Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 6

The ICOC on US college campuses
There were a number of edits made to the ICOC section on college campuses. While university newspapers are not reliable enough to support the claim that some refer to the ICOC as a cult, they are reliable enough to support the claim that "Chaplains at both the College of the Holy Cross and MIT sent letters warning their student bodies of the practices of the ICOC". Edits were also made to move around some of the quotations. The current format of the section is based upon the sources. Where a source makes a charge against the ICOC, the source next provides a response from the ICOC. The article respects this format. In light of this, I've reverted the section back to its original. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments but in fact you have actually make the section less accurate to the original article and by removing the authors name is not correct. Re-read the US News article and you will see it is now a better reflection of the original article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * JamieBrown2011, I have read the US News article multiple times. Where it contains a criticism of the ICOC, it also contains a response from an ICOC representative, which the original format of this section respected.  I'm not sure what you mean by removing authors' names.  Which authors?  You also deleted the claim that "Chaplains at both the College of the Holy Cross and MIT sent letters warning their student bodies of the practices of the ICOC".  Please justify this instead of just reverting my edit. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * JamieBrown2011, you incorrectly attributed a quote to Hadden when it was from Baird. I've corrected this.  We also need to be careful not to violate WP:UNDUE here.  The US News article concerns the controversy surrounding the ICOC's activities on college campuses.  The section now contains four sentences based on the US News source.  Of those four, two represent the ICOC's response to the criticisms.  I'm worried that this already violates undue; adding more to the responses without adding more substance to the whole of the article would clearly violate UNDUE. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche you are not accurately reflecting this article in your edits. This is the exact quote from the US News article

However this is YOUR version you keep inserting into the article:

You are attributing to Al Baird sentences he didn't say in the original article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks for the catch, JamieBrown2011.  I deleted the misattributed sentence "A zealous group, to be sure, but is it a cult?" from the article. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, you need to reed this section instead of just reverting my edits willy nilly. Once again, your edits violate WP:UNDUE. The US News article concerns the controversy surrounding the ICOC's activities on college campuses. The section now contains four sentences based on the US News source. Of those four, two represent the ICOC's response to the criticisms. I'm worried that this already violates undue; adding more to the responses without adding more substance to the whole of the article would clearly violate UNDUE. Plus, you are now plagiarizing the article, which is of course unacceptable at WP. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche, there is no plagiarising going on here. Attribution is being given to the writer of the article and the Newspaper concerned.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * JamieBrown2011, please read the US News article again. You plagiarize it by repeating portions of it word for word without using quotation marks.  Moreover, you violate undue, for the reasons stated above.  There's also no need to remove the the statement that reports chaplains wrote letters to warn students of the ICOC.  University newspapers are clearly reliable enough sources for that.  -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche, I encourage you to read my edit, quotation marks are given for every section that comes directly from the Newspaper article. Instead of just reverting my edits willy-nilly, maybe place the section on this page you claim is being plagiarized.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * JamieBrown2011, please stop reverting my edits willy nilly. Again, your edits violate WP:UNDUE.  You also willy-nilly delete a statement that reports chaplains at two universities wrote warning to their students about the ICOC.  The statement refers to two university newspapers.  While the sources aren't reliable enough to report the accusations that the chaplains levy against the ICOC, the sources are clearly reliable enough to report the fact that chaplains were concerned about the ICOC.  You also continue to plagiarize the article, repeating word for word without using quotation marks.  You already quoted the bit you repeat word for word. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche, you are deleting continuously correct attribution being given to the author of this article [Carolyn Kleiner] and deleting continuously the question asked by her "A zealous group to be sure, but is it a cult?" . Again, Instead of continuously reverting these edits maybe place the section on this page you claim is being plagiarised? You are also stating as a fact that University Newspapers are a WP:RS. These things are supposed to be discussed and consensus established when other editors question their reliability. Simply insisting that they are reliable and edit warring over them is not appropriate action on your behalf. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your above statement is misleading, JamieBrown2011. I revert your edits that plagiarize and violate UNDUE.  While I'm glad you're actually addressing one of the other statements you keep deleting, you misrepresent what I say regarding university newspapers.  Read it again.  As far as you repeating bits word for word without using quotation marks, again, you already quoted the relevant piece above.  Why do you want to add the name of the author of the article?  I find this puzzling since there are at least three other times we refer to newspaper articles and what they say without referring to the name of the article's author.  Yet in this one case you want to add the author's name.  Is it because the statement in question is critical of the ICOC?  If you want to add author names, then we should do it in all instances, not just this one.  We need to be consistent. Note that have reverted my edits five times now without addressing the fact that your edits violate UNDUE. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is how the current article reads:

JamieBrown2011 seems worried that the question from the article's author "A zealous group to be sure, but is it a cult?" is absent. Note that I was the one who originally inserted this sentence. I then removed it when you pointed out that it was misattributed. I'm fine with returning it. I propose the following.

Thoughts on this rendering? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche, you have switched around the order of the sentences and responses. I think this may be a more accurate rendering of the article:

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * JamieBrown2011, thanks for switching around the sentences to better represent the order of the US News article; I agree that Baird's comment should come first. But I'm not a fan of using the author of the news article--Carolyn Kleiner--here.  Nowhere else do we refer to the author of a news article when quoting the article itself.  I also see that you quote word for word a significant portion of the article without using quotation marks; see: "says Al Baird, spokesperson for the ICOC, which, he insists, does not condone harassment and is merely an evangelical church out to "share Jesus with everybody." University of Virginia sociology Prof. Jeffrey Hadden, who has studied religious movements for over 30 years, agrees" (my quotes are at the beginning and end).  Due to concerns I have about UNDUE, I'm in favor of the following wording:
 * Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche, WP:RSOPINION states Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. So it is perfectly correct to attribute Carolyn Kleiner as the Author. Also your issue of UNDUE has nothing to do with accurately quoting the views of people in an article. The fact that is is mentioned that Hadden "agrees" with Baird, you may not like but that doesn't mean it should not be included. So unless you come up with more valid objections we are going to run with this version.

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I'm afraid that we cannot run with your version. For one, it still plagiarizes. For two, it still violates UNDUE. If you want to include the bit that Professor Hadden agrees with Baird, that's fine; but we can just paraphrase it. So I propose the following.

Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy with this version.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sweet. Nice working with you on this, JamieBrown2011. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: I suggest a very short summa...
66.178.127.244 posted this comment on 19 November 2013 (view all feedback).

"I suggest a very short summary of the church history,that can be explain in less than 30 minute"

Any thoughts?

Qewr4231 (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC) You want a 30 minutes or less summary of the ICOC history on a Wikipedia page? Do you mean 30 minutes or less in terms of reading; an ICOC history section that takes up to 30 minutes to read?Qewr4231 (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think he/she meant 30 seconds!

Is Christian Research Institute (CRI) a reliable source?
User:Nietzsche123 has inserted a number of references from www.equip.org (otherwise known as CRI). He claims they are a reliable source: "(CRI) is a third-party secondary source (academic journal in fact) with a reputation for fact checking", but when you look them up it's hard to find evidence of that. @Nietzsche, care to explain? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jamie, your characterization may be misleading: while the journal articles I referred to may be retrieved from www.equip.org, they're published by the Christian Research Institute's Christian Research Journal. To research the organization, I'd start with the WP article on them: Christian Research Institute.  As you can see, CRI is, like ICSA, a countercult organization that has its own journal: CRJ (much like ICSA's ICSJ).  The author of one of the article's in question is Dr. James Bjornstad, assistant professor of religion and philosophy at King’s College, Briarcliff Manor, New York.  The other author is Gretchen Passantino, wife of the late Robert Passantino, Christian author and journalist.  Being that ICSA's ICSJ was deemed a reliable source, I don't see why CRI's CRJ wouldn't be, too. (They're both journals with a reputation for fact checking). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche, claiming that because one journal (ICJS) has a good reputation, does not make an argument for another journal having a good reputation. When you look at CRI they seem to have quite a few problems as a WP:RS. It appears to be a 'One man' show with Martin now being replaced by Hanegraaff. A few selections from their Wikipedia page:




 * Also,


 * For lightweight claims CRI seems fine, however some of the claims you are asserting are "abuse of authority" and "false record keeping", for those type of claims a higher quality source is necessary. CRI appear to be more like a family business, with a lack of financial integrity and without evidence of an editorial board. This does not present itself as a WP:RS and I don't see the evidence for fact checking you are asserting, particularly for the claims being made.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jaime, my analogy still holds: both ICSJ and CRJ are journals of well-respected counter-cult organizations. Other things equal, if ICSJ is considered a reliable source, so should CRJ.  No countercult organization is without its critics.  Instead of just deleting something from the WP page that you disagree with, why don't you bring it up to DRN or the RS noticeboard. And again, it is one of the most well respected Christian countercult organizations out there, winning awards for its reputation for fact checking. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Jaime, if you dispute CRJ's reliability, fine, but you should do so in accordance with WP policies. I advise that you use WP:DRN or WP:RSN. Simply deleting content that's well sourced won't do. For evidence that CRJ has a reputation for fact checking, check out its numerous awards: http://www.equipresources.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2548489/k.902B/Journal_Awards.htm. While Hanegraaff is the president of CRI, that doesn't mean that CRJ doesn't have an editorial board. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche123, analogies hold no value at Wikipedia. CRI looks fine for lightweight claims, but for the type of claims you are asserting, you are going to need to show evidence of an editorial board. The awards they have received come from either ::::EPA or unknown sources. Since EPA has a strong theological bias that alone raises QS questions. Also, remember you were the one who argued so strongly for:
 * Student newspapers as reliable sources - and you were wrong
 * Self published websites as reliable sources - and you were wrong
 * Gospel Advocate as a reliable 3rd party publisher - and you were wrong
 * So please forgive me if your latest "analogy" sounds a lot like a resounding gong or a  clanging cymbal. Please show evidence of an editorial board if you would like your weightier claims to remain in the article?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Jaime, where did you get the idea that arguments by analogy "hold no value" at WP? Of course they do! Argument by analogy is a valid argumentative strategy; there's even a WP page on it: argument by analogy. Again, you're not playing by the rules. If you dispute the reliability of a source, you need to follow WP policy and use something like the DRN or RSN. CRI's CRJ is a well respected journal with a reputation for fact checking. Also, your descriptions above are misleading: while GA was deemed unreliable, we were permitted to cite Yeakley directly as a source, which is what the dispute was about. While it's true that EPA judges the journals of Christian presses, how does it mean that they're biased? With what right do you dismiss their awards to the CRJ? And lastly, feel free to elaborate on your use of 'gong' and 'cymbal'; I'm really not sure what you mean here. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Neech, arguments by analogy does not apply to deciding on WP:RS JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jaime, with what right do claim that arguments by analogy don't apply for determining if a source is reliable? They're one of the most common argument types.  Show where WP:RS says they don't apply; you can't just dismiss them out of hand. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jaime, I've undid your recent edit. You cite WP:Burden.  According to it, we should "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form"".  This is what I've done.  While it also says that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", this is in reference to providing verifiable citations for the content.  I've fulfilled my obligations.  If you dispute the reliability of CRJ, fine, just follow WP protocol and submit your claim to DSN or RSN.  If you continue to disregard WP protocol, I will bring this to the attention of another editor. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, you seem to think that CRJ is an unreliable source. I invite you to read the above discussion and then add to it. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC) I undid two recent edits on the article's page. One of the edits cited Passantino as making claims that attest to the sovereignty of the ICOC after McKean left; however, nowhere in the cited article does Passantino make such a claim. I also separated the ICOC's stance on the "sinner's prayer" from the discussion on water baptism. The fact that critics criticize the ICOC for its stance on requiring water baptism and discipleship for one to be saved is distinct form criticisms of the "sinner's prayer". Bjornstad never even mentions the "sinner's prayer". -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, I'm wondering if you could help us out. I think another editor--JamieBrown2011--has committed WP:OR. On two occasions now (without using this talk page) this editor has used a source (http://www.equip.org/articles/at-what-price-success-the-boston-church-of-christ-movement/) to refer to the ICOC's stance on the "sinner's prayer" even though the source makes no reference to the "sinner's prayer" (see edits history to see what I mean). I'm also wondering if you could help us out with a related manner. As you can see from above, he and I have had some conversations about the reliability of the The Christian Research Institute's Christian Research Journal. I provided evidence above for thinking that the CRJ is an academic journal with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and thus meet WP:RS. It is my understanding that it is now up to him to either take the matter to either the DRN or RSN. He continues just to remove the material he doesn't think meets WP:RS, however, without discussing on the talk page. I'm wondering if you can help us determine what WP protocol has us do here. Thanks, -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche, you seem a tad confused, there are two references in that "beliefs" section, the one from CRJ includes the scripture references the ICOC use to justify their beliefs, which you keep removing, though they are included in the referenced article. The 2nd reference includes the "sinners prayer" issue and a summary of the ICOC beliefs. If you read my edit summaries this is explained. Maybe a better practice going forward is reading these edit summaries, reading the cited sources and discussing here before accusing me of OR. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * JamieBrown2011, thank you for your post. You cite the Bjornstad article for ICOC's position on the "sinner's prayer"; but the article makes no mention of the "sinner's prayer".  In the article Bjornstad cites several Bible passages that the ICOC typically uses to support its stance on baptism; but Bjornstad is clear to criticize the use of these passages, that is: he deems the ICOC's interpretation wrong.  Yet, you used the reference to explicate the ICOC's own position without mentioning his criticism of the passages.  There are actually two separate beliefs here, that your edit conflates.  On the one hand, we have people who criticize the emphasis that the ICOC places on water baptism, exemplified by the Bjornstad article.  On the other hand, we have people who criticize the ICOC for not respecting the "sinner's prayer" that evangelical Christianity in whole seems to endorse.  I haven't been deleting the Bible verses and bits about the "sinner's prayer" that you add.  Rather, I've been moving them below to distinguish between these two issues.  Because of this, I'm undoing your edit that conflates the distinction and cites Bjornstad for thing he never spoke about. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nietzsche, you confuse the two references. The first reference (CRJ), Bjornstad says nothing about the sinners prayer, that is found in the second reference. I am, however happy that you are now presenting both sides of that argument in your edits, rather than only the one side, which was reflected in your previous edits.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * JamieBrown2011, thank you for commenting. My previous two edits concerning this issue also distinguished between the aforementioned ideas.  While I did delete the Bible passages you added after my first edit, I soon re-inserted them.  My problem with your edits was, in part, that you consistently used the Bjornstad article to refer to something he never talked about. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, no I didn't. As explained earlier, the only inclusion on the Bjornstad article was the scripture references he used. The other section included was covered by a different source. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Nietzsche123 I am not sure we ever resolved this one, is CRJ a reliable source? There is no evidence of an editorial board and it seems to be largely a one-man show organisation.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * JamieBrown2011, although I couldn't find where CRJ lists its editorial board, it turns out that it does in fact have one. II had to e-mail CRJ to find it.  The person who confirmed this for me was: whiraoka@equip.org.  Her name is Melanie Cogdill. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing the Article
I will not be changing and/or editing the ICOC article. I have voiced my opinion and asked that a controversy and criticism section be kept in the ICOC article. I can't wait to see what JamieBrown2011, Nietzsche123, JamesLappeman, and Elmmapleoakpine do with the article. I will stay out of the talk page discussion for a while and wait to see what article comes out of the discussion. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Qewr4231, while I agree with you that it's important to keep criticisms of the ICOC reported by reliable sources in the article, Wikipedia frowns on sections dedicated exclusively dedicated to criticism. We had some discussions above on this topic.  -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are there so many "unreliable" sources that claim the ICOC is a cult or controversial? Are there any sources other than the ICOC that claim the ICOC is not a cult and a good Bible believing church? Qewr4231 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy and overall quality
I just came across this article doing research today, and see this as having much redundancy in some sections, and reading too much like a high school essay, and which  i tried to  improve somewhat. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus, welcome! Thank you for your recent additions to this page.  However, I agree with JamieBrown2011 that they seemed to have violated MOS:OPED and WP:OR.  Regardless, please feel free to make contributions to this page.  As you can see, we're in the process of making some perhaps substantial changes, and welcome new participants. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That may not be easy! Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing for Sub-section Entitled "One Church"
I was just looking at the footnotes to the article to see whether there were some that might need some simple clean-up like adding the author's name, the title, date, etc. While doing that, I noticed that all of the citations for this section appear to come from churches of Christ sources, rather than ICoC sources. Howard, Shields and McQuidy were all associated with the churches of Christ, and they all predate the development of the ICoC. I'm not as sure about the "Columbia Church of Christ," but the specific pages referenced are dead, and there's nothing immediately obvious on the page that suggests they're associated with the ICoC.

I'm absolutely confident that the ICoC believes that Christ established only one church. But basing the section on churches of Christ sources seems innappropriate - we should be able to source the ICoC beliefs from sources that directly address the ICoC. EastTN (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've done a bit more looking, and it appears that the Columbia Church belief statement is referenced elsewhere in the article with a link that actually works. It is clearly an ICoC congregation.  I've fixed the citation in this section to the one Columbia Church page that's still live, and tried to make it clear that the churches of Christ references are talking about that predecessor group. EastTN (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)