Talk:Christ Church (Moscow, Idaho)

Unfounded
User:Andrew from NC and I apparently disagree about this edit. Let's talk it out here.

I believe the first part of the sentence ("However, these are unfounded accusations") is too strong for the given citation. All the citation says is that they reject "any form of racism when biblically defined." It does not spell out how they define racism biblically, nor does it deal with the criticisms explicitly. Thus, this cannot be used to refute the claims made above, and the sentence should be left in its shorter, more neutral form. It is not the Wikipedia's place to decide who wins this debate; rather, we must simply let the facts speak for themselves. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 17:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Would the following sentence work? The elders of Christ Church have rejected "any form of racism when biblically defined." --Andrew from NC (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is fine, but I think it would be clearer for those not familiar with Presbyterian polity to say simply, "Christ Church has rejected...." --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will do that. --Andrew from NC (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?
Since there's no actual discussion of neutrality happening, can we delete the neutrality box on the article? Kyriosity (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently there have been some major changes to this page if looking at revision history. It seems like this page goes through periods of vandalism. Here I would like to discuss the POV issue of a few recently added articles and content. I stumbled upon this page after reading one of the below mentioned sources, so it was bizarre to me to see the exact same information posted with the citation being the article that I read. Could I get other's opinions on references 1 and 2 as to whether this violates Wikipedia's NPOV (See WP:BIASEDSOURCES and See WP:VNOT)? I think we should begin with the citations and move on to how previous editors have or have not used NPOV in their entries. --Runckencong (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Runckencong


 * Don't be afraid to start a new section. No one is going to see this when you're replying in a section that is 12 years old. Keep in mind, sources can be biased; per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, that's not a reason to exclude them from consideration. The important thing is WP:RELIABILITY. If you're questioning reliability of a source, start with WP:RSP.  It's a list of sources that are discussed frequently and it lists current consensus for each in terms of reliability. (Best not to refer to references by number as those can change if a new source is added, thus changing the numbers.) And don't confuse NPOV with "balanced" (although you do need to consider due/undue weight).    Butler Blog   (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was actually I who added the "too few opinions" tag, which you removed - which was fair enough, since I didn't start a talk page discussion. But I added it because (as you have realised) the article relies far too heavily on the Guardian and Vice articles. The Gribben source is much better (an entire book, largely about the church, published by Oxford University Press) and should receive greater weight. That's not easy to achieve, however, when the articles are available online and not many people have read the book. StAnselm (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will agree that the Guardian and Vice articles are currently WP:UNDUE weight. The problem with using news articles and editorials is that the authors are often "experts" in journalism, not experts in the subject matter. The Gribben book is more solid because as an academic source, so definitely use it.  It's part of the Oxford Scholarship online collection, which is accessible through the Wikipedia Library, so any editor with library access can verify it (as could anyone with access to it by some other means).   Butler Blog   (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do want to offer an apology to StAnselm for deleting that tag. I took that off when I saw that the talk page seemed to have resolved any previous disputes, but that has clearly changed recently as you rightly noted. Thank you Butlerblog for those clarifications and guidance. Additionally, I want to express my agreement with Butlerblog's analysis, but now we are left with an issue: what shall we do with the extensive amount of text that has been summarized from the two sources? --Runckencong (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Runckencong
 * You just work on editing it a little at a time. If you start dumping massive amounts of content, you're likely to end up getting reverted.  A good place to start would the "Controversies" section.  For starters, that's a heading that we try to avoid (see: WP:CRITS).  And much of what's in there is several paragraphs cited by a single source, paragraph after paragraph.  If you can summarize it down a little at a time, that's probably a good start.  The process is WP:BRD - make edits, if they're reverted, then discuss it.   Butler Blog   (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of section on ongoing inquiry by CREC in Christ Church entry
An edit I made which summarized the announcement about the inquiry into the pastoral treatment of sex abuse scandals was deleted. The edit was factual and phrased in neutral language, was placed at the end of the entry, and was not of undue length (around 800 characters) It referenced the announcement from the official CREC website. Only a single editor objected to the edit made, on the basis that the matter was given undue weight.

I would submit that an inquiry about sexual abuse in a prominent Christian church is relevant and certainly of interest to wikipedia users, the the members of the church, the members of associated churches, and to the community at large.

If there are specific concerns with the wording, Please tell me, and I would be happy to consider them. Otherwise, I feel that we ought to let the administrators decide whether the edit is permissible.

Fact Check King (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you're calling it "sexual abuse in a prominent Christian church" (emphasis mine) - which isn't what the source says. And if it was as relevant as you suggest, then we would see some coverage in reliable, independent sources. What we have here is essentially a primary source, and that should not be the basis of an entire section. StAnselm (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I was less concerned with The wording in the talk section. Perhaps the section should be added at the conclusion of the inquiry. Fact Check King (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that might depend on the result - but once again, it will depend on whether there is coverage in reliable secondary sources. StAnselm (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Christ Church (Moscow, Idaho). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309235705/http://www.christkirk.com:80/Greyfriars/ to http://www.christkirk.com/greyfriars/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070724074610/http://www.christkirk.com/MissionsAndChurchPlants/Missions.asp to http://www.christkirk.com/MissionsAndChurchPlants/Missions.asp

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Gribben
The Gribben source is a good one and it has a lot of background information on Doug Wilson. However, the sentence in the lead that says the church is "associated with" the Redoubt is WP:SYNTH. I have reviewed the source text (at least the pages that were cited) and being "in" the geographical region and having similar theological views (i.e. Christian Reconstructionism) is not necessarily a direct association, and the text does not actually support that. It definitely describes Rawles's theology as Reconstructionist, as well as Wilson's, and then it describes their positions coming into Y2K based on what Gary North was putting out. But it never draws a clear "association". I've removed that line for now as there would need to be a much less ambiguous statement in the text or another source to include it - at least as previously worded. Butler Blog  (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. FWIW, Rawles recommended a list of churches in Idaho in 2012. Christ Church was not included. That’s not a usable source by itself, but it emphasizes there isn’t an automatic connection just because of geographic proximity or a shared belief in the End Times. WestRiding24 (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)