Talk:Greater Grace World Outreach/Archive 2

This archive includes comments starting from 6 May 2009.

Self Advertisement
This entry is becoming increasingly like an ad for the church, and any of the critics or sites about critics are knocked down or removed outright. It is obvious the entry is more like an ad than an entry, note the information regarding its streaming services. '''[Unsigned comment by User:98.209.147.24]

Yes I agree. There has been an editor here making changes recently which have changed the focus of the article. Ltwin (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that either the desire is overwhelming to change the scope of this article from the truth to an ad so much so, that the editor here has been intentionally deleting sourced and good material with outright garbage that is not verified beyond some self proclaimed source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.147.24 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the critical portions of the article are blown way out of proportion, to the point that these elements appear in each section. GGWO is at heart a church (obviously), but it is also religious media outlet (TV, streaming content, radio, college, school, CDs/DVDs, and so on), and if you look at any media-related article (be it a movie, book, CD, etc.), there is always ONE section for critical feedback. I feel this entire article should be re-organized with a section to explain what GGWO is, a BRIEF section for its history (keeping it relevant to what should be included in a encyclopedia article - I already removed several names that would not be notable to anyone outside GGWO), and a section for critical info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.122.68 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to attempt the aforementioned re-organization. Again, my main goal is to keep the article relevant and to read more like an encyclopedia article. Feel free to provide feedback, but very little information (only what I would consider irrelevant to a third-party reader) will be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.122.68 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I finished a re-organization. Please note that VERY little information was removed, and that almost all previous information in the article is still included (if you're looking for something that isn't where you expected it to be, read through the article before deciding to flame me!), but grouped more appropriately into their relative headings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.122.68 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessing the changes to the articles
User:69.241.122.68 I am happy with most of your edits, however, I am not content with some of them. As has been discussed before (see archives) one of the most notable events to occur with this fellowship of churches is the lawsuit. This lawsuit is not mentioned in the lead which is supposed to be an overview of the subject. The lead doesn't have to go into detail but if this organization is notable for controversy then the notable controversy should be mentioned in the lead.

Also, much of what was criticism seems to have been taken out. What its been replaced with should actually be in the History sections. When I read over the History section I skip from place to place only to find out that the information I need to fully understand the history has for some unexplained reason been placed in Criticism! Just some thought. I'll have to look over the article history to figure out what happened to the criticism that was previously in the article and what reason was given for its removal. If there was no valid reason for its removal then it should be put back in.

Please don't take offense. I'm cautious because this article has been extremely controversial in the past (see archives), and I would hate to see all the bickering flare up again because some editor thinks the article is slanted toward GGWO too much. Ltwin (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've edited the article per my comment above. Ltwin (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The lawsuit happened over 20 years ago. I disagree that it would be relevant enough to mention twice in such a short article. The church is also notable for being one of the first to have a Christian radio talk program, and for its status as a megachurch. I don't mind you moving some things back, but I don't think it has a place in the introduction, when it is much more relevant to the history. I also added a "citation needed" tag to the cult reference. I feel it should be removed, especially since it is followed with a sentence that has a tag leading to http://www.carlstevens.org/subpage.html, in which it specifically says that this source does NOT believe the church is a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.122.68 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually "how the church defines affiliation" is very important. The introduction says this is a "non-denominational" organization, right? Where how exactly is it non-denominational? How is authority exercised? Is it hierachical or congregational or something else? If you look at other christian organiztions articles on this site, they usually do have sections for polity or organization. I don't see why that would be non neutral. Can you enlighten me?


 * The case may have happened years ago, but it was still very notable. It had great importance on the history of the movement. It bankrupted the Bible Speaks, creating GGWO. It shaped the current organization.


 * You're right about the cult reference not having a source. I'd be fine if it were rephrased, however, in previous versions of the article there was mention of cult like behavior. However, I refused to put that back in because the source was self published. There have been accusations but you are right there needs to be a source. However, the reason I wrote the sentence was to add context. You have a paragraph telling how they are not a cult, but don't explain why this paragraph is needed in the first place. If the Christian Institute feels it needs to say they are not a cult, then obviously the accusation has been made. I'm fine with removing the word "cult", however, we do need to provide context to this section. Ltwin (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough [on affiliation]. [On the litigation n]otable, yes. Presently relevant, no.  It has its place, but that place is firmly in the history. I'm pretty sure the cult references may be from an article of The Watchman, a mormon site - which, incidentally, I don't feel is an authorative source to define what is or is not a cult. [Unsigned comment by User:69.241.122.68]