Talk:Redeemed Christian Church of God

Untitled
It looks like the text appearing on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemed_Christian_Church_of_God hasn't got any attribution, but contains exactly the same verbiage as appears at http://www.rccgna.org/origin.asp and I wondered who was copying whom.

Is there any verification, other than from the rccgna.org site, regarding the organization's locations, practices, scope, size, or other attributes?

Also: The article takes a point of view that is decidedly not neutral. For example, the phrase 'idol worshippers' is appears intended to denigrate persons of other religious sects based on their differing faiths or practices. Additionally, the history given in this piece is not attributed to any source or observer or reporting person, but stated as fact, even when the described events are admittedly miraculous. Ordinarily when miraculous events are described other than by adherents, there is some effort made to assign the belief to some particular person or class of believers. In other words, a history reporting the Catholic view of Christ would not state that his mother had never engaged in sexual intercourse, but that adherents believe his mother to have been a virgin. Thus, one need not prove truth of the underlying miracle, but merely document the ascribed belief is held by the organization. One fix might be to say that "according to rccgna.org, the following miracle ...." Assuming Wikipedia does not intent to take the position of an adherent to every religion described on the site, neutral POV would call for some editing.

First, though: who owns the copyright to the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea-dragons (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the text has just been re-posted from the RCCG website. Page needs complete rewriting.

I've added an external link to a PhD thesis on the RCCG available online. This should be useful for rewriting this page in a neutral manner as it contains an academic history of the RCCG.

Johnstoj (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
An appalling article, littered with biased commentary, it reads as little more than a press release produced by a supporter of this church. It has little independent analysis, no criticism, little verification, and is mediocre in the extreme. 213.94.210.30 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit
I've edited some of the more egregious fluff and nonsense out, but the whole thing is still completely unsourced: if anyone wants to have a go at finding some citations for claims about the sect's presence in various territories, it would definitely improve the article ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Aggressively anti-gay
How about some mention of the fact that the church is strongly and vocally anti-gay rights?

http://www.modernghana.com/news/497593/1/pastor-adeboye-rccg-and-homophobia-in-the-pacific.html

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/redeemed-christian-church-of-god/

http://www.gbooza.com/profiles/blogs/anti-gay-bill-can-pfn-bakare-adeboye-josef-bassey-say-god-hates#axzz2t9KoCNjV

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12churches-t.html?ref=magazine

Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * While I respect your stance on homosexuality, I do not think Wikipedia should be used as an avenue to support the pro-gay cause. There is simply no big deal about a clergyman denouncing homosexuality. More than half of the world still do not welcome homosexual acts. I do not support the inclusion of that information on this article. It will be WP:UNDUE. Darreg (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Gerald Fnord (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC) While preachers of various sects may well still condemn a practice, few have achieved the kevel of success at getting that condemnation written into the laws if their nation. Wikipedia may make note of this achievement without passing judgement as to whether this were a boon to humanity, a triumph of superstitious bigotry, or both or yet something else.