Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship

Controversies and criticism in the lead
courtesy pings: --- Should the churches controversies and criticisms be mentioned in the lead per MOS:LEAD, which says - ''The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies . They are notable for their controversies/criticisms with widespread reporting spanning 35 years. Isaidnoway (talk)'' 23:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems to me there are enough sources and enough variety supporting the controversies section that it would not be neutral if a brief summary were left out of the lede. I'm in favour of reverting this edit and restoring the status quo.   signed, Willondon (talk)  01:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the balance: "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." A few people making claims of negatives for a global organisation spanning 3,469 churches across over a 130 nations is not a prominent controversy. Compare this to the much more significant problems the founders had at Hillsong that is in their Lead then the less important complaints of ex-members in a couple of local churches is not a prominent controversy. Media coverage is not a reliable guide to importance. Wcwarren (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Relative to size, population and influences of the global network of churches, including the few negative claims in the lead is not balanced. WP:UNDUE. We must consider things in relativity to ensure the neutral point of view is upheld WP:NPOV. I would agree with the edit by @Wcwarren giving a more neutral and appropriate lead for the topic. RoundField (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What a trash job you did on this organization, I love my church I go to and have been attending it for years and none of this is true, you won't find nicer people. You really are posting some "he said she said" high school drama from 1980 on here as facts against the church lol this is why wikipedia has grown to have the terrible name it has today, great job. 71.214.33.87 (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's understandable that two potential WP:SPAs would object to a summary of relevant content in the lead. MOS:LEAD says that — as in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Here we have reliable sources spanning 35 years, from October 1988 to May 2023 (Alaska, Arizona, Massachusetts, Colorado, Texas, Nevada, England, Netherlands, Australia, and 160 churches splitting off because of controlling, intimidating and manipulative behaviors), that clearly indicates that criticism and controversy is significant, relevant, and very important to the topic of this article, as evidenced by the content in the body of the article. WP:NPOV requires that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and that includes the lead. It is not undue to provide a summary in the lead of those prominent controversies. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I typed up a paragraph saying pretty much that and you beat me to it. So I'll just say that deleting controversial topics from the lead (or anywhere in the article) because it puts the topic in a bad light is not acceptable on any page. As such, controversies and criticisms should be included in the lead. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬  𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   12:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Heeding the guidance at WP:OTHERCONTENT, I'm not prepared to accept comparisons to the Hillsong Church article (as above) as a particularly compelling argument. But I did check out the article, and it seems to support including a brief summary of the controversies in the lede for this article. There are controversies similar in scope by volume, by timespan, by range of issues and variety of sources criticizing. It seems totally unreasonable to characterize the controversies in this article here as A few people making claims of negatives and the less important complaints of ex-members in a couple of local churches. And seeking to dilute the prominence of controversy by citing the size of the enterprise is a non-starter.

It seems there is no compelling argument to delete the summary entirely, but I do agree with Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section., so I strongly disagree with singling out the controversy regarding intellectual property theft for special mention in the lede. I propose the original summary be reinstated: "The church has also been criticised in a number of areas including high levels of control, extreme commitment requirements, and the mistreatment of former members. It has been labelled by many ex-members as a cult. "   signed, Willondon (talk)  14:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I support reinstating the original summary. What about this article, or that article, is not a compelling argument, it's a red herring. Most importantly, policy and guidelines support reinstating the summary. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I support reinstating the original summary. No compelling argument has been made to remove it and given that the weight of reliable, published sources on controversies and criticism constitutes more than 50% of the article, an argument could be made from policy on increasing that section of the lead. However, I'm satisfied with a reinstatement of the original text. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬  𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   01:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The claimed criticisms are subjective allegations only and not genuine controversies. They are also not significant in the broader context of the whole organisation. Interpreting historical events in the context of these more recent criticisms is invalid. None of the departed churches are still in operation so don’t represent a protest movement or alternative organisation so perhaps they had other reasons for breaking with the fellowship? I am not a single-task editor. Other editors here have a clear and stated bias against CFM and Christianity generally. This article should be compared to similar organisations that don't have unsubstantiated and limited allegations in their lead sections. (Eg Calvary Chapel, Vineyard Churches or the Foursquare Church) Wcwarren (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * We use reliable sources and how they describe an organization; if their description of the org is that they are controversial, or a cult, or has faced criticism for their practices, then WP:NPOV says we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That is what we are doing in the body of the article, and as a summary in the lead. And I can do the same and cherry-pick some organizations that do include controversies/criticism in their leads, but I won't, because that argument (on either side) doesn't fly, it's a red herring. You asked for a discussion of the lead, you got it, and now you are edit-warring again to your preferred version.
 * I also read your comment above where you insinuated that an editor's involvement is easily questioned. So, keeping that in mind, your editing history shows that out of 85 edits you have made to WP mainspace articles, 71 of them were to this article. That does indicate that you are a potential SPA, and have a potential WP:COI. This talk page also shows you have potential ownership issues with the sections on the talk page being placed how you wanted them, contrary to community consensus talk page guidelines. You tried to edit war your preferred version of the talk page over the objections of other editors. And please don't cast aspersions — Other editors here have a clear and stated bias against CFM and Christianity generally. I have not "stated" that I am biased against CFM or Christianity generally. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Isaidnoway Controversies in the lead need to be shown to be any prominent, this has not been done and Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section., these should be removed.
 * Any observations of other editors can be applied or defended as they see fit. I made a general statement only. Wcwarren (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , the abundance of reliable sources that span 35 years indicate that they are a prominent viewpoint in relation to this organization. The content in the body of the article shows that it is a prominent viewpoint as well. It is not WP:UNDUE to summarize those controversies/criticisms in the lead.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 13:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Isaidnoway I know you would like to think this organisation full of problems but this is simply untrue. Most of the claims against it are very subjective or popular media exagerations. There is simply not an objective body of reliable information that forms a genuine prominent viewpoint. The tremendous good that this organisation does is vastly understated in comparison.
 * What is your personal involvement with the Potters House or other CFM churches? Wcwarren (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - It doesn't matter what I think, what matters is how reliable sources describe this organization, and controversies/criticisms is a prominent viewpoint. This article here, from just a few months back, is an in-depth analysis of the organization and it is a reliable source. That is just one of many spanning 35 years.
 * I had never heard of this organization until you made this edit on August 2, as, you created a cite error as . This placed the article in the category:pages with incorrect ref formatting. I frequently patrol this category to clean up after edits like the one you made. I checked the articles history to determine why the reference had been removed, and discovered your malformed ref from YouTube. And then much to my dismay, you re-added the YouTube ref, with no timestamp of the portion of the video where the claim of "over 3469 churches worldwide" could be easily verified. In a video that is 1:02:06 hours long, our readers, nor our editors, should be required to watch the entire video to verify the claim. I tagged the reference for a time needed, and then kept an eye on the article for further developments. And after doing my due diligence by researching this organization via reliable sourcing, there is no doubt that reliable sources clearly describe this organizations controversies/criticisms as a prominent viewpoint.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 14:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Isaidnoway Your "research" of this organisation would certainly latch on to claims that "Same-sex relationships are classed as “sexual sin” and “perverted behaviour”." Can you maintain neutrality when this area is something you actively oppose? Wcwarren (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - please provide evidence in the form of diffs to support your unsubstantiated claims about me. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. You are crossing the line into personal attacks.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 22:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Isaidnoway If you feel identifying your LGBTQ bias is a personal attack, then perhaps your home page should be changed. Clearly, your perspective on these issues is strongly contrasted with the conservative Christian values portrayed in the media for the Potter's House.
 * Your edits for faulty links in this article is commended but is insignificant compared to the 2,000 corrections you claim for LGBTQ articles.
 * Perhaps weighing into new disputes on an organisation you in principle oppose lacks neutrality? Why be here at all? Wcwarren (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any evidence in the form of diffs that demonstrate a LGBTQ bias in my editing in relation to this article or this talk page. Therefore, I have reported your conduct at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I would also remind you that an ad hominem attack on any editor's sexual orientation as a means of dismissing or trying to discredit their arguments in a discussion is forbidden.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b>  05:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And I also want to point out that if you are a subject-matter expert because you are a member of the Potters House Christian Fellowship, then that same logic applies to former members who say the organization has high levels of control, extreme commitment requirements, mistreatment of former members, and being labelled as a cult.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 14:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
courtesy pings: --- I believe that as a member of the Potter’s House Christian Fellowship, wcwarren has a conflict of interest in editing this page and needs to declare his COI. His current editing and editing from a decade ago show consistent disruptive editing and inability to work civilly with editors who disagree with his edits. His statements regarding criticisms and controversies show he is trying to downplay their importance and he is currently trying to remove them from the lead, against Wikipedia policy. He has already deleted one reliably sourced reference (which I have restored) and I suspect he will attempt to remove more if allowed. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬  𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   09:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @JohnnyBflat Yes, I am a member of the Potters House Christian Fellowship. I do not have any financial or leadership roles in the organisation that would preclude me from writing in an unbiased and neutral way about this organisation. There are no rules that preclude me from writing about this organisation and adding content that is useful to our readers. My role in editing this article is as a subject-matter expert (SME). Wcwarren (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Member of a church" is not an example of subject-matter expertise; it is, however, an obvious example of WP:COI (though not of a financial nature). --JBL (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Another Conflict of Interest
@JohnnyBflat Please declare your potential COI by disclosing your ongoing or previous relationship with the Potters House or CFM churches in Australia or other countries. Are you an ex-member of this organisation? Wcwarren (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Advocacy Conflict
@JohnnyBflat Please declare your perspective in the apparent Advocacy Conflict in your edits of the Potters House article. Numerous edits and reverts with a negative bias are obvious from the version history.

Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific topic, term or viewpoint leading to disproportionate coverage, false balance and reference spamming. When advocates of specific views prioritize their agendas over the project's goals or factions with different agendas battle to install their favored content, edit-warring and other disruptions ensue. Wikipedia operates through collaboration between editors to achieve the encyclopedia's goals. Differences of opinion about neutrality, reliability, notability, and other issues are properly resolved through civil discussion aimed at facilitating a consensus. Wcwarren (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You would do well to take your own advice in these matters; mote, beam, etc. --JBL (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)