Talk:Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa/Archive 1

Redirect
This should be a redirect to the Calvary Chapel page as there is nothing new on this page. --Walter Görlitz 04:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true that there isn't anything currently different, but it is only a stub and will hopefully be expanded soon. The two topics themselves are very different and unique, and I believe they should have separate articles. I could do the expanding myself if that is required to keep it from being redirected. Basar 04:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this page is only an advertisement page for an individual building of the Calvary Chapel movement. There is nothing on this page that warrants a "new page." This should be a redirect to the Calvary Chapel page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't usually comment on users, but in this case I will--you're a bitter, ignorant person who has some sort of vendetta against CC. You also have no idea what an advertisement is if you think this is an ad. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However, it was the first Calvary Chapel, and in the 80's there was kind of a whole Maranatha mini-shopping center (not sure if it's still there), so there could probably be more to say about it than the average Calvary Chapel church. AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but that information kind of falls under the "Advertisement" clause more than the "Encyclopedia" clause. I just found the area of Wiki Deletion based on advertisement. Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, I'm really not "advertising" it, since I have no idea whether it has been in existence for the last 20 years, and I don't think I ever really knew what was sold there when I did know that it was in existence -- I just thought the idea of a church with a quasi-mini-mall attached was an interesting one. By the way, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa is also notable as a kind of "megachurch"... AnonMoos (talk)

Changes Needed
The current version of the article says that "[Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa] was founded in 1965 by Chuck Smith...." This is inaccurate. In his Harvest book he mentions that "the tiny fellowship at Calvary Chapel was already pressing me to come down and start my ministry with them." Also, in his History of Calvary Chapel in the Fall 81 edition of Last Times, he states "[a]bout this time we received a call from some people in Costa Mesa. They told us of their church and how they were very discouraged and thinking about closing.  They thought they would try one more time to ask if we wanted to come and pastor.  They had 25 members, and they were equally divided.  I suggested to my wife that I thought maybe the Lord was leading me to Calvary Chapel." In other words, CCCM already existed. God merely used Pastor Chuck to revitalize it. Personally, I think it's cool that God would grow such an awesome movement out of an apparant church split.

I'm not sure the best way to re-word this article, though. JesusFreak Jn3:16 00:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, but CC's website still reckons the start of their church in 1965 with the Smith. I think it's just two perspectives. If someone wanted to write a section on their history, we could explain everything. We could also add language like "in its current form" or something to be specific. --Basar 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that if the page is redirected into Calvary Chapel then this area will be solved. Suggest redirect. Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article needs no further rewording since it has had a lot of work since 1996 2006. Merging this article with the denomination article is not required. Redirect would be inappropriate and reverted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advisement that it would be reverted by you. This article is an advertisement. Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is no way meets WP:ADS, but feel free to nominate it. You feel that CC is a cult and you use two sites that also have a vendetta against it, but that's a different point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia started in 2001. There was no page at all in 1996. Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably meant 2006... AnonMoos (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DOH! Yes. 2006. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words
The statement "near the boundary between the cities of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana in Orange County. Its postal address reads Santa Ana." is a bit weaselly. It it on the Santa Ana side of the border. Locally, Costa Mesa is considered more upscale and white, while Santa Ana has a higher proportion of Latinos, so some Santa Ana businesses claim to be Costa Mesa businesses. Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
The revert claims that the current wording is "soft-selling" the revival. Possibly, but I think what is more problematic is the implied claims that the Holy Spirit is active or that people were "brought to Jesus". These turns of phrase are not NPOV and should be replaced with more neutral wording. .

jps (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No. They're actually already too neutral. This is common knowledge in the Jesus movement that started in "Southern California". That was Calvary chapel.
 * http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/topics/c/calvary-chapel/
 * http://www.christianpost.com/news/chuck-smith-jesus-movement-founder-not-afraid-of-anything-66587/
 * http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/july-web-only/gods-forever-family-they-got-high-on-jesus-instead.html
 * http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-chuck-smith-talks-jesus-movement-cancer-successor-70962/
 * http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c108_spirit.shtml
 * http://www.allsavedfreakband.com/jesus_movement.htm (self-pub source, but not of anyone involved in the church)
 * I also have a handful of books that confirm the material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see, you're not understanding my point. My point is that the wording of the description is the violation of NPOV. I don't doubt the factual claims that the Jesus movement started in and around Southern California. I am not about to accept this represents any sort of "breakthrough", nor that anyone was "brought to Jesus" (a POV phrasing for the conversions claimed by evangelicals), or that the "Holy Spirit" was "stirring" (or even exists in such a way to stir). There are ways to talk about this movement without adopting this problematic language. jps (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. It's not NPOV but rather removing peacocking or words that are common in the subculture but not the public at large.
 * May I suggest that you provide a draft here that can be worked on without modifying the article, and then be copied into the article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was pretty happy with my version as I don't think the added verbiage really helped explain much more. If there is something in my version (linked above) that you think is lacking, let me know and we can try to incorporate it, but I'd prefer to work from my version with the problematic language simply removed. Then we can re-add properly sourced content that neutrally describes the magnitude of any of the effects that this particular location had. jps (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The version as of January 1 reads:
 * This was the breakthrough that brought thousands of young people living in Southern California and beyond to Jesus Christ. This was part of what was later termed the Jesus movement. This stirring of the Holy Spirit spread from California coast throughout the state in the early part of the 1970s, then throughout the US, and beyond.
 * Your version reads:
 * This was part of what was later termed the Jesus movement in the early part of the 1970s.
 * The edit removed the idea that Lonnie Frisbee's experiential charismatic approach was a key element in the foundation of the Jesus movent.
 * Also, it wasn't part of what was later-termed the Jesus movement, it was the start of it.
 * It also removes the idea that it brought thousands to savlation.
 * It removes the idea that the Jesus movement started in SoCal and then spread through the US.
 * In short, I'm not sure why you're happy with the gutting of that paragaph. Perhaps you can explain why you're happy with it and exacty why you think the remove content consists of "problematic language", phrase by phrase as I did. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what more you want in. This is how I would add the verifiable facts I can glean from your writing:

"Lonnie Frisbee's experiential charismatic approach was a key element in the foundation in Southern California of what was later termed the Jesus movement in the early part of the 1970s. The movement later spread throughout the United States and the rest of the world."

I cannot find a source for the claim that "thousands" were brought to "salvation". We would need someone who is independent of the movement itself to verify that claim as evangelists are not necessarily reliable in reporting the numbers of converts they manage to reach. A good scholarly article on the subject would suffice if you can locate one (and it should really mention this particular chapel to be relevant).

jps (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you can't find any sources for that claim. I have seen several that support the subject. The Time article is one ( only portions of it are not pay-walled). Di Sabatino's The Jesus People Movement. There's a section of the latter, pp.205–12, that discusses Frisbee and CC. Prior to Frisbee's arrival, CC was an approximately 200-member congregation. Quoting one source, the book indicates that conversions were "into the thousands" and a second source quoted in the work "instrumental in 20,000 conversions to the Christian faith" and "eight thousand baptisms", a key sign of conversion in many adult baptism congregations such as CC. These are all on p. 208.
 * Removing material is usually the second step in dealing with unsourced material. The first is tagging.
 * With that said, you did not address why you removed the material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not of the opinion that Di Sabatino's work is authoritative for numbers. He is primarily a documentarian and seems to be collating claims rather than doing an in-depth analysis. The Time article, as far as I can tell, also doesn't look beyond the straightforward claims of the group. I have no doubt that the numbers were high, but it would be good to get a reliable estimate especially as the longterm impact was not in numbers but rather in Charismatic culture. As it is, this is the best I can do with the sources you list:


 * "Lonnie Frisbee's experiential charismatic approach was a key element in the foundation in Southern California of what was later termed the Jesus movement in the early part of the 1970s. Subsequent to Frisbee's arrival, Calvary Chapel claimed thousands of converts and newly baptized joined the movement which later spread throughout the United States and the rest of the world."


 * I typically avoid tagging because if there are no other page-watchers it is usually better to remove the unsourced content since that will be the eventual outcome anyway. If there are page-watchers, they will catch it and start the conversation (like we're having). Can you point to any other sources other than Di Sabatino's book and the Time article? I'd like to get one that is a bit more rigorous in evaluation.


 * jps (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They are direct quotes from other sources. That's what I wrote: "Quoting one source" and "a second source quoted". Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So what do you think of my proposal? jps (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase you, I was pretty happy with the earlier version (that had reach a silent consensus) as I don't think the removed verbiage is really merited.
 * It still soft sells the situation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You admitted that the current words suffer from being WP:PEACOCK. So the ball is in your court now. Propose a wording that does not suffer from this. jps (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I said that you incorrectly identified PEACOK as NPOV. I don't have a problem with the wording: you do. It doesn't suffer from anything other than lack of references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * jps - Its clearly a question of editting style, but I strongly disagree with your statement that under/un-sourced material should be deleted "first" since that will be the eventual outcome anyway. Its actually been my experience that a great amount of material is unsourced not because it is wrong or cannot be independently verified - the author simply did not take the time to properly source it. Obviously with anon authors this is not usually the case, but editors who care about the pages they edit typically simply suffer from a misunderstanding of the overall requirement on the subject of sourcing and I think its the job of those of us who have been around awhile to instruct and council those who are underinformed - not bash them over the head with the "you aren't doing it right" mallet. I've had many similar discussions with editors who FIRST went to the delete key on someone elses work when I very easily added a source to that author's insertion or requested the author do the same. Not bashing - just noting.
 * That being said, I completely disagree with your overall point. It appears, to me, after reading the thread, that you are debating the numbers and sources as unreliable because you apparently don't like them and are cherry-picking the sources that you claim as reliable and discarding the rest. Walter is correct that the sourcing is clear. Ckruschke (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Ckruschke

You've missed my point. I'm debating the use of wording which implies that the Holy Spirit, a person in the Christian diety, exists, for example. It is not NPOV to claim that the Holy Spirit stirred, for example. jps (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You've changed your point several times. Sorry if I missed it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I've been perfectly consistent. You still haven't explained your objections about the wording which removes the WP:PEACOCK terms. jps (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A few points. This source, is published by the University of Chicago, and, on that basis, probably qualifies as one of the better reliable sources. It is worth noting that I don't see anything in it which explicitly states that CC was one of the founders of the Jesus movement, but was involved in the early development. The name "Jesus movement" may have come later, but the name antedates the founding of the movement itself. I also very much have to agree that in the interests of NPOV we cannot refer to any deity or "god" as actually existing. If we say the Holy Spirit did something in wikipedia's voice in a way indicating that it exists, we would also be obliged to use the same wording for Jehovah, Satan, Iblish, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Angra Mainyu, Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, and Xenu, among others. We could say that CC "served as a point for reentry" into the church, as the source linked to states, but to say anything which indicates that this church is in some way "right", which would include any statements about theological entities which seem to present them as clearly existing, would be unacceptable and a violation of NPOV.

In the same light, we cannot refer to any individuals reaching "salvation" in wikipedia's voice, because that would imply that there actually is a salvation to be reached and that the source is an absolute authority on who does and does not reach salvation. Frankly, no one is such an authority. We can use something like the language linked to, saying that CC served as a point for individuals who had been outside "the church" to reenter the church. There are no real NPOV problems in such a statement, because "the church" is a tangible entity to some degree, and no supernatural claims are necessarily involved. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. So how about: "Lonnie Frisbee's experiential charismatic approach was a key element in the foundation in Southern California of what was later termed the Jesus movement in the early part of the 1970s. Subsequent to Frisbee's arrival, Calvary Chapel claimed thousands of converts and newly baptized joined the movement which later spread throughout the United States and the rest of the world." jps (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But if the groups claims that the Holy Spirit was responsible and we have RSes who support that statement then it's clearly NPOV if was phrase it that way. Not that we have sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We can say the groups claimed it but we cannot attribute it to the Holy Spirit in Wikipedia's voice. jps (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We could only use such statements with specific attribution to the source making that claim, and then only if the source is in some way considered to be an expert, which, I suppose in this case, would be an expert on the Holy Spirit and what it does and does not do. And reflecting the non-neutral statements of sources who are themselves less than necessarily neutral, even if they are reliable, does not make it NPOV, it just makes it reflect the POV of the cherry-picked sources used. Yeah, that can be and often is a really serious problem, particularly with some of the old heresies which we know only from what their biased detractors say and some other similar groups since then, but that problem is in those cases one we regretably have to deal with according to policies and guidelines anyway. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)