of the "false" and become part of the "true" Apostolic that will emerge in the coming days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.175.75.172 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comments were not deleted, they were moved to the archive page. In any event, however true and valid your concerns may be, all you seem to have is anecdotal information. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for this sort of discussion. What we need here are more reliable sources documenting NCMI and other organizations. For example, investigative journalism. That's what it takes to substantiate the claims you make. Otherwise, it just sounds like slander. I'm not saying it's untrue; I'm saying we need evidence.

-Sigeng (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Article issues, October 2013

I believe I fixed the underlinking issue. In the meantime I have flagged new issues. The article still largely copies a great deal of its content from the NCMI website; this is not encyclopedic, and clearly presents only their POV. Furthermore, it is steeped in insider terminology and jargon that requires elucidation (e.g. "translocal"). — Sigeng (talk • contribs) 07:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I also requested removal of the "open letter" that was added into history of this article as a series of edit summaries by the user identified by IP 197.174.57.254. Contributing content in that manner is edit summary vandalism and must be removed per Wikipedia's policy, so I asked an administrator to do. Personally, I am concerned about the issues raised in that open letter, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for raising such issues. --Sigeng (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source for number of churches

To date I have not seen any external source that lists thousands of churches to corroborate that claim, unless there are thousands of tiny plants all located in South Africa. Based on the current website, there are no more than 100 NCMI team members (left). A ratio of 70:1 seems quite unlikely, since most churches are able to be visited by 3-4 team members per year. Similarly attendance at the larger conferences is too small. Please add better information if available. --Sigeng (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

MuzickMaker (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC) just a thought or two about this content:

the current page reads "NCMI originated in South Africa in the early 1980s[3] and now claims several thousand "relating" churches in 80 countries.[4][5][dubious – discuss]

This information was inserted by Sineng at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Covenant_Ministries_International&diff=next&oldid=576405698

There are several problems with this content:

1)The original source ("NCMI Worldwide Home". New Covenant Ministries International. Retrieved 9 October 2013.) may have stated at one time something to the effect of "several thousand "relating churches" in 80 countries", but the site no longer says that, so the term, "now claims" is inaccurate. There is no current NCMI documentation that states the number of churches that relate to NCMI. The current official NCMI website does say that "By mid-2001, pastors, churches, and individuals from more than 80 countries around the world had linked with NCMI."

See http://ncmi.net/index.php/en/about-us/our-history

However, at this point I don't know of any independent sources that can verify this number.

2) Wiki advises that the term "claims" not be used (See WP:CLAIM) because "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence."

The purpose of a Wikipedia page is not to call someone's credibility into question. It is to present accurate information in an unbiased manner.

Suggestions:

A) If you are looking for current data on what NCMI states ("now" information) there is no current information from a reliable independent source that I am aware of.

B) If you feel that the data currently presented in the official NCMI website is the most accurate current statement of what NCMI actually says then it might be best to try to quote or paraphrase what they say as closely as possible.

C) If you feel that the data NCMI presents regarding their scope of relationships in a certain number of nations in 2001 is worth mentioning then maybe consider something like the following as a reasonable unbiased wording:

"According to the official NCMI website, "By mid-2001, pastors, churches, and individuals from more than 80 countries around the world had linked with NCMI".

However, I don't know of any independent source to verify this number.

D) A note on the Manley 2001 citation. (Manley 2001, p. 4) The Manley citation is not data that Manley arrived at by independent research or that he quoted from some other independent source that did independent research. The actual quote from Manley 2001 p.4 is "To date they have grown to over seven thousand churches. [ Stated by Dudley Daniel, Bloemfontein 2001.]"

The actual source of the number of churches was a verbal account given by Dudley Daniel the leader of NCMI in 2001 at an NCMI conference. Not to say that the "over 7000 churches" is accurate or inaccurate, but Manley is not the actual source of the information. I wonder if the best that can be said of that statement is, "In 2001 Dudley Daniel, the leader of NCMI at that time, stated that NCMI had grown to over 7000 churches." However, to verify the accuracy of that quote one would have to go back and find the original audio of that public address in 2001 to see what Mr. Daniel actually said.

Some Wiki editors will have to decide what is the best way to proceed on these quotes and citations. I would appreciate it if some Wiki editors would check my thoughts and suggestions above for bias.

I lean toward your C) for the article introduction. The first paragraph of the article is supposed to establish the importance and relevance of the article, and the number of countries gives the reader a sense of this. It is also verifiable or at least plausible.

Regarding points you made in D), I don't see reason to doubt Manley. On p. 4 he says the "7000 churches" comes from Daniel, but he mentions this again on p. 22 and discusses it in a bit more detail on p. 87. As the growth of NCMI is his thesis topic, I don't think he would have mishandled such pertinent information. Manley is just a thesis, and far from perfect, but he's pretty much the best independent source available. It's reasonable that he reported Daniel correctly, but I fault him for failing to make a few phone calls and so he could learn more about these churches in Africa that were the vast majority of NCMI - a breakdown of non-South African countries would have been quite welcome.

It's not generally necessary to check if secondary sources (Manley) mishandle their primaries (Daniel's audio recording), as long as the article is clear about the source of the question. The quotation you mentioned for D) could be included.

I am currently undecided on how to handle a more detailed section on the size of NCMI, because:

• NCMI has stated "thousands of churches" in their literature in the past even if that is not done currently. Readers seeing this may turn to Wikipedia for clarification. I've even "tens of thousands". That argues for adding the quotation.
• "7000 churches" is an extraordinary claim that needs support. Putting such a quote in the article without an exposition would be unsatisfying. That argues for adding an explanation.
• While I think Manley heard the number of churches correctly, his explanation seems lazy and dismissive. Saying that most of them are Africa and many of them are loosely affiliated. On this point Manley didn't do enough research. He is critical of NCMI here, implying that they wanted to boost numbers by letting groups join easily; but I also find his criticism unsatisfactory. (Manley p. 87 - "I have observed how easy it was for a group to join who did not hold the values of NCMI... only the lead elder was related to". Interesting, but who is this group? Who is the lead elder? Which NCMI team members were involved? How were the group's values dissonant with NCMI? When did this happen?) That argues against using Manley for the explanation.
• But Manley is the only independent reliable source who speaks to this question.

So I have no answer for the moment.

Black (p. 143), who is a good source but not quite independent, ducks the issue and quotes only "200 churches in South Africa in 2000", citing Siaki P. (nd.) Surveying the Land. A current assessment of the South African Church in Context. Africa Ministry Resources, Weltevreden Park, South Africa. which is not available online.

By the way, have a look WP:THREAD for how to indent your replies for clarity.

-Sigeng (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

MuzickMaker (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Sigeng if you want to opt for suggestion C) above it makes the most sense to me, too.

Regarding the {{Dubious – discuss}} point – regarding the number of NCMI team members, the number of nations NCMI is working in and the number of leaders and churches that are linked or partnering with NCMI.

Just for ease of reading I will quote your first thread and the various edits and notes you have added the NCMI page regarding this subject:

“NCMI originated in South Africa in the early 1980s[3] and now claims several thousand "relating" churches in 80 countries.[4][5][dubious – discuss]”

And then your reasoning as to why you felt this information was “dubious”:

“To date I have not seen any external source that lists thousands of churches to corroborate that claim, unless there are thousands of tiny plants all located in South Africa. Based on the current website, there are no more than 100 NCMI team members (left). A ratio of 70:1 seems quite unlikely, since most churches are able to be visited by 3-4 team members per year. Similarly attendance at the larger conferences is too small. Please add better information if available. --Sigeng (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)”

And then the note further down in the section titles International expansion (1990–2004):

“By mid-2001, NCMI claimed 7,000 relating churches[better source needed] located in over 40 countries around the world.[39][40][note 4]”

And then the note 4

“NCMI (2012, p. 5) claims churches in 80 countries by 2001, but this statement is contradicted by both Manley and Black”

Some considerations:

1) First, as I previously mentioned in this thread above, according to the Wiki policy WP:CLAIM WIKI considers certain “loaded” terms like the word “claims” particularly unsuitable because it “To write that someone claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.” I trust that this is not your purpose in including words like claim.

2) You base your reasoning regarding the “dubious” numbers above on two primary factors: a) the information on the current NCMI page www.NCMI.net, and b) looking only at a the South African context.

I have discussed the information on the NCMI.net page with two of the leaders on the NCMI international team who are working on the NCMI.net content. They have informed me that the website is quite incomplete and cannot be used as a reliable source at this time. They have a projected goal of 2016 to have the Website much further along.

What is not included in the NCMI Web site and what your reasoning does not factor in regarding the number of churches sited by Manley (7000) is : i) the size of the complete NCMI International team, ii) the NCMI teams that travel into the various nations, iii) and the NCMI national teams that live and work in the nations and areas surrounding them.

Let me give you a couple instances of information that is not factored into your reasoning:

A) I attended the 2013 NCMI International Equip in United States. The NCMI Team invitation list for this event included almost 200 English speaking NCMI international team couples, but didn’t include the other teams that are non-English speakers from all over the world or most of the other team members from the various nations. I share this with you not as figure that you can use because it is not a published verifiable statistic, but just to let you know that the 100 couple (left) figure is totally inaccurate.

By the way, the word (left) is a loaded word. It carries the idea of decline, which is not true. This is a subject for another day.

B) There are some published figures that you have not taken into consideration. These citations include not all, but some of the NCMI teams outside of South Africa:

“Up until about 1996 the ‘Apostolic team’ numbered 13 men and their wives. By the end of the year 2005 this team had grown to over 280 people, which consists mainly of husband and wife teams. In more recent years young single people, as young as 22 years of age, have been invited on to the team because they have a recognised ministry. Again it is important to point out that this team is in no way an executive body. (Black 2006 p.137)

There are some men on the team who have their own network of leaders who help facilitate the work of NCMI into Africa and beyond. Hennie Keyter has a team of about 240 couples that work with him into Africa, who are not on the ‘main’ NCMI team. (Black 2006 p.137)

Added to this team, Hennie also has between 15-20 NCMI team members that work with him in the training that they conduct on a continual basis in Africa. According to Daniel (2006) in more recent years, NCMI has grown into being ‘teams within the team’. (Black 2006 p.139)

Kier Taylor is another member of the NCMI team with a strong evangelistic ministry who has teams working with him into Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, Namibia, the DRC, Ivory Coast, Libya and Senegal. Being on the ‘main’ NCMI team, he consults with Hennie Keyter about their work into these areas. (Black 2006 p140)

There are two points that I would make from the above quotes and your reasoning regarding the citation:

1)You cannot make an argument for a dubious citation regarding the number of churches NCMI is working with throughout the world or the number of countries NCMI is working in by just looking at South Africa and not looking at the extent of the NCMI teams, operations and connections throughout the world. 2) All of the above information about other NCMI teams working outside of South Africa was in the Black source, and all of it was within the sections you cited (p. 143) (p’s 137-140). You have cited Black over 10 times from pages 125 – 143. I assume you read all these pages. They provide significant information regarding how there could be the large number of churches outside South Africa that Manley quotes Daniels on.

When the WP:CLAIM guideline is considered I am not sure what your objective is in writing the following notation, “ “NCMI (2012, p. 5) claims churches in 80 countries by 2001, but this statement is contradicted by both Manley and Black”. When the Wiki guideline specifically says not use words like “claim” especially because it can be taken as “emphasizing any potential contradiction” I don’t quite know why you would use the word “claim” and then actually say that the claim is contradicted. This is exactly what WP:CLAIM says not to do.

I think you also need to go back and take a closer look at what all three of the sources (Manley 2001 p.87, Black 2006 p143 and NCMI 2012 p.5) actually said. There is no contradiction. And when you make an assertion like this and put it on a Wiki page to be viewed by the world you need to be especially careful to get the facts straight because you can cause damage. Here is what the three sources said:

“By mid-2001, pastors, churches, and individuals from more than 80 countries around the world had linked with NCMI in embracing an Apostolic/Prophetic model, and to participate in the various opportunities for envisioning, encouragement, training, and church planting” (NCMI 2012 p.5) http://www.ncmi.net/images/ncmi/resources/NCMI.pdf

Notice in the NCMI quote the words: “pastors, churches, and individuals” The NCMI quote does not say just churches.

“They openly state a church membership of 7000 relating churches. In south Africa they have a following of around 200, Australia has 25, Africa obviously has the bulk or 5000 to 6000 churches, and they say that they are represented in 40 countries all together” (Manley 2001, p.87)

Please notice that Manley is NOT referring to “pastors, churches and individuals” but specifically to numbers of churches in the 40 countries. These are two very different things.

But equally important, you should also note that Manley is not the one making the statement, he is quoting an unknown NCMI source. If Manley is not the source of the information, and it fact someone in NCMI who said it how can you say in your note, “this statement is contradicted by both Manley and Black”

NOTE 4 “NCMI (2012, p. 5) claims churches in 80 countries by 2001, but this statement is contradicted by both Manley and Black”

Notice in the Black quotation that once again Black/Siaki is not referring to “pastors, churches and individuals” he is referring to churches. Note the words, “The following countries have churches relating to the NCMI team.”

“According to Siaki (nd:58) in the year 2000 there were 200 churches across South Africa relating to the NCMI team. The following countries have churches relating to the NCMI team: Arabian Gulf, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, D.R. Congo, Denmark, Dubai, Egypt, Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Holland, India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, South East Asia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA, Zambia, Zanzibar and Zimbabwe.”

All of this brings me to one last question, which I cannot figure out. I am trying to understand why you put information in the NCMI Wiki page from an NCMI source, or Manley, or Black and then present it as or as contradictory yourself, and then put in other citations from the same sources that call the very information you put in into question and contradict it. You are both putting the information you believe to be dubious into the Wiki page and putting in the citations in that you think refutes it. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by doing this?

is not a marker of reality. It's a marker that the article is incomplete in this area, that text must be taken with a grain of salt, that there are apparent and unresolved contradictions that need to be discussed. It's an invitation to have exactly this sort of discussion to resolve apparent contradictions in the sources.

Yes, "claimed" should be avoided. It is not necessary for talk pages to be held to NPOV standards (although slander against living persons is always prohibited). "left" would not be belong in the article. My searches back then for recent NCMI related news largely termed up stories of people leaving/taking their churches out. From available information (and other factors, such as the condition of NCMI websites) NCMI appears, from the outside, to be losing leaders and churches. That may not be the reality.

I see your point that NCMI (2012) claimed "pastors, churches and individuals". However, while this would explain the apparent contradiction, I hesitate to accept it. When NCMI sends an individual to a country, are they not usually sending an individual who is also expected to become a pastor of a church plant? If so, when NCMI says "pastors, churches and individuals" we are speaking of boats, captains and rudders which all ought to go together, by and large, in proportion.

There is a simpler explanation: Manley got it wrong. Sometime in 2001 he read this page: NCMI "These Guys" (2001-04) which says "Since 1990, pastors and churches from more than 40 countries around the world...". And then NCMI updated the page around 2001-12 to read 80 countries. Manley then appended a copy of the latter to thesis without reading it, and noticing the change to "80 countries", since it reads that way in his appendix. That Manley does not explain the discrepancy between his text and appendix suggests he never noticed. I am beginning to wonder if/how he made it through his thesis defense.

Black mentions 75 countries in 2006 "according to recent statistics". Given that "80 countries" is rounded and there might be some annual variation, Black seems to agree now.

Regardless, I've also found that NCMI simply does not track this figure carefully (or it's too hard to keep up). I've found various churches claiming recent numbers between 60 to 100, always rounded and never with any indication of the source. Furthermore, without Manley, no credible independent source has made an effort to count.

-Sigeng (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello All, I am new to wikipedia. I really think wikipedia should be factual. When we are reporting how many churches relate to ncmi rumors are no good. There have been many rumors over the years, 30,000 or 17,000 now 7,000? I really think we can only count those churches who linked to the ncmi website. We can check the "way back machine" and i'm guessing that there were closer to 500 churches that were listed. Imaginary or unknown churches just can't be counted because it's supposed to be factual. I come to wikipedia to find out facts and I was surprised to see 7000 churches mentioned. I am happy to get onto the way back machine and count how many churches said that they related to ncmi if that would help. Can we link to the way back machine?

Espressoyourself (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also for the current discussion on how many countries and churches there are, - we can simply link to the ncmi website and count the churches and count the countries listed. You can't have a factual article that says "ncmi has churches in 80 countries" with absolutely no proof.

Espressoyourself (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The official NCMI website shows that there are 115 churches in 8 countries. (Europe has not been filled out yet.)

Espressoyourself (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Espressoyourself. I too am a fan of espresso, especially pulling shots myself, and also self-expression. I haven't had much time for this article in recent months since discussions died down in Sept or so, but glad to see someone taking new interest. Certainly there is work to be done to bring the article into agreement with a major overhaul of their official website.

MusicMaker, by the way, is an NCMI representative.

What is a fact is that NCMI once stated they had "7000 churches in 80 countries", as discussed in the literature. 'Manley' documents this fact and expresses some skepticism about it. Perhaps that is no longer true, or the result of a miscount, but this has never been clarified publicly.

In fairness, churches affiliated with NCMI in southern Africa might not speaking English or have any interest in a web presence, perhaps even operating in fear of religious persecution. We can't assume that something doesn't exist just because we can't find it on the internet, nor do any original research to dispute or corroborate the claim.

I think the best available option is to present the information that is currently available and let readers draw their own conclusions. It would definitely make sense to add your finding (115 churches, 8 countries) to the lede section as it gives a sense of NCMI's current size.

-Sigeng (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

CIFS quote discussion

The following continues a discussion that MuzickMaker started on my talk page. See also this related thread. I have re-posted the most recent response here verbatim. Readers should note that MuzickMaker, as stated on his user page, is a member of the NCMI team.

MuzickMaker (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Sigeng, We have not established that I have a financial connection to NCMI because I have no financial connection with NCMI whatsoever(please read my disclosure statement on my page). I have no conflict of interest because I am committed to following the Wiki Policies and Guidelines completely above anything else. It was a mistake to ask you about your personal beliefs. I apologized to you for that. I did that within the first two days of my being an editor. Like I said to the editor I asked to assist me with understanding the guidelines, it will not happen again.

That said, if you are unwilling to disclose your personal interest in editing the NCMI page, for the sake of peace, I will not press it any longer.

I have no interest in advocating for NCMI. And other than my questioning you about your beliefs everything I have asked you has been in keeping with the Wiki policies and guidelines, which I am trying my hardest to encourage you to follow.

My interest in being involved in editing the NCMI page is single - that the content of this page conform to the Wiki content policies and represents the high standards that Wiki requires. The reason all the WIKI policies I have mentioned to you exist is to insure that you and me both are functioning according to them and to insure that the content of the pages we edit are accurate.

Let me say it clearly again, I am very willing to let everything I say and do on here be scrutinized by anyone. That is how committed I am to following the Wiki Policy over any other purpose.

But let me return to what should be, for both you and me, of highest importance: the quality of the NCMI page, and it's content conforming to the Wiki content policies and guidelines.

The editor I asked about WP:RS and pro/con content did not say the quote in question meets the WP:RS standards. He said that "As long as referenced opinions critical of the group are represented properly as opinions, and are representative of the range of opinions, pro and con, about the group, then those opinions belong in the article. But if the overwhelming range of opinions from independent sources is positive, then negative opinions are fringe, and should not be over-emphasized.

The point here is two things: Does the quote and the referenced source meet the WP:RS criteria. And does the quote represent the range of opinions, pro and con, from reliable independent sources.

If, as you say, there are no reliable independent published sources that have presented a pro side then the con quote you have inserted does not represent a range of pro and con opinions.

I would point out the guidelines in WP:controversialfacts "Try to arrive at a consensus with whomever participates in the discussion."

Are you willing to follow the WP:controversialfacts policy and guideline and work toward consensus?

Your saying "I have no conflict of interest because you are committed to following Wiki Policies and Guidelines completely above anything else", respectfully, betrays a misunderstanding of COI. As a member of the NCMI team, you have a COI as far as this article is concerned. That is a statement of fact; it is a logical consequence of the definition of COI and your disclosed relationship to NCMI. Disclosing your COI is admirable; but disclosure does not remove the COI, nor does your commitment to Policy.

I accept that you have no direct financial connection to NCMI (they don't pay you). My point was that you almost certainly receive tangible benefits because of your NCMI connection. For example, perhaps you are offered honorariums, accommodations, and travel expenses to speak at NCMI conferences. There is, therefore, a financial component to your COI.

I realized you could also have a different COI as far as Mr. Redacted is concerned. Did you know him? Were you involved in dealing with the events surrounding his falling out with NCMI?

Regarding your apparent NCMI advocacy, my point is that all of your Wikipedia actions thus far are consistent with being an NCMI advocate. (I do not say that you are an NCMI advocate.) Have you contributed anything to Wikipedia so far that does not align with NCMI's interests and your desire to remove the CIFS quote? Why not do a little editing on your hobby, fix some typos, show that you interests outside NCMI?

I respect your saying you want to work in good faith, improve the article and such, I believe you. But I think it's important to understand that as an insider with a COI, there are things you can't do. The plain and simple COI guide says simply "do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors" but feel free to post to the talk page. Managing your COI may involve, for example, recusing yourself from building a consensus. In many real world COI cases, an ethical politician or board member may state their COI on a decision, give a brief opinion, and recuse themselves from further participation or voting. COIs are blindspots; even when disclosed, they impair one's ability to exercise good judgment about the topic. You can contribute, but to do so ethically is to do so from the sidelines.

I'm not ignoring your points about returning to the content of the article. Rather, working in that direction means finding a way to manage your COI.

Regarding my personal interests in the article - really not that interesting. I said I have and had no affiliation with NCMI. I was involved with an NCMI relating church a while back. Moved to a new place, leaving that church on good terms, still in touch with some people. NCMI I think was a positive influence on that church. My personal opinion of NCMI is nuanced and it evolves over time; finding new sources of information from time to time has that effect. So I edit the article because I know something about it but I'm not close to it either. My 'connection' then is really a stale connection to a NCMI relating church rather than NCMI itself; I do not think a reasonable person would classify this indirect connection as a COI. -Sigeng (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

MuzickMaker (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Sigeng, thank you for your clarification on your interest in the NCMI page. That helps me to understand your interest in the page. Just one point on that. As the WP:COI says regarding biased editing. "Conflict of interest is not simply bias. Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest. On Wikipedia, a person's beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest."

Let me underscore those two thoughts: Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest.' and biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest. When I look at the contents of the page I see what I think is evidence of bias. I may be wrong. I think we both need to pass the different items of content of the page and our reasoning by other editors bringing them into the discussion so that we can do our level best to make sure that we are not functioning with bias and that this page is the best representation of the Wikipedia goals as it can be.

Since part of your stated objective in this dialogue is to "find a way to manage my COI", I will respectfully respond to your wrong assumptions regarding me.

You assume that I have a financial COI because of my relationship with NCMI. You say: "perhaps you are offered honorariums, accommodations, and travel expenses to speak at NCMI conferences. There is, therefore, a financial component to your COI." You are wrong on all counts on that.

Again, let me clarify that I have zero financial COI in my relationship with NCMI:

I have never spoken at an NCMI conference. I have never had my accommodations paid for by NCMI. I have never received an honorarium from NCMI. I have never had any travel expenses paid by NCMI. I do not receive any funds from NCMI for anything I do. And I do not even receive funds from any church that I work with who relates to the NCMI team. I am a full time Pastor of a local church. I receive no remuneration of any kind for any ministry I do outside my own church from any church (NCMI or otherwise)or from any group (NCMI or otherwise). I and the people of the church I lead pay out of our own pockets for all the ministry we do outside of our church. This enables us to serve any group of people of any size, 10 people to 1000, without ever being influenced by gain of any kind. This no expectation and removal of receiving of any personal benefits from groups we work with enables us to go into small groups in remote places, 1st, 2nd or 3rd world, to serve and give to them expecting nothing in return. The reason why I and the people of the church I lead pay all of our own expenses is so that we can serve and help very small struggling groups or church plants all over the world who could never be able to afford to bring someone in to help them. it is our conviction that any church or any group anywhere in the world should never be hindered from receiving help because they can't afford it. Almost all of the NCMI leaders I know from all over the world operate on this same principle. So let's put this financial COI allegation to rest. I have none.

WP:COI says, -Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors. If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard."

I "wish to edit responsibly." I agree with your point that my association with NCMI COULD potentially put me in a me in a COI. And I agree with WP:COI that "any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard." As such, I am willing to use the related article talk pages to propose edits and to allow uninvolved editors to review our discussion and to make final calls on proposed edits.

I have also followed the WP:COI policy by disclosing on my page my relationship with NCMI and by inviting the views of other editors. I am willing to have anything I say or do in Wikipedia scrutinized by Wiki editors and administration to insure that I am operating in an unbiased way and that I am following the Wiki policies and best practices scrupulously.

What precipitated my interest in being involved in editing the NCMI page was seeing a number of items on the NCMI page that are either inaccurate or improper wording, the specific quote(s) in question are just one example. I didn't know that they also violate the wiki content policies until I read them. I cared enough about the quality of this page to go through the process of becoming an editor. Assuming good faith, I would think that your desire is to improve the accuracy and quality of this page. I would also think that, in view of your desire to make this page the best that it can be, one of your first responses would be to seek to know why I believe that the cases in point are problematic and not in keeping with the purposes of encyclopedic goals of Wikipedia, rather than just seeking to invalidate my voice in these matters and send me off to edit some other page.

Maybe we didn't get off on the right foot, and I am to blame for some of that, but I do care that the information on this page is both accurate and meets the Wiki content policy.

One editor has expressed that the page needs a fair bit of work. How about, for the sake of increasing the quality of the page, we get down to discussing the information on the page and bring in some other uninvolved editors to consider the veracity of some of the items on the NCMI page and our reasoning processes regarding them. I would definitely like to have some editors examine my thoughts and suggestions regarding these items and to see if, in fact, I am acting impartially, fairly and without bias.

From WP:ACTUALCOI: A potential conflict of interest occurs when P has a conflict with respect to a certain judgment, but is not yet in a position where that judgment must be exercised. It becomes an actual conflict of interest when P is in that position. In this context the judgment is your editorial judgment over the article, and the position is your association with NCMI.

To say that you are in a COI does not mean that you have done something wrong, or that you will do something wrong. It is not an effort to invalidate your voice. A trial judge cannot preside over the trial of a family member - because that would be an actual COI. To say that does not invalidate the judge's voice (for example, the judge could speak as a witness in that trial). It does not mean that the judge has done wrong (assuming the COI is disclosed). It means that the judge cannot preside, because evidence is that human beings in general cannot be impartial in COI situations. Even if a specific judge were mentally capable of detaching from their personal connections, they would not be permitted to.

You are, of course, making an effort to act impartially and that is well and good. But my point that you have a COI stands, because a COI (by definition) is a statement about your interests could come into conflict and could affect your editorial judgment, rather than about what you do.

-Sigeng (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Question for administrator Regarding CIFS quote violation of multiple Wiki content guidelines

MuzickMaker (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

In view of the fact that another editor (Sigeng) and I have filled pages and gone round and round discussing whether the CIFS should be included in the NCMI article and have not been able to come to a consensus, and in view of the defamatory nature of the quotes in question, I would request the help of an administrator.

The content quotes in question are:

• "A former NCMI pastor calls NCMI "fiercely patriarchal". He writes that "subservience of women is practiced" and that "members are driven to exhaustion to prove their godliness and 'leadership potential'". He expresses his opinion that NCMI churches do not welcome disagreement nor "questioning of the system".[29]" Bulleted list item A former NCMI pastor wrote a brief account of his experiences for Cult Information and Family Support (CIFS), an Australian anti-cult group. The anonymous pastor wrote,[29] "I gave almost a quarter of a century of my life to NCMI's 'vision and values' and have not one [...] friend left to speak of.... The leaders are generally all uneducated, and know of little else except the manuals and 'NCMI speak'." CIFS notes in their disclaimer that "an account from one person must be read as that" and they encourage "readers to research widely before forming an opinion."

• Citation [29] refers to a personal story written by Roaul Tull on the CIFS website called "Sunglasses and salesmen – an ex-pastor's story of sophistry and the soft cult". Stories - CIFS. Cult Information and Family Support Inc. Retrieved 21 October 2013."

Based on WP:SOURCES, I wrote "the Cult Information and Family Support Inc." and asked the administrators of the CIFS organization if they had a "professional editing structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" and if they used this kind of editing structure to determine if the account given by Mr Tuul was factual and accurate. I asked Cult Information and Family Support Inc. the following question:

• "I would like to know if CIFS used editorial standards and guidelines in publishing the article "Sunglasses and Salesman - and ex-pastors story of sophistry and the soft cult" or "a process of verification to insure the accuracy of information given in the account by the author of this article."

• The secretary of CIFS answer to this question by email back to me was as follows, "We have spoken with the writer of every story on the website, and have verified to our satisfaction that they have had the group involvement they talk of, and allow them to post their story as their own honest personal experience. We do not purport to specifically verify every statement etc, as it is the writer's own story as stated on our site." Sincerely, Secretary of CIFS

The extent of the editorial process used by CISF is only to determine if the writer "had the group involvement" but they do not have any profession standards or processes in place to verify the accuracy or information or for checking and analyzing the facts of the statements made by the individual, as are expected in the WP:SOURCES "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

WP:QS considers sources as QUESTIONABLE that "rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."

The quotes in question above also violate the WP:EXCEPTIONAL guidelines, particularly: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[11] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;..claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources ..reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;"

Contrary to the WP:EXCEPTIONAL guidelines, the claims made by the individual quoted are not covered by "by multiple mainstream sources". Since the cited source admits that the claims made by the individual are unedited and unverified and solely "the writers own story" the quotations are from a self-published source. Add to that, contrary to WP:EXCEPTIONAl guidlines, the statements made by the individual quoted are "against an interest they had previously defended" (the individual admits that "I gave almost a quarter of a century of my life to NCMI's 'vision and values'" and now they are speaking "against an interest they had previously defended".

As the WP:BALANCE guideline states, to obtain neutrality weight must be assigned to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, in a situation where reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence both viewpoints can be presented for balance. Contrary to WP:BALANCE , as the editor Sigeng, who put in the quotes admitted on his talk page, no published reliable sources that present views contrary to the claims presented in the quotes in question exist.

According to the WP:DUE guideline, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." But, as the editor who added the quote noted himself and as my research has confirmed, there is no majority viewpoint on the opinions in quotes from Mr Tull - nothing has been written about this kind of opinion by anyone in any published reliable source. WP:DUE makes it clear that "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." Again, the views presented in the quotation regarding in question regarding NCMI are so minority that they have not been discussed in any reliable sources, so there can be no balance whatsoever presented on the NCMI site.

Looking at these quotes in the light of WP:BALASPS "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 the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Again, in the case of the quotes in question there should be a "body of reliable sources on the subject" for it to even warrant mention.

In discussing the issue of the CIFS quote, Sigeng, the editor who added the quote said, "NCMI would do well to publicly engage REDACTED's account rather than trying to expunge it" - perhaps here I was unclear, but I was temporarily taking off my Wikipedian hat and offering an aside. It seemed to me that you were using Wikipedia as a battleground for the case of REDACTED. (Why the focus on REDACTED in particular?) My point was that addressing critics is a better policy."

Why focus on Mr. Tuul's quote? As seen above, the quotes violate multiple Wiki Content guidelines. My question to Sigeng is, if the quotes in question violate all of the above content guidelines why are you fighting so hard to keep it in?.

Sigeng response is "I would argue, to the contrary, that removing the quotation may upset neutrality since it could be construed as presenting a whitewashed image of NCMI that ignores detractors. If you are aware of a formal response from NCMI regarding REDACTED's allegations, I would also be quite happy to include that. I am quite happy to use any reliable material about NCMI, since there is a serious shortage of independent viewpoints..."

I do not believe that Wikipedia article about NCMI is the place to publicly engage critics, especially extreme minority views. And I do not believe that the NCMI article should be a forum for discussing pro and con viewpoints regarding NCMI beliefs and practices, especially if this has not been discussed in a body of other reliable sources on the subject. .

My goal, as I have stated from the beginning of my involvement as a Wikipedia editor, is to work toward making the NCMI Wiki article a high quality encyclopedic source of accurate information that meets all of the all of the purposes and content guidelines of Wikipedia, and to do this making sure that everything I as an editor is to advance the purposes of Wikipedia over any personal interests or those of New Covenant Ministries International.

Based on the quotes in question not meeting the critera and guidelines of WP:SOURCES, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:BALANCE, WP:BALASPS the above quotes should not be included in the NCMI Wiki article.

I don't believe the NCMI article is to be a battleground for personal disagreements with NCMI beliefs or practices. I don't believe the NCMI article should be a place where extreme minority views are vetted when there is no body of independent reliable source material written about this. I would request input from other editors and administrators about this.

MuzickMaker (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@MuzickMaker: This is not really a 'help request' in the sense that the template is meant for.... it is not a request for 'assistance', but a request for outside opinions. The 'answer' here is that you should read Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help, and use one to those methods to request input from other editors. The {{help me}} template is really meant for asking things like technical questions, or asking for advice for how to properly handle a specific issue... you are getting the latter. Your issues with 'editor behavior' are also not something that can be resolved by a helper, and, really, are not so much issues with 'editor behavior' as issues created by the fact that you and one other person seem to be simply beating your heads against each other in a content dispute, in regard to an unassessed article that nobody is paying attention to.... the answer there, again, is to seek outside input through a dispute resolution method, not to complain about that they disagree with you.

Also, please understand that administrators are simply editors with extra buttons, who are trusted by the community. They are in no way in 'control' of content, and in a content dispute are only allowed to assess the 'consensus' regarding an issue, as shown by existing policies and the results of a discussion that has been opened to the community by some formal process...an administrator's opinion in a content dispute has no more weight than that on any other editor. Revent^talk 12:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Revent. That was very helpful. I will head in that direction. I submitted a COI discussion as well.

MuzickMaker (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Question for administrator regarding the overall tenor of the New Covenant Ministries International Wiki Article

MuzickMaker (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

<This request has to do with the New Covenant Ministries International (NCMI) article.>

I am a member of the NCMI International team and have disclosed the exact nature of my relationship to the NCMI team and my total commitment to seek the goals and purposes of Wikipedia first above all on my user page. Though I have read over the Wiki content guidelines and policies I am a new editor and would value some input on making the NCMI wiki page a high quality accurate article.

When I first read the NCMI article I was quite shocked at the amount of inaccurate, wrongly attributed, false, misleading, provocative, inflammatory, defamitory, loaded statements, and citation quotes taken out of context: I can provide a detailed long list of these.

Here are just a few examples of some of the false, misleading and inflammatory content:

• "NCMI discourages churches from making decisions through democratic processes,[19] since they do not believe this is biblical."
• "the NCMI team effectively exerts hierarchical control over local churches"
• "NCMI churches are "highly patriarchal in leadership;"
• "leaders tend to make unilateral decisions"
• "in 2001, of the eight original signatories to New Covenant Ministries, only three remained in the movement."
• "NCMI claims"
• "NCMI asserts"
• "leadership structure of distinct hierarchies"
• "NCMI is "dominated by white South Africans" "Anderson contrasts the rise of expensive megachurches and "jet-set" apostolic networks in white, middle-class South Africa to the poverty of majority black Pentecostals"

(NOTE from Muzickmaker: over 50% of the churches that the NCMI team works with are black Pentecostal and many of the NCMI regional team members are black, and over 90% of churches NCMI works with have less than 100 people in them)

• "A former NCMI pastor calls NCMI "fiercely patriarchal". He writes that "subservience of women is practiced" and that "members are driven to exhaustion to prove their godliness and 'leadership potential'".

(NOTE from Muzickmaker: almost 50% of the NCMI team is women)

• "He expresses his opinion that NCMI churches do not welcome disagreement nor "questioning of the system" "A former NCMI pastor wrote a brief account of his experiences for Cult Information and Family Support (CIFS), an Australian anti-cult group. The anonymous pastor wrote,[29] "I gave almost a quarter of a century of my life to NCMI's 'vision and values' and have not one [...] friend left to speak of.... The leaders are generally all uneducated, and know of little else except the manuals and 'NCMI speak'"

This list does not include the less inflammatory but equally inaccurate, misleading and wrong statements.

At first I entered into the process of trying to work on editing individual items. I made some mistakes in my approach, particularly in the way I approached the majority editor who had inserted almost all of this content. Out of the box I confronted this editor regarding what I felt was biased editing and challenged him in what I think was an inappropriate way to make his to bias and motives clear. I did not assume good faith. But even before he responded I felt that I had overstepped a line and I apologized and corrected myself.

My first question is, what is the right way to confront what one believes to be biased, unblanced, non-NPOV issues?

Since then I have taken much time examining the content and state of the NCMI article and I have downloaded, purchased and read through every reference document cited in this article, including all of the NCMI training materials and online data. I am at the place now where it is clear that there are so many errors and problems with the NCMI article that I think it either needs a complete revamp or it should be removed from Wikipedia. In the state it is in it does not come close to representing the high quality or accuracy that Wikipedia strives for, nor does it meet the high standard of the content guidelines and principles and it is largely inaccurate regarding NCMI. I can provide whomever with a complete list of errors and content problems that I see. I am willing to work with other editors and the Wiki administration to correct the errors and content so that this article meets the Wikipedia encyclopedia standards.

So I have a couple requests and a couple more questions:

My request is that an experienced administrator or some highly recommended editors who are familiar with the kinds of problems the NCMI Wiki article contains, look at the article and suggest a way forward. My second request is that the administrator(s) compare the content and spirit of the NCMI article to the following Wiki articles about other religious organizations.

What follows is a list of Wiki articles on some similar religious organizations. None of these organizations have the kind of loaded, weighted content problems the NCMI article has:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Church_of_the_Foursquare_Gospel;
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblies_of_God;
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Ministers%27_Association;
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Church_of_Pentecost;>

This leads me to a few questions:

1. Is a Wiki article about organizations like the Assemblies of God (AOG) or NCMI a place where the ideas and beliefs of any number of individuals or groups who disagree with the beliefs or practices of these organizations are to be set out in juxtaposition to the beliefs and practices of the organizations these articles are about?
2. Is a Wiki Article about an organization like NCMI or the AOG supposed to be a place where doctrinal, religious beliefs, or practices disagreements are hashed out?
3. What can someone like myself, who is a part of the NCMI team or other editors who are knowledgeable about what NCMI actually is, believes and practices, do when faced with a litany of incorrect, provocative and pejorative content like that written into the NCMI Wiki page?

Regarding the fact that none of this kind of material appears in the above mentioned Wiki articles:

Using the AOG as an example, the AOG is one of the largest protestant denominations in the world. Volumes of material have been written in published reliable sources that are readily accessible that set out contrary views, offenses people have had against the AOG, disputes, and doctrinal differences from those held by the Assemblies of God (AOG), but the AOG Wiki article has not been used as a vehicle to vet these issues. You can easily find a very large number published reliable source material written by individuals or groups of all kinds that disagree with almost every aspect of the AOG’s beliefs and practices. Over the years hundreds of leaders at all levels of the AOG organization have departed from the AOG for many reasons, some in great disagreement with the AOG, others to join other denominations or groups. Some of these departures are mentioned in quality published sources that have written on these issues and events, but the AOG wiki article is not used as a vehicle to air any of these departures or the personal opinions or issues that precipitated their departures.

To bring into perspective how minority the departures and issues mentioned in the NCMI article are, the total number of Regional, National and International NCMI team members is close to 1000 men and women from over 40 nationalities working into close to 80 nations. We do not have an accurate count of the churches, leaders and individuals the NCMI team works with because there is no NCMI church membership. Churches cannot join NCMI because NCMI is not churches, it is a team of leaders. The Wiki NCMI article as it is written makes a significant emphasis of the departures and critical statements of an extremely small minority of people. In the last 8 years since this small minority of leaders left NCMI to join other teams or pursue other interests over 100 people were added to the NCMI teams, the NCMI team expanded into nations and areas of the world that the NCMI team had not worked in before, hundreds of new churches were planted with the help of NCMI team members, hundreds of new churches sought the help of NCMI team, and dozens of humanitarian projects were established or completed.

Part of the Wiki content policy regarding NPOV is WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS. Here is the problem with the emphasis of minority events and the minority opinions currently written into the NCMI article. The views and events are so minority that there literally is no published reliable source material written anywhere to balance these views or that even discusses these events. This is a serious problem because this emphasis makes it look like these departures and these opinions are far more significant than they are.

I believe that many of the untrue and inflammatory statements I have identified above fall into the category of defamation according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation :

"Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. It is usually regarded as irrational unprovoked criticism which has little or no factual basis and can be compared to hate speech, which is can also be taken to encompass discrimination against a particular organisation, individual, nation, corporation or other political, social, cultural or commercial entity which has often but not always been entrenched in the practitioner by old prejudices and xenophobia."

Others fall into the category of False-light:

False light laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.

So my last question is:

1. Is this the kind of content that a WIKI article about a religious organization like NCMI is supposed to emphasize or even contain? Or should the NCMI Wiki article be patterned more on the example of the Wiki articles mentioned above?.

I look forward to any direction Wiki administrators can offer regarding on how to proceed.

MuzickMaker (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

---

You wrote two 1600 word essays. That is really long and I just skimmed the other one. I understand, of course, that you are trying to get other perspectives. A more succinct request may help. In any event, much of your writing is an oblique criticism of me, so I am obliged to respond.

Your central claim above is that the article overemphasizes minority opinions. Let's see the majority then. For the benefit of other editors, produce some other independent reliable sources so we can establish where this "majority consensus" lies. I don't expect you'll be producing any, because there aren't any other sources that constitute this majority you say exists.

You're trying to recast the only available independent sources as a "minority opinion", because you disagree with things they say. I have looked for other sources, including outside of search engines and newspaper database searches in countries where NCMI works. I've found very little, hopefully others will have more luck. In the absence of other information, these are the majority opinion.

The quotations you complained about come from Manley, Andersen, the anonymous pastor who I will leave out for now. Manley and Andersen are pretty much the only independent sources (Black appears to have had an NCMI connection). Andersen is a top notch source - professor emeritus of religious studies, with a specific interest in South African Pentecostalism and he wrote about NCMI in a peer reviewed academic journal. He is also the only source who is almost certainly independent. Manley is a M.Div thesis on NCMI, best source for early history, some inconsistencies, probably independent, some critique mixed with praise.

I don't know what to make of an organization's representative trying to discredit all of the independent sources in an article, but it doesn't look good.

Let's talk about Andersen. Andersen is quite critical of NCMI. He calls it "patriarchal" and this is not appreciated, but he appears to be correct. Having 50% women in leadership does not say anything about whether NCMI is patriarchal. It's not representation, but male power, that defines patriarchy, it's pretty clear from NCMI's own materials men hold all of the real power for theological reasons. Andersen's patriarchy statement is in line with the available facts.

Regarding the predominance of white South Africans, also from Andersen, the article text actually softens Andersen's statement and perhaps we need to expand it a bit to get the point across. He'd concur with your statistics, which support his point rather than contradict it. His point (p.88) is that wealth and power of NCMI (and other apostolic networks in South Africa) is concentrated with the minority whites, and used for their benefit, while yes, a majority of churches and their members are black. In South Africa, this white-black economic gap is typical; he is saying what one would expect is indeed the case, so it's not an exceptional claim. And tokenism may be a real step forward, but it's not equality - the country is 79% black. Even with a very favourable interpretation of your statistics, the NCMI South Africa team is clearly still far whiter than the overall South African "congregation" or population. According to the NCMI website, there is only one black couple on the South Africa NCMI team. I understand the website is out of date and incomplete, but we have to go with the verifiable information and not what might be available to NCMI members; there's little to indicate a major shift in racial composition since Andersen's writing.

Andersen is not a fringe opinion engaging in defamation. He's a top notch source, making the claims he's qualified to make, and his claims are supported by other evidence and lines of reasoning.

Regarding the "departures". Wienand and Wallace are identified by Manley and Black as prominent people in NCMI, so their departures are noteworthy events, especially given a shortage of other information. (The anonymous pastor worked in the Adelaide NCMI church when it was "headquarters", so also well connected.) Have a look at the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa (a Good Article, and also South African and Pentecostal, and you'll see controversy about the founder and records of their blatant early racism. Departures of key people are part of an organization's history and worth noting, as in the article. A good article should present all developments even the ones that an organization finds unflattering. It would be far better to see these departures woven into a history section on recent developments in NCMI, but I don't know of any sources to write that with.

Honestly, the only recent material I can find about NCMI are 1) people leaving and 2) various critics on blogs talking about spiritual and other abuses. If you have other sources, by all means, bring them forward. But if there aren't other sources, or no sources are favorable, maybe there's a reason for that. If you think the available sources aren't well used, then point to some specific examples or other statements that should be quoted. If you think something's out of context, then show us how the wider context changes the meaning. If no sources accurately present NCMI as it is now, then NCMI could address that problem, perhaps by attracting the interest of independent journalists or academics to document their recent developments. In brief: citation needed.

-Sigeng (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, rather than a COI issue (this came up on WP:COIN) or an admin issue. Admins just have a hammer. All an admin can do is block or ban somebody for bad behavior, or lock the article. This needs line by line discussion, which takes time. I suggest the parties try mediation. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. John Nagle (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am replacing the "admin help" tags with "help" tags, as I cannot see anything in either of the requests that would require use of the administrative tools. Also, to the person who posted the request for help, I suggest that you are far more likely to get useful help if you write a brief summary of the main points that are relevant to your need for help, since scarcely any editors are likely to choose to wade through the extensive messages you have posted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I intentionally left this second {{help me}} open when I closed the first, just in case someone else cared to step in and address it in a different way. Since it has been open for over a day now without such input (which is exceptionally long for a help request) I'm going to go ahead and close it, with the same justification that I stated above... this is a content dispute, and not an issue that is going to be successfully addressed by a help request. Revent^talk 10:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 'too few opinions'

This should be fairly obvious if you read this article, but it is comprised mainly of a) what NCMI says about itself, and b) criticism. There is no coverage the opinions of other religions commentators, either neutral or in support... it does not provide a balanced view of the subject. I removed some criticism, on the basis of it being from an 'anonymous source' and thus neither 'reliable' nor 'verifiable', but that didn't really affect the balance issue at all. This article needs considerably less discussion of what NCMI says, and considerable more discussion of what other RS say about them. Revent^talk 13:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree on the balance issue. I think the article should be cut back substantially, and that there is a balance problem. There is a lot of out of date and inaccurate information.

There is also a lot of information that is unnecessary and too detailed. And there are exceptional claims of a tiny minority with no multiple high-quality sources.

As far as what NCMI says about itself, it is important for you to know that almost all of the content you see on the page was not put on the page by anyone in NCMI, it was put in the page by Sigeng. Other than the one very small edit I did in August 2014 no one from NCMI has touched the article page since since September 2011. That editor who had relationship with NCMI back then was Ghfjdkslatyrueiwoqp. So there is no self-promotion by NCMI happening in the article. You can check the review history to confirm this.

Concerning majority/minority views and creating balance? You said, "There is no coverage the opinions of other religions commentators, either neutral or in support... it does not provide a balanced view of the subject."

• WP:EXCEPTIONAL says that: ”Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: “Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[11] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources ..reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;"
• WP:weight says that: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources....Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in an article about those specific views."

Here is one of the main problems on the NCMI page. I have asserted above (and Sigeng has agreed) that there are NO multiple mainstream sources that present views contrary to the exceptional claims represented in statements like the following:

• “NCMI is highly patriarchal in their leadership”
• "the NCMI team effectively exerts hierarchical control over local churches"
• "leaders tend to make unilateral decisions"
• “Anderson contrasts the rise of expensive megachurches and "jet-set" apostolic networks in white, middle-class South Africa to the poverty of majority black Pentecostals...these churches are "not making an impact nor addressing challenges posed by a rapidly changing [post-apartheid South African] society"”

So I have two questions:

1. If these exceptional, surprising or apparently important claims are not covered by multiple mainstream sources, and if these claims are only mentioned by the very few sources quoted in this article, then aren't these minority fringe opinions, and not majority at all?
2. If these exceptional, surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources, and if, Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in an article about those specific views, then isn't the Wiki policy that, quotes like these should not be included in this article at all?

MuzickMaker (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a rehash of what you said before (and I responded to) but mercifully condensed.

Anderson and Manley, the sources of the quotes you take exception to, as discussed above, are mainstream sources - being from a peer reviewed journal and a public university thesis, respectively. A fringe source would be the "Journal of Homeopathic Medicine" used to support a medical claim, or a claim about anything other than itself. You continue to assert these sources are not quality, without presenting sources that contradict them.

Those claims aren't exceptional either. (Interesting though, as they are comments on what "NCMI is like" from outside perspectives, rather than its own claims about.) As discussed, it's not exceptional to say that a patriarchal society produced a patriarchal religious movement. Nor it is exceptional to say there is racism in South Africa, where black people make $13 for every $100 whites do; or in churches, which are usually more racially divided than society in general.

Produce a few examples of female NCMI pastor-elders in their own right (not as a part of couple) - that would be evidence that Anderson's patriarchy statement is outdated.

I'm not unfair, or at least I try to not be. When you produced some information about the size of NCMI a ways back, I didn't buy your argument, but I did go back to the sources, see something I hadn't seen before, and made improvements. That was helpful. You'll get much further by producing information, or even pointing how, for example, the article misconstrues a source when quoting too little of it. Or perhaps point to a section of the source that is underrepresented, and where it could go. That kind of contribution is really helpful, and actionable. Otherwise, it looks like you're just arguing about what the sources say and trying to whitewash, which given your NCMI connection, engenders resistance.

-Sigeng (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sineng:Why do you keep say that I take exception to those sources (Anderson and Manley). Please read what I have written. My issue is NOT with the sources. It is with your use of quotes from those that advance your personal bias based on your COI. You are a smart person. You know that the terms like "patriarchal" and "Hierarchical Control" and "NCMI discourages churches from making democratic decisions because it doesn't believe democracy is Biblical" are loaded terms that conjur up revulsion in most people. And now you try to deny the highly pejorative and controversial nature of these terms. That they are extreme accusations is what makes them Exceptional. Knowing that this is what these terms do you continue to advance your personal agenda to disparage NCMI. You know that there are no other sources, mainstream or otherwise, that discuss NCMI's alleged "patriarchy" or "Hierarchical control" "undemocratic" which is what makes these views, even from RS's, minority views from a tiny minority and violations of the WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, and yet you continue to argue for their inclusion. Why? Because YOU BELIEVE, as you just stated above, it to be so and, as you said, "users need to be warned". I can refute everyone of these exceptional claims and show that they are either false, misleading, or taken out of context and not qualified properly, and therefore present NCMI in a false light, including the other Anderson "jet-set" quote, but I shouldn't have to. You should be following the Wiki Policies and guidelines and not setting this article up as a place to further your own personal beliefs and vendetta. MuzickMaker (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@MuzickMaker: Your comment that begins with "Well, Revent" appears to be a partial retraction of this, so I will overlook the allegations therein with respect to my beliefs and motives. All I will say is that an implication of your discussion with Revent below is that it is necessary to present specific arguments to address your concerns - what may be clear to you is not necessarily clear to us. Sigeng (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Revent: What is the best way to bring continued content disagreements into mediation? What do you suggest? MuzickMaker (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@MuzickMaker: @Sigent: Admittedly, I have not through all the varied threads about issue with this article, but it seems that everyone is agreement that my tagging of the article, the 'general issues' that are wrong with it, is appropriate. (If not please say so) I think you need to make individual issues well defined "this is wrong and why", and specific proposed edits to this talk page, preferably in fairly short 'topical' sections, and have seperate discussions... this will make it easier to follow for anyone joining the conversation, for one thing. "General" complaints don't really accomplish anything, to be honest.. though you can still edit 'collaboratively' on a talk page, and if you get stuck on a particular point, then ask for a WP:Third opinion. It's really best if a person can come in and address a specific point, without 'having' to get involved in the entire drama of the article. (also, the person typically has the talk page watchlisted after that). If the viewpoints about a 'specific change or set of changes' are well defined (without getting sidetracked), then you are more likely to get helpful input that can resolve that point. Revent^talk 01:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Revent: Well, Revent. That was not just very good advice, it was wisdom, but more importantly, it was character. You just displayed the gentleness and civility that Wikipedia says should exemplify those who edit on here. I have to say that I have found myself getting wound up in what I felt was injustice and defensiveness, not just regarding what I see on the NCMI page, but personally. You reminded me to remember that Sigeng, is first a human being having intrinsic worth who should be treated with honor and respect, in spite of differences of viewpoint and opinion. Strange, I am sitting at my computer about to finish the message I am about to bring to my congregation tomorrow. The title is, "Why Unity Matters: Living in God's Heart". You probably never thought that you would be God's messenger to me today. I will try hard to remember the lesson you reminded me of that I should have never forgotten. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

@Revent: I agree, although I'd say the template message "article does not include all significant viewpoints" applies only if we can identify a body of reliable sources that express these viewpoints. At the moment, we know of other related sources (Naidoo, Chetty, William K Kay) who may have new information, so I believe it applies. If we can't point to new sources or identify viewpoints within known sources that are ignored, then it doesn't make sense to leave it up. Sigeng (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources

I don't intend to personally get into actually editing this article, for various reasons, but have been trying to see what research I can do into finding further references. Please try to avoid 'discussion of the issues' in this new section, but instead use it as a list of possible sources for 'expansion', and possibly discussion of those particular sources. Note that I haven't personally read these, as I don't have access to them, but indications are that they would provide useful information. Thanks. Revent^talk 10:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

* Robertson, Ewen. "An Evaluative History of Covenant Ministries International and its offshoots from 1995 to the present day." JEPTA: Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 27.1 (2007).

• • I just located a copy of this article here, starting on page 72. Revent^talk 11:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC) It's about a different group with a similar name. :( Revent^talk 11:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Naidoo, Thamotharan Rajgopal. Apostolicity: a history of apostolicity as propagated by the Apostolic Movement within the South African Pentecostal tradition (1980-2009). Diss. 2010.
  • I've seen this dissertation referred to in other sources, such as Chetty, so it may already have been looked at. Revent^talk 10:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

I was asked by User:MuzickMaker to read and offer feedback on this article based on my experience editing several articles on Pentecostal denominations that subsequently achieved Good Article status. These are my initial impressions:

1) Wordiness. In my opinion, we can make a much better written article with tighter prose in fewer words. For example, there is a subsection entitled "Church planting" that revolves around one quote that used a lot of biblical references. That is fine for speaking in a church context, but do we really need to use this quote in an encyclopedia? Can't we just say, "NCMI believes that the Great Commission is a vital part of the church's mission. Therefore, church planting is heavily emphasized.[29][30]"

I agree with your point. (As a reworkding of that statement, I propose instead "NCMI emphasizes church planting as a primary way to fulfill the Great Commission".) Sigeng (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

2) Lack of definitions/explanations. While a lot is said, many crucial terms are left undefined. For example, the very first paragraph introduces us to the term "apostolic-prophetic team," but what this term means is never defined. At the end of the article, Ephesians 4 is referenced, but we still are never told what the differences between an apostle, prophet, evangelist, and teacher are supposed to be. We are never told how members of the apostolic-prophetic team are chosen. Some of this can be fixed by reorganizing the article. The current outline is not very logical or intuitive. In some cases, information covered at the beginning of the article is rehashed at the end.

Another example is found in the statement of faith subsection. We are told, "NCMI affirms "Baptist, Pentecostal, and Apostolic" traditional beliefs." This is just confusing. Does this mean that there are Baptist churches and Pentecostal churches and "Apostolic" churches all cooperating in the same organization? Or does this mean that NCMI incorporates Baptist doctrine (if so, which ones does it incorporate and which ones does it not?) and Pentecostal doctrine (same question?) and "Apostolic" doctrine (same question?)? Our aim should be to provide clarity not confusion. Which brings me to another issue. If we have to add a note which says we have no idea what "Apostolic" means in NCMI's context, we probably shouldn't even mention it. If the editors here can't explain the meaning of this phrase, we should probably just not use it at all. We can amend the sentence to simply say the following: "In their statement of faith,[10] NCMI affirms biblical inspiration; the Trinity; the humanity, divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and substitutionary atonement."

In terms of explanations and definitions, it may help to draw some connections to the New Apostolic Reformation (of which NCMI is an example, with some deviations). The outline certain needs much work and is partly a reflection of the fact that some of the information we'd really like to have to flesh out the article isn't available, and then we have interesting bits of information looking for a better context.

"Apostolic" specifically refers to South African denominations that use the word "apostolic" in their church or denomination name. The usage is similar to how "Baptist" is used to identify a group of denominations. It appears that they are basically part of Pentecostalism, although many have a different history and some theological or practical differences. Apostolics don't seem to self-identify as Pentecostals. Hence this needs some explanation for people outside the South African context.

So Manley is saying that in addition to its church plants, NCMI's original churches came from a mix of Baptist, Pentecostal, and Apostolic backgrounds, and cooperate under common theology while ignoring the less important differences. Although NCMI argues it is not a denomination, it basically takes the place of one, albeit a less formal one. As far as I can tell, churches sever denominational ties, become technically and legally independent, and then form a relationship with NCMI. That I need to explain is clear evidence that the article needs expansion in this area.

For the statement of faith, I would add: original sin, historicity of biblical miracles, faith healing, charismatic gifts and "ministry gifts", all to help show how NCMI differs from certain conventional evangelical beliefs.

Sigeng (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[edited] Sigeng (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

3) Pointless material. A somewhat related issue I've come across is the mention of a fact without any further information. For example, the subsection "International expansion (1990–2004)" has the following sentence: "Manley wrote that, in 2001, of the eight original signatories to New Covenant Ministries, only three remained in the movement, with only Dudley Daniel and Rigby Wallace at the forefront.[40]" This is interesting, but then the topic completely changes to an identification of the unofficial headquarters of the movement. What is supposed to be the point in including Manley's observation in this article? We should not be leaving hints or suggestions to the reader. Does Manley know why only 3 of the original 8 remain? Did the other 5 leave because they were disgruntled with the direction of the movement? Were they kicked out? Are they dead? Did they repudiate the movement as a cult? We don't know, but now the reader is left wondering if something sinister was behind this fact.

That's from Manley p. 74. Manley's writing is disorganized here, but he does connect their departure to NCMI's leadership structure, while noting internal efforts to change the structure. Perhaps we could add: "Manley speculated that NCMI's leadership structure, which he characterized as "narrow and hierarchical" at the time, may have been a contributing factor in these departures." Sigeng (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

4) Blogs. I've noticed that on several occasions blog posts of NCMI affiliated persons are used as sources. According to Wikipedia guidelines (WP:RS), self-published sources are generally to be avoided. I am particularly concerned about the following quote used in the "Criticism of leadership model" subsection, where Chris Wienand writes on his blog, "the recent years saw us preoccupied with an ecclesiology that was 'over realized'.... We preached 'model', 'pattern' passionately. But our God is gracious, kind and infinitely generous. He walked us back... to the gospel we had so sadly sent to the bookends of our convictions. After 25 years of pastoral ministry I had to admit to a wonderful community that I had erred." I do not believe this quote belongs in this article at all. It is not clear from my reading of Wienand's blog that he is criticizing the leadership model of NCMI as much as he is making a personal confession of his own need to revisit his priorities. I don't know what Wienand has said elsewhere in regards to his feelings about NCMI's leadership model, but the cited blog post is not explicit enough to establish him as a critic of NCMI.

I believe he's doing a subtle piece of criticism here, based on his usage of NCMI-ish language without directly invoking NCMI, but if he intended to be subtle we should respect that. This quote should be removed. Sigeng (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

5) Criticism. It is generally considered bad practice to have a "Criticism" section in an article. The best approach is to have critical observations (published in reliable sources) integrated throughout the article.

Agreed. Sigeng (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

6) Infobox. The infobox used in this article is for a non-profit organization. Wikipedia has an infobox for religious groups, which to my mind would be much more appropriate.

Agreed. Sigeng (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I can go ahead and make some editorial improvements, but I wanted to let other editors know my thoughts. Ltwin (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Overall your suggestions are very good. I look forward to seeing your changes. Sigeng (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

numbers in paragraph one are not mentioned in reference

MuzickMaker (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)hi Signeg, hope you had a good winter. I was just reading the NCMI page and noticed the figures given in paragraph 1: "active in about 100 countries.[1] NCMI defines itself as a team of about 100 itinerant church leaders who speak at conferences and work with affiliated local churches." I checked the source you referenced "http://www.ncmi.net/about/our-history" and can't find anywhere in that source where it says "a team of about 100 itinerant church leaders". Did I miss it somewhere in the source? Or was this amount found in some other source? If there is a reliable source for that figure it would be best to post it. If there is no reliable source it would be best to remove it. It is true that there is no way to verify the actual number of NCMI team members because these names are not published, therefore no reliable source. However I have the current actual list and there are about 250 couples in just the African team alone. Then there is a general international team that has over about 200 couples on it. This does not include the team members in individual nations like Malawi, for instance, which has close to 200 team members or many other countries that have large numbers of relating churches. As an aside, all team members are itinerant. The team is a trans-local team and one of the requirements of being on the team is being able to travel to other churches. My thoughts are if an accurate number cannot be found in a current reliable source it is better to leave it out.MuzickMaker (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll remove it. Getting into the differences between international and regional people is too much detail for the lead paragraph.

I don't think "100 countries" on its own is that helpful for readers who want to get a sense of the size of NCMI. (For example, a self-employed app developer could have sales in 100 countries and be losing money.) It would be help to have a second statistic here if you'd like to suggest something.-Sigeng (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)