Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship/Archive 5

Conferences
I removed this section because it had no sources backing it up, and generally just seemed like spam. I am noticing that there is a lot of information in this article that remains unsourced, something which should be remedied. Xanthius 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced content
After further review, wow! It's much worse than I thought. This whole article could be broken down into two categories:
 * Basic information which is unsourced, or sourced by self-published unreliable sources (church websites), and
 * Sourced information which is critical of the movement.

Okay, are there no positive books, newspaper articles, anything on this group? The clarify wikipedia policy, you need a primary reliable source to back up the information you put into an article. Beyond that you can have secondary sources such as the church websites and so on, but it needs to first be supported by a reliable primary source.

Xanthius 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I share some of your concern about the content but that's not an accurate summary of our policy. Sourcing is currently only covered by guidelines, not policy; primary sources are not required (and secondary sources are frequently preferred); and the church website is a primary source for much information about the church.


 * I believe you may mean independent sources rather than primary. Our policy only requires that things be verifiable, the reliable source guidelines gives some guidance on how to provide good verification (though WP:ATT is probably a better document to consult nowadays) but the main point is to provide a balanced article reflecting the published opinions of experts in the subject.  The church website is a reasonably good source for non-contentious claims like (probably) founding date, who the current leadership is, etc.   But for any contentious claim or for an assertion of importance or impact it is only a good source for the church's stated version and should be used in that context.  -- SiobhanHansa 10:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above. Take into account the article was started by a member of the church and still is being contributed by a member of the church (Sapienz). Much of what was written (and still is) is hard to verify. I have done my best but I can't find anything more to source any further. It is true that the only positive information on the church is on sites connected or run by the church group themselves, the rest is all negative. Thats what I've found out anyway. For any history/background it is limited to church official sites or counter-cult websites. Thats only what I've found out by doing my own research, if there is other stuff out there I've not found it yet.Darrenss 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From my understanding of WP:ATT, information in Wikipedia generally needs to be backed up by a reliable source, with minor exceptions. To quote from the top paragraph: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true . . . Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. So while a small uncontroversial tidbit here or there would be okay as long as it wasn't challenged, most of this article contains paragraphs of information that doesn't have a reliable source behind it. That's a problem, but I think we can fix that. It doesn't seem like it would be too hard to find a reliable source or two for most of this information from newspaper articles on the group. Apparently founder Wayman Mitchell also has a biography, which might work as the source for some of the stuff here, depending on how it was published, but newspaper articles would be the most reliable way to go. If anyone has any non-critical newspaper articles on the movement they could provide or point me to it would be helpful. Xanthius 21:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Found a source that mentions the founding of the movement Including it in the first paragraph. Xanthius 21:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be noted in interpretation that WP:ATT was pretty much thrown out by the community - consensus does not exist for it, a point which Jimbo himself acknowledged. It has a unique status somewhere between essay and policy, but the WP:RS guideline and the WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V policies have stronger weight. Orderinchaos 01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick Sayers - Banned user Potter's House, Sapienz and Special:Contributions - 218.214.37.212
It is my understanding that there is a conflict of interest regarding the link

www.waymanmitchell.com and the above editer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/218.214.37.212

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Potters_house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:218.214.37.212

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Potters_house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wayman_Mitchell

I don't want to make an issue of this Nick but it is firmly established that you are user:Potters House Sapienz and anon 281.214.37.212. Under this anon number you have placed www.waymanmitchell.com in several or more articles and on another anon placed this same link on my talk page. You have stated that you are a contributor to this website which I believe is a conflict of interest. There is no need to have the website in any of the articles except for your own self promotional interest. I have deleted the links of the Potter's House articles for this reason.Darrenss 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Those two links came to the attention of the spam task force a while back as the domain names are registered to the same person, who is believed to be a lay church member in Australia. There is no indication they had the backing or support of the church (which has its own websites) and hence fails Wikipedia's external links guideline, which does have a limited scope for primary sourcing of non-controversial or self-identified information but takes a fairly strong line on fan sites (an issue only normally encountered in articles related to music). Orderinchaos 01:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After looking through the links I find that Sapienz was not at all a sock puppet. This has also been noted by an admin on his history page Sapienz This would also imply that the accusation above actually naming a person is incorrect, and should also be removed permanently - there is no reaseon to keep a persons name on a talk page that is falsley accused - is there? possibly an admin could see to this - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.242.172 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not that he was a sock puppet but that he was the same user that had a conflict of interest in that he contributes to the same website he was trying to cite as a reference. It is my understaning that content on talk pages cannot be deleted. Darrenss (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does "http://pottershousefreedom.org" keep getting deleted
Please explain to me why this external link continues to be deleted? I have asked repeatedly to those that delete it to explain the reasons but they have not. All of them are ANON users and cannot be tracked as to their identity. This is very frustrating all I ask is a valid reason according to WP:EL policy. I feel there is no need to remove this link without proper discussion.Darrenss (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

General cleanup needed
This article is a mess. Needs reliable sources, most of article relies solely on the Potter's House website as its only source. Peacock terms need to be cleaned up. Does anybody have any non-critical reliable sources that could be incorporated into this article? Xanthius (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be my guest and clean this article up, I am tired of keeping an eye on it for these years I have been on wikipedia, its time an Admin came on and got to the bottom of it. Please note these Potter's House related articles were all started by members of their church. Also check, Wayman Mitchell and Harold Warner, they all take the same form, no existing available verifiable sources exist for them, yet information continues to be added with no references whatsoever. Any sources added by giving references from their own websites still does not solve the sourcing problem, for example, the quoting of church statistics, who in their church has the job of actually recording these figures? They are all guess work that does not include the churches closed down or those that left during the mass exodus in 1990 and 2001 and even in 2009 in Australia (see actual reliable source from Charisma mag for that).Darrenss (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am keen to edit this site and any other related pages to improve their quality and reliability as soon as I don't have to waste time removing the less useful edits by Darren.Wcwarren (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy
I left my testimony as response to criticism and some jerk deleted it. I reinserted. My citation is my life. 'Nuff said. Duddlydude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duddlydude (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph allegedly by Dan R. Schlesinger of the Christian Research Institute as this organisation does not offer a current (less than 20 years old) opinion about this church.

Rick Ross does not represent a real Christian perspective on Christian church characteristics or practices. * (note - after a BLP request I have removed three external links to what is basically an attack site Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC))

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwarren (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contributing. However you may be under some misapprehensions of Wikipedia policies on content. Wikipedia has clear policies on the necessity of making sure information is verifiable, comes from reliable sources, does not represent original research and is presented using the neutral point of view. Information is not excluded simply because it is old or comes from a negative point of view. Further, as editors we are not supposed to introduce our own conclusions or theories. We merely summarize what other sources have already said. Given those policies, it looks like much of the material you deleted was actually acceptable, but the material you added would not be. I encourage you to read the linked policies and learn more about how this project editing process works.   Will Beback    talk    13:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no verifiable opinion about this church from Dan R. Schlesinger of the Christian Research Institute. The previous information was not an original document but copied and quoted on another web site without any references or updates. It thus represented an unreliable source which was also unverifiable.

Rick Ross is frequently criticised and should be categorised as an unreliable and biased source. He simply publishes negative opinions about a large number of Christian organisations since he has a Jewish bias and is not simply negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwarren (talk • contribs) 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Being criticized does not make one an unreliable source. However it's important to distinguish sources for commentators. If the New York Times reports a comment by "Father Jones" on Potter's House then the Times is the source, not Jones. Whether Jones is biased or not is not necessarily important to the reliability of the Times. NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. Regarding Dan R. Schlesinger, the linked page says it is a modified report by Schlesinger reprinted by the "Cult Awareness and Information Centre" of Australia. Are you contending that it is an unreliable source?   Will Beback    talk    00:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not just that Rick Ross has a bias in what he reports but that he is often quoted as a factual reporter of truth or diverse opinions. Ross is unreliable because he has significant bias as a self declared commentator. We can all find someone who says something negative somewhere but that does not make that quote authoritive. I simply feel that the "clean" and unbiased "expert" image that Rick Ross uses should not be left unchallenged. All his material is really Christian hate speak and propoganda and should not be compared to balanced reporting from organisations like the New York Times. Yes I am suggesting that the site "Cult Awareness and Information Centre" is an unreliable source. It claims this report is a copy of another report but this is not verifiable at all. The site is not beyond claims of bias against organisations it feels deserve citicism.Wcwarren (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Darren is an active campaigner against the Potters House so I urge you to consider his biased contributions as an ongoing conflict of interest. This will help others understand his slanted reasons for his edits. Darren's Youtube Site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwarren (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Being an ex member is not against any policies of wikipedia, neither is taking an interest in a particular group for whatever reason. The issue is I am not a member of the church. Furthermore I have maintained NPOV edits on here for years, which my record shows I am interested in keeping the article accurate and not turn it into the church's own propaganda machine. Keeping this article on facts alone have been a challenge as there are very few if not no reliable independant sources to cite and PH members like yourself like to come along all the time and add unsourced inhouse talk that lacks any verification, this has been happening for years. Quoting my youtube is something someone done years back and it was not relevant to the case as I have proven what my edits are about.Darrenss (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It must be hard to edit in line with WP:NPOV when you are an activist against the people in the article. I haven't had much of a look through your contributions but it must be hard for you not to add content that reflects your extremely strong opposition and activism against this church. My advice would be to take it off your watchlist Darren and never look at it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I provided information on the church, my last video was done almost a year ago, thank you. Mate you are way out of line, you don't know what you are talking about.. I have never done or said anything malicious against the church, all I have done is spoke out with biblical objections, which I have every right to, it is the church that has taken against me the charge of attacking the church (with many insults), again, this is rather irrelevant as I have not done any edits that have been suspicious of POV, if so prove it. Do you have any objective issues against me that don't rely on someone's prejudice? Darrenss (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are an activist againt the subject of this article, if you like I will go over your contributions and see if there are issues, I notice you have added attack sites against the church and expanded the critisism section, but I have not gone over all the contributions, better if you just take it off your watchlist imo. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop repeating that I am an activist against the church, this is completely false and is an attempt at poisoning the well. You do your position no justice when you give little qualifications and frame of reference. As for the attack sites, what and where are you talking about, I don't even know what you mean. I have been on here for 4 years and all that time there have been no problems, so unless you want to plz explain, I will go along as normal. I am waiting for your better explanation, I am an innocent party here and you people are falsely accusing me.Darrenss (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Church Statistics
What bothers me about these statistics is every different PH website I browse has a different figure, eg on the Perth Website they state CFM has 1,700 but before it was changed last month it read 1400. The CFM website States 1400 in 100 countries (which is what I have been quoting). World CFM states 1700 churches, the Door in Peoria (website maintained by Ed Kidwell) states 1500 churches worldwide..etc So claiming church numbers leaves independent people unsure as to what the best estimates are since the numbers come "through the grapevine" of the church themselves. Does anyone know exactly how many churches they have? No. Does anyone know how many churches have left the group or closed down? I doubt it. So in that case my solution for this article is to simply say it as the facts have it. Why state they have X number in X countries when the figures are unverified anyway and the figures come from the church themselves, even so they are just estimates and unverified, so the question is where do THEY get their figures from? Darrenss (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Darren, let the fellowship's own web sites tell their story, they represent reliable sources. Sounds to me they are consistent is saying almost 1,700 churches. The site www.christianfellowshipministry.com has not existed since March of 2008 according to web.archive.org so the number 1400 would simply be an out of date number. Since worldcfm.com is the official site of the fellowship then maybe this can be taken as quite authoritive and potentially verifiable through the fellowship's contact listing detailing every fellowship pastor's contact details. A single churches web site, thedoorpeoria.com, should not be treated too harshly, they have simply failed to update their site with current figures. The number of churches which have closed down is irrelevant, just as for example the count of the number of McDonalds stores which have closed down is irrelevant to their size. Darren, if you want to personaally verify every existing Potters House church I am happy to give you the PUBLISHED mailing list and let you have fun telephoning the pastors yourself. Your negative bias in your comments above is quite obvious.Wcwarren (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Closed and departed churches are relevant since the church does not keep track of them, as mentioned they had 2 large exoduses in 1990 and 2001. As stated many times, a mailing list is not proof that wikipedia accepts. So how does the church track their numbers and where can a reliable source be found? You've gone from 1400, to 1600, to 1650, now to almost 1700 in a month, where do you get your facts from and how can you prove it? According to Charisma magazine CFM had some 800 churches in 2001, they reported that in 1990 100 pastors left and in 2001 160 of the 800 churches left, this is relevant to the article, Charisma news. Darrenss (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Darren, again the PUBLISHED fellowship mailing list BOOK is a reliable document which is easily verified since it contains all ACTIVE church pastors, their names, addresses and phone numbers. This now totals almost 1,700 churches. I have a copy of this book on my desk now as I write. Please do not revert the edits that have references and leave the differences in opinion to this discussion page. That is the correct way to manage this issue, not in an edit war.Wcwarren (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There does not seem to be anyway to resolve the issue of hyperbole and self promotion; what I mean is if the quotes of church numbers comes from the church (or administrators of the church websites), what stops them from claiming they have 2000, or even 2500? Aren't their webistes also for the purpose of self promotion? All I asked before was how does the church admin's know how many churches they have other than in the form of an announcement? Eg - Direct quote "The January 2011 Prescott Bible Conference was an unusally powerful week of ministry....." "Praise God for His favor and blessing upon our fellowship as we have seen tremendous growth to nearly 1700 churches worldwide, over 1100 of which have been planted since 1990." Darrenss (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a common issue on Wikipedia and the solution isn't complicated. Rather than deciding which one answer is right we include all reliably sourced answers. So we could say something like, "Movement websites report that there are from 1200 to 1700 churches in the fellowship. The Oneida Daily Sun says there are 1375, and religious scholar John Doe says the number is unknown."   Will Beback    talk    23:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've completed a reasonably thorough search for online sources of any statistics for the Potters House and have not been able to find any recent ones. There is no disagreement amongst updated sources published by the organisation itself so these have been used. There is no reason to suggest that these are inflated or inaccurate in any way. Similarly the sources used for the size of McDonalds are published by the organisation istelf. If any reliable independent source is identified it should be included as suggested above. Wcwarren (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

WHOCARES DARREN Steven  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.165.136 (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Still a mess, not NPOV
Although it looks like this was complained about four years ago, this article is still a mess and reads like advertisement/propaganda overall. This starts at "is a bible-based fellowship" (denominations do not agree among themselves what "bible-based" means, and claims made about religious dogma should be reported as self-reporting, not as fact as it is done here. Mathlaura (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am a member of Victory Chapel Christian Center Havelock NC
I have been in this Church for about a year now and am concerned about this article. Not because I worry about this church's beliefs or methods, but because the objections to it are the fundamental reasons why churches are falling apart today. Since when is it brainwashing for a church to set standards for those in ministry? Since when is it wrong for a church to have set theologies for its members to believe? I have read a few of the sources linked in reference to the reported controversies in the fellowship. They dont appear to be valid complaints much less objective complaints by christian people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.69.30 (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (Removed several paragraphs unrelated to discussion of how to improve this article.) WP:NOT. &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific regarding the actual statements in the article especially that of the criticism section if you want to see it changed. The article is supposed to present the issues regarding the church, when it can be presented from independant sources. So what the church says about itself is all good, however the church has received critisicism which even christian groups believe to be viable. Therefore the article presents but a brief few excepts in order to attempt to overview the greater issues. Darrenss (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I first became affiliated with the potters house in 2005. My wife and I and our daughter attended a movie and gave our lives to Christ that night. We were addicted to meth and were radically saved and delivered that night from a drug we could not escape previously. After my life was cleaned up due to Christs teachings being preached and applying them and the church guidelines to our lives, I began to be attracted to things I was seeing others have and do in my workplace and in general. I knew these things did not offer me peace or happiness but they were pleasing to me in other ways that I had come to know that with discipline I could live without. My fight was with myself and my own conscience, knowing myself i knew these things would eventually lead me to allowing other things in my life that would eventually destroy me and all that God had done BUT I wanted them and every day I wanted them more. To fight myself I began to attack my own conscience thinking to myself any excuse or contradiction any crack I could find in the armor any wrong my pastor had preached or done as well as others in my church. Eventually I began to speak these things to others, my pastor, my brethren. And eventually I had self destructed all that was keeping me from allowing myself to indulge in these things. A beer at dinner, New cars i could not afford, A look here at a pretty girl a look there, a curse word here and there. Eventually I woke up homeless on the street with new addictions and new problems, afraid to go back to what had saved me because I had bashed my church and pastor and all they believed in, I exaggerated and out of context accused and lied. I knew others who were not in the church would eat up all that I said and they did. I had to justify for myself why it was ok for me to indulge in all the world had for me since I was all cleaned up. So I can only speak for me and my actions I accused this church of all the same nasty things I read on the internet and some of it I took from those posts and made my own.

This Church has done nothing but help and care and love me and my family. I cant explain how it is to live a disciplined life to those who have not experienced it but it is a struggle against yourself everyday but the rewards are so worth it and to see Jesus's promises coming true in your life as you cut out certain negative things and make stands is awesome and so fulfilling. Its hard and it doesn't always feel good to admit you have been making wrong decisions and to allow someone else to guide and speak into your life and in some ways have control and at most to give all control to God and give up the reins. After all that I have done and the people I have hurt in my self destruction I was accepted back with open arms and all the love again. I don't know what gains there is to take back someone who has done this to you so I know Gods love is real in this church. It is not easy sometimes to live in contradiction to the world as it has no discipline and is all indulging and accepting of never ending paths and things that can be good and some that can be so fun but so bad. To say I am not going to partake of the all you can eat gratification of things and stuff and lifestyles can be crushing without a God who is bigger than the world and all it offers. I get that some have accused this church of abuse ,myself included but long before I was welcomed back I understood that I was not fair in my accusations and some flat out lies I dare to say I understood as I was accusing. This church and its standards and expectations to actively apply and live the life that God and His Word teach, has positively changed my life and so many others. I do not believe there is any bad intentions or abuse by the leadership and ministry of CFM or my Pastor M Benavidez. I have been the victim only of the abuses that I self inflicted in my destructive decline and in fact I am guilty of being the abuser. I ask that all those who I hurt would please forgive me and have mercy on me, I am sorry for the hurt I caused anyone. I hope to at the least give an understanding why someone would accuse a church of this abuse and hope to for at least those whose minds are not already made up and against the Church regardless of accusations, for them I hope to clear the name of Christ and The Potters House Christian Fellowship, CFM, Pastor Mithchel and my Pastor M. Benavidez who's obedience to the call on his life and persistence guided me and my family to our Savior Jesus Christ.

E.S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.235.12 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Credal concerns
There is referenced RS evidence of concern about residual inclinations towards modalism, although it is also recognised TD Jakes has moved away from his Oneness roots. I have added mention of this.Cpsoper (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Potter's House Christian Fellowship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228174644/http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/11249 to http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/11249
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515061419/http://www.pottershouse.com.au/fairfield/ to http://www.pottershouse.com.au/fairfield
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516153729/http://klemzig.pottershouse.com.au/ to http://klemzig.pottershouse.com.au/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130721011616/http://thepottershouseballarat.com/ to http://www.thepottershouseballarat.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wayman Mitchell AfD 3-25-2020
Feel free to vote at Articles_for_deletion/Wayman_Mitchell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was deleted.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested edit 7 August, 2020
My name is (redacted) and Nick Sayers made comments about me quite a few years ago in this article accusing me of impersonating him. What I did was an obvious parody of him and the other "disciples" in Wayman Mitchell's fellowship, with the most popular name of his churches being The Potter's House. The parody that I did was posted on Yahoo groups, and Yahoo recently deleted all their groups, and the one that Nick Sayers was referencing was long gone anyway. This article still comes up on Google searches for my name, (redacted), and I would request that my name be removed from all of the text, as it is no longer relevant. Ironically, Nick Sayers left his Potter's House church years ago, and now opposes Wayman Mitchell and his fellowship of churches. Nick transformed his website, http://waymanmitchell.com/, which once praised Mitchell, into a site "exposing CFM," aka, Christian Fellowship Ministries, which is the legal name of Wayman's religious organization. Nick hasn't done much work on the website since he changed it over, about five years ago or so, but if you click on "critics of the Potter's House," you will find his objections to Wayman Mitchell and his fellowship, http://www.waymanmitchell.com/Critics.htm  Ironically, that section used to have much of the same accusations of myself and other ex members of the Potter's House that are in this Wiki discussion. I would appreciate the removal of my name from the discussion to avoid it being pulled up on Google searches for my name, (redacted), and considering that Nick Sayers is now also cursed by the religious fellowship of Wayman Mitchell, you might consider scrapping the discussion altogether. Nick Sayers is now considered to be "unsaved" by the leaders and pastors of The Fellowship, as insiders call it, and the fact that he now says that the tithing law of The Fellowship is pure legalism, and is false doctrine, makes him particularly despised by the leadership of The Potter's House. Last I checked, Nick is still into his own version of Christian faith and considers himself an expert Bible translator. Thank you for considering my request.

(redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:4fc0:d:919b:5abe:bc7a:9415 (talk) 15:45, August 7, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are wanting to remove. I can't find any "(redacted)" in the article. Maybe I'm missing somthing? &thinsp;Darth&thinsp; Flappy   &laquo;Talk&raquo;  00:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The request is not to edit the article, rather to remove his name from the Talkpage archives. Thus I removed it from Archive3 and Archive4. no problem. CatCafe (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatCafe (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The dubious nature of verifiable sources
I wanted to address this issue as it seems to be a round and round argument that seems to flow away from true article neutrality.

Ex. If I'm active within a group for 30 years, having lived in different countries outside the direct influence of international leaders and have seen the workings of the group across culture and national boundaries, am I less unbiased or less credible then someone who was never a member but has heard from other sources that are considered experts in the matter? The answer is not a simple one for the following reasons:

1. I could be hiding something. 2. I could be a fanatical loyalist who only sees the good in everything the group does. 3. I could be a secret "double agent" gaining credibility in order to undermine the group. 4. The expert could be hiding something. 5. The expert could be a fanatical loyalist who only sees the good in everything the group does. 6. The expert could be a secret "double agent" gaining credibility in order to undermine the group. .... Or... I could be normal and see the good and the bad. Or... The expert could be normal and see the good and the bad.

How is "neutrality" decided? What is usually the case is "the expert" trumps "the member" regardless.

Here is where the problem lies... In my own opinion "the expert" tends to take the safe opinion which normally is suspicion. We tend to live on the negative side of life (look at Yelp). Most vocalized information is negative. If you don't believe that, work for a call center and tell me how many people call just to tell you how great a job you doing. People tend to be quiet when things are good and yell when they are not.

That's why am I writing this, because I have something to complain about! (BTW I do love Wiki and greatly appreciate it's work tremendously).

I read the Potter's House article and truly feel it's present form is probably more neutral then anything I've read from other sources. Has the Potter's House ever crossed the line on issues? It would not be a work of humans if it didn't!

Have their been dangerous abuses? Here's the big problem. Who's to say. Ahh... the experts, those credible sources. Is there really a such thing? Can anyone claim absolutely neutrality? Only liars can make that claim and usually very adamantly. We as humans START with bias and then work out from there. Nobody starts from neutral because you can't start from neutral. We are not cars. Humans never turn off. They are always going. Forward or backward, right or left. WE START FROM THE DIRECTION WE ARE ALREADY GOING. For the happy member (as I am) I start from happy and move from there. I have seen some pastors who are too heavy handed. I've seen others that are very passive. Can the group be blamed for this? Can the same group make some passive and others aggressive at the same time? Or, like the expert, the credible source, are they interpreting what they see and hear through the direction they are already going? I think I've made my point.

So here is what I feel is the only reasonable solution to this and every other matter the rises to controversy. Innocent until proven guilty. If one person states a fact and another provides evidence that opposes that fact, both should be included in some non-slanted form. Not one trumps the other (unless it is proven fabricated).

While I appreciate using tests to determine validity, the tests are also interpreted by biased humans. Case in point, this ridiculous argument over how many churches. This is a childish argument and in no way reflects well on Wikipedia. There is a clear bias inferred by "the experts" which says "The Potter's House doesn't have X amount of churches." echoed by the editor Darren. That point of view validates or invalidates sources. It becomes "that sounds credible to me." When there is opposing information, it isn't credible.

It has been clearly stated there is a Fellowship Directory. I have one as a pastor. The reason why only pastors have them is because they contain personal names, addresses, email, cell phone numbers of pastors; sufficient information for malicious intent, including identity theft. To say it's not a credible source is just plain laughable. The entries are sent by the individuals to their pastor, who sends them up the line until they reach Prescott where the entire list is compiled. The list is self correcting as most pastors when they receive a new copy of the mailing list checks first to find out if his information is correct. This is from experience. After all, it has travelled through sometimes 3 or 4 people. That compiled list is probably missing SOME updated information. Now before you jump, the reason it won't contain churches that have closed down or misinformation is because it is the sending pastor's responsibility to update that info. Also, fabricated information would be immediately recognized by other pastors (there's no church in X city, I'm near there, he's no longer in the fellowship, etc.) and he will relay that info up the line back to Prescott. With regard to what Darren likes to describe as a "mass Exodus" is a fabrication. For many of those churches it was the pastors that left, not the congregations and often not even their baby church's pastors. I was there when we sent in new workers to many of those places. So the church locations by and large remained in tact. I might point out to me personally, this idea of 100's of churches is ludicrous, and I firmly believe that is what drives the questioning of credibility. So here is the supposed "unbiased" credible source response to the Fellowship directory: "That number cannot be correct because it has been speculated by a credible source that 100's of churches have in fact (note: "speculated by" becomes "in fact" because of the premise already in place) left the fellowship. So now a solidly networked, self correcting, compiled, and edited, reliable document is no longer credible. So.....

Again just to restate: Innocent until proven guilty. if one person states a fact and another provides evidence against that opposes that fact, BOTH should be included in some non-slanted form.

Example: "According to Potter's House in house documentation, they have 1700 churches although Charisma magazine speculates the number as less (1400)." Is that not a truly neutral statement?

All the best in your impossible task WIKI! - David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.13.86 (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I added a content to this page that was directly from a book endorsed by the Fellowship. Im not sure why it was removed. Im all about providing an unbiased view and perspectives from both sides Lahvis (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some objectivity with regards to references
Hi. I have noticed in this article all references are from individuals and groups who have subjective viewpoints that are quite obviously against Wayman Mitchell and the Pottershouse Fellowship. It is to the point of embarrassing to not bother to find out what the man himself has to say for the events of his church and fellowship since 1970. All the references are from The Foursquare who had a falling out with him, and backsliders who obviously have some issues with him. For example, to not include at the beginning of the article that the Prescott Church he was asked to take over had just had a moral failure (meaning that the previous pastor had committed adultery) seems to be a conscious choice to avoid any negative light to be shone on the Foursquare Fellowship. Furthermore, there is clear avoidance of the real reason Pastor Mitchell broke off from the Foursquare Fellowship; The Foursquare Fellowship were not accepting hippies and street people into their churches, and only wanted prim and proper folk in their ranks. Pastor Mitchell accepted the hippies because he saw that this was a move of God, which has been coined the "Jesus People Movement" of the late 1960's and into the 1970's and 1980's. I suggest that a more balanced set of references would bring about an objective article rather then a slander of Wayman Mitchell and the Pottershouse Fellowship. I recommend "The Regions Beyond" by John W. Gooding as one source that is biased towards Pastor Mitchell, as opposed to all the ones in use that are biased against him. SamFraser123 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Sam, I have extensively searched for sources to ensure the page has a neutral point of view. Unfortunately, the vast majority of available references are negative, so the page reflects that. I would welcome any new sources you can offer as long as they meet Wikipedia's guidelines. The guidelines require that we firstly use secondary sources for information. WP:SECONDARY Unfortunately, as John Gooding is a pastor in the Potter's House and worked closely with Wayman Mitchell to write his books, he is a primary source. Further, his books are self-published WP:SELFPUB rather than published by a reliable, independent publisher, which again makes it not acceptable. In order to put information such as the "Church he was asked to take over had just had a moral failure" or "The Foursquare Fellowship... only wanted prim and proper folk in their ranks.", you would need to provide a reliable, independently published secondary source. Find that and I would be happy to help you add it to the page. All the best. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬   𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   15:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey Johnny, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Given your response, I think I would have to conclude that I disagree with Wikipedias policy of only using secondary sources. I understand the obvious tendency toward bias, but considering the overwhelming bias against The PottersHouse in this article, it would make sense to atleast include a different perspective. Do Wikipedia never accept first hand accounts? This seems like basic journalism to me given they are going to be more accurate and don't suffer from being second hand information, hence why we call them secondary sources. They should remain that way: secondary. But if Wikipedia are happy to keep publishing misleading information, not much I can do. Thanks again for the quick response. SamFraser123 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Beliefs
Church Beliefs added to the page with reference to the published statement of faith for comprehensive value (amended as a summary) RoundField (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hi. I have removed the articles on Tony Huang and the Potter's House marriage seminar because while the newspapers may themselves be reliable sources, personal testimonies and advertisements are not, and are not permitted on Wikipedia, even when printed in a newspaper. WP:SOAPBOX If you think these articles should be included, then you need to demonstrate how it meets the standards required by Wikipedia before inserting them again. Cheers! 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬  𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   12:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Extensive Rebuild
This whole article should be rebuilt to make it more informative. Similar large church organisations such as Hillsong, Calvary Chapel and Vineyard Churches provide good models. Wcwarren (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Article Changes
In the spirit of Wikipedia anybody can make changes to any article. If the change is bad it can be reverted. If the change improves the article but somebody doesn't like then then a reversion should discussed. Please use this process so that this article can be improved. Not every change should be a battle argued about first. Wcwarren (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Page Short Description
Please improve any change or discuss any edits on the Talk page instead of simply reverting a change. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes. Let's work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.

Every edit and improvement should not have to be a contested battle.

The added Short Description is essentially the same as that accepted for Hillsong church. Let's be fair and equitable please. The mobile version of Wikipedia requests a short description which has now been added. Wcwarren (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You’re certainly making a lot of undiscussed changes for someone who wants people to discuss changes before making them. Okay, why don’t we start from scratch. You’ve made a few points so let’s discuss them. Firstly, the article is about the Potters House organisation and not about the church in Prescott. I agree. I changed the short description based on your comment. However, the rest of the article *is* about the organisation, not the specific church. Having details about the head church in the infobox is perfectly fine and I see no reason to change this. Other pages have it, still others don’t. If you do think it needs to be changed, please feel free to explain your reasoning before changing it again. On that note, you have also deleted correct information from the infobox (that the fellowship came out of the Foursquare church) and added incorrect information (that the fellowship came out of the Jesus movement. Please provide reliable sources if you disagree). I have gone ahead and corrected this pending anyone supplying a RS to show otherwise, at which point we can add it alongside the Foursquare information.
 * Next, please do not delete reliably sourced information and change unrelated text in a single edit, then add a comment only about the unrelated text you changed, as you did with the short description. That doesn’t look good, especially as you’re not a new editor. On a side note and further to that same edit, please make sure you don’t mark changes as minor edits when they are not. Please click the link and familiarise yourself with the differences between a major and minor edit, but in a nutshell, “Checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor.”
 * I think it’s also important to note the potential conflict of interest you have. I see from the talk pages that you are a member of the Potter’s House (please correct me if you no longer are) and as such are more likely to be biased towards this organisation. That’s human nature. It’s just important that if you intend to edit this page, you take time to make sure that bias doesn’t get in the way of good editing. You may find this guide useful: Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * I have a couple of questions about some statements you have made on your talk page. You state, “It seems the same old issues have resurfaced as were around a decade ago. This just shows people don't change!” Can you please elaborate on what old issues you are referring to? Also, which people are you referring to? As far as I can see, the only editor here from a decade ago is yourself. I’m curious to know what you mean?
 * Finally, I have restored the version prior to all your edits today as it was easier than trying to correct the errors one by one, and then re-added the changes you made which were good. Let's go from here. Have a great day! 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬  𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   14:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @JohnnyBflat
 * You are clearly simply oppositional to this organisation and its correct representation on Wiki. Reverting edits is not the way to resolve issues. I have made correct and useful changes in good faith, a job I don't see you doing. Wcwarren (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are you refusing to engage in a constructive discussion? I have asked you several pertinent questions relating to editing this page and instead of a civil discussion, you respond with accusations and a belligerent attitude. Please address the questions. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬  𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   13:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * please stop with the wild accusations and threats (you posted substantially the same thing on my talk page at User talk:Willondon. The short description I reverted read "Facts, details and history of this global church organisation that started over 50 years ago", not the one you are proposing.   signed, Willondon (talk)  16:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Focus Of This Article
This article is about the Potters House organisation and not about the church of the same name in Prescott Arizona. Edits need to be consistent with this focus and will make the article more useful. Wcwarren (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Since other editors acknowledge this fact, any reverted edits are simply oppositional and not useful changes. No discussion has been lodged here on this topic but edit reverts have been done instead. Wcwarren (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s very disingenuous of you. Discussion *has* been lodged above as you are clearly aware based on your comment. It is literally the first paragraph of my response. Here it is again, in bold, to save you time trying to find it: "The article is about the Potters House organisation and not about the church in Prescott. I agree. I changed the short description based on your comment. However, the rest of the article *is* about the organisation, not the specific church. Having details about the head church in the infobox is perfectly fine and I see no reason to change this. Other pages have it, still others don’t. If you do think it needs to be changed, please feel free to explain your reasoning before changing it again. On that note, you have also deleted correct information from the infobox (that the fellowship came out of the Foursquare church) and added incorrect information (that the fellowship came out of the Jesus movement. Please provide reliable sources if you disagree). I have gone ahead and corrected this pending anyone supplying a RS to show otherwise, at which point we can add it alongside the Foursquare information." Please address this as well as the other issues posted above. We’re trying to work with you here but your decision to ignore the discussion is making it difficult. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬   𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   13:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK Johnny. You have exceeded the limits of reverting edits without discussing them. The reverts should be discussed and not simply implemented by you or others. Nobody needs to discuss their changes with any individual before they make them unless they are simply reverting another's edit.
 * You agree that the article is about the organisation then why is there information about a specific branch of the church?
 * If there are other unresolved issues about this article please open a new topic. Wcwarren (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not just any old branch of the church. You know as well as I that Prescott is the mother church of the organisation, Wayman Mitchell started the organisation from there and operated from there for the vast majority of his time as the head of the church. If someone stuck a local church in the infobox I would delete it myself, however, having the mother church is perfectly appropriate. If, however, you feel so strongly about organisations not having their mother church in the infobox, I encourage you to head on over to the Hillsong page and remove the mother church details from that infobox as well. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬  𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   12:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @JohnnyBflat Thanks for your thoughts. Yes Prescott is the mother church of the Potters House Fellowship but little more. It is not the headquarters of a denomination or the head church. Other similar churches don't have the founding congregation in their infobox so this looks peculiar to the average reader. (Eg Calvary Chapel, Vineyard Churches or the Foursquare Church) The typical reader is looking for organisational information and not for a specific congregation. You have already admitted that the article is about the fellowship and not Prescott. The other significant churches in the Potters House Fellowship should have their own entries in Wikipedia, just like Hillsong does for some of its branches. Wcwarren (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve stated previously that some organisations have it and others don’t, so you’re just reiterating my point. How do you know what the typical reader is looking for? The article is about the fellowship. The infobox is not the article. Whether or not other branches of the organisation should have their own entries is irrelevant to this discussion. You still haven’t provided a compelling argument to remove it. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬  𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   09:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @JohnnyBflat The infobox is part of the article! Claiming it is somehow independent from the article it is hosted in is illogical. "The article is about the fellowship." That should be the end of the story. Content needs a reason to remain. This content is out of pattern for church articles and not representative of the organisation. The onus is on you to prove why the content should remain. Wcwarren (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Read This First If You Really Care!
There are many authors who wish to make useful changes to this article. Such work should be encouraged so unless you are working for the article's improvement by adding or changing poor content then your involvement is easily questioned. Wcwarren (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Assume authors are working in good faith
 * Changes don't need to be discussed first.
 * Reverted edits should always be discussed first. Why? This article has a long history of biased resistance to positive change. This hostile climate needs to change since it is not consistent with the spirit of our Wikipedia.
 * This “hostile climate” you are referring to has been generated by you alone. It did not exist prior to your return to editing this page. You have made threats and accusations, demanded no changes be made without discussion while continuing to make changes without discussing them yourself, and have ignored attempts to engage with you in good faith. If you want the “hostile climate” to end, stop creating it, stop acting like everyone is against you, and start working with us. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬   𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   13:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply reverting edits without discussion is obstructionist and not helpful to creating a better article. This childish behaviour should stop. If others care enough to edit and create useful content then that shows greater interest in the article than your possessive resistance to useful change.
 * You seem to have a strong bias against the Potters House organisation which is seen in your stream of negative edits.
 * If you actually care so much about this article then help us to make it better with genuinely useful content instead of just getting in the way of others. Use the same standard you expect of others and "Again, please use the talk page before deleting reliably sourced information." Wcwarren (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing poor quality edits is expected. I have left your good edits in place. Can you please point out the reliably sourced information you claim I have deleted? I have gone through the page revision history and cannot find any. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬  𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   12:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m still waiting for you to point out the reliably sourced information you claim I have deleted. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬  𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮   09:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @JohnnyBflat I have simply quoted your standard back to you. I have provided reliable information that you have deleted instead of discussing it. Wcwarren (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)