Talk:Rock Church (San Diego)

Criticism
a new criticism section has been added. given the scope of political action and the church's influence in the san diegan community, I believe this is a more than appropriate category for an organization of this size. Scottdude2000 (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The additions were very lightly sourced, used a great deal of WP:POV language, and also included a good deal of original research. Please propose language here for inclusion, if notable and verifiable.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually eliminated a lot of the POV on this page which is interesting that you reverted to that. again if you have a problem with one of the sources feel free to edit it. but there are almost as many sources in my one section than the rest of the article. Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh - lost comments in edit conflict. Scottdude2000 - your addition has serious problems with verifiability, original research, non-neutral language, and appears to be a non-notable WP:COATRACK issue, tangential to the subject of the article.  It also may be in conflict with WP:BLP.  You should discuss and propose changes here on the discussion pages to avoid appearing WP:TEND.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * you weren't even on this page until you found out I was on it! I made a note of it and gave it some time and no one cared so I did it. help me refine the language if you want! but the sources are pretty good and there are more of them and more reliable ones than the rest of the article so whats the deal. are you the church police? are you just trying to make sure no one ever says anything negative about churches on wikipedia? they played a huge role in political campaigns! how is this not notable!? are we not allowed to talk about what the topics of our articles do anymore? if so then whats the point of wikipedia. listen I just got the ball rolling on this. I never at any point claimed it was perfect. I spent a couple hours researching for each article. feel free to edit with me. BUT completely removing criticisms is not an acceptable option dude! thats not neutral! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to post your suggested addition to this page, and we can deconstruct it. As it is, though, sermons are not verifiable sources, and your characterization of the sources would be considered original research and WP:NPOV.  Additionally, this addition seems very WP:UNDUE and not notable.  Most evangelical churches consider marriage to only be between a man and woman.  This doesn't make them "anti-gay rights".  I am not the "church police", and I have no problem with valid, notable, properly-sourced criticisms.  In cases where churches are expressing a common doctrine (example: support of heterosexual-only marriage), this isn't notable.  If a duck quacks, wikipedia doesn't need every article on ducks to note that they quack.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't just quote a sermon. I quoted their beliefs page and many other pages establishing the church opposes gay marriage. I'm not light on sources dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Criticisms section
The Rock opposes same sex marriage. In 2007 it strongly supported the Save Our Kids Coalition (later dissolved from within to direct its efforts towards passing the Proposition 8 ballot measure) in order to stop and later reverse California's SB777 (an anti education discrimination law which aimed to eliminate discrimination in schools against GLBT students). In 2008 it was an avid and active supporter in the Proposition 8 ballot initiative which drew the ire of the local GLBT community as it funded and supported (through volunteers) The Call (a political prayer gathering in support of Prop 8).


 * Issues: 1) This appears to be a WP:COATRACK for the issue of same sex marriage, for which The Rock is not a notable leader, nor a deviation from the norm. Evangelical churches do not support same sex marriage, so it isn't notable that The Rock is a typical evangelical church in this regard.  2) This appears to give undue weight to the issue of the Rock's opposition of same sex marriage, which might be an issue to a niche group, but is not deserving of such weight.  3) "strongly supported" is WP:POV and a matter of opinion, not fact.  4) Save our Kids Coalition is also not notable to this entry (along with the WP:NOR characterization of it.  5) Opposition to Prop 8 and SB777 isn't notable for California evangelical churches.  6) "avid and active supporter" is (again) WP:POV language.  6) Drawing the ire of local GBLT community isn't notable, in and of itself, and is not supported via a WP:V source.  7) the Call is also not WP:V and appears to be WP:NOR.


 * That's a tough hill to climb for including this. None of the attached articles has any support that The Rock is notable for this particular niche criticism.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * it's only a tough hill to climb by your standards since you want absolutely no criticism of any church at any time. The rock was a major leader. Every Californian Christian magazine kept constant track of their progress on the issue. An they were instrumental in pulling off the call which was a major southern Californian political prayer rally that had a stadium fills for 24 hours. Which is noted above. Also the person you swiped that critique from said it is responsible to note the political action a group has performed regardless of their size since that is apart of what their group does. I'll change the criticism POV-y language per his intructions per his suggestions but beyond that idk how much more I can do without an neutral outside opinion besides yours since you only seem to be interested in keeping these edits from going live. You've thrown every excuse in the book since I showed up. You can either contribute to the research or step aside. Stonewalling isn't an option here. Scottdude2000 (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith here, please. It is not *my* standards, but the standards of Wikipedia that I am applying.  I completely agree with the feedback given today in the Saddleback Church discussion page by Magog the Ogre, per his reversions, particularly his reiteration of the Wikipedia guidelines on "criticism" sections vs. integration of valid criticism into relevant sections of an article.


 * In this particular case, WP:UNDUE applies, along with guidelines on verifiability and notability. As Collect noted in the Saddleback article's discussion, one of the principles used in the Saddleback discussion was that a church holding to the doctrine of its denomination is not, in and of itself, notable.  So, in the case of The Rock Church, just because it does not support SSM and the LGBT community disagrees doesn't make it notable.  What makes this notable that is different from any other large Evangelical church?  Simply supporting Prop 8 and being in a long list of co-sponsors doesn't make them notable.  None of the sources you supplied suggested that they were the linchpin in pulling this off.  Also, sermons aren't verifiable sources.  As for asking me to "step aside", I'll let it pass that you're a new editor, but that's not acceptable behavior for editors.  If we cannot reach an agreement, there are other steps we can follow, including asking for a third opinion all the way up to arbitration.  I've been through all of these in other articles, so I'm not afraid to follow them, if we need to.  And since the primary directive here is "do no harm", the burden of proof is on you (not me) to justify the inclusion of contentious material.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * why should I assume good faith when you've personally defended the pastor in question, and you've openly told me on my talk page and others that you don't even think there should be a criticisms section. sounds pretty biased to me. I didn't say it's opposition to gay rights is the reason this should be up. I've been repeating this over and over. they have a large following and a major political player and they were embroiled in a media controversy whether they wanted to or not when rick warren did the interview. it was a national media scandal and it DID affect and involve the church and her assets so it is entirely relevant and magog even said so himself. we did have a third opinion here and you steamrolled him too and he produced an even better iteration of the section than myself. and for the record I've proven the material's validity with good source work and magog agreed that the inclusion was necessary just in more nuanced terms.Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, I think you've got the wrong article in mind. This is The Rock Church article.


 * Secondly, it is the direction and desire of Wikipedia that articles not contain "Criticism" sections (see WP:CRITICISM), which was also cited by Magog as a reason he didn't support criticism sections. This is not to say that legitimate items of criticism should not be included in Wikipedia, but rather that any notable criticisms be seamlessly woven into the articles, themselves, rather than call attention to themselves as a stand-alone section.  This is not some personal axe I am grinding - it is the direction of Wikipedia.


 * Thirdly, the sources cited do not demonstrate that The Rock Church (or Saddleback) is a "major political player". If the pastor of a church is involved in politics, that material rightly belongs on the pastor's article page, not the church's page.  (This has been established in several cases in wikipedia articles, with the most prominent one being the arbitration over Rick Warren and Saddleback in 2009.)  In evangelical Christianity, the pastor is not a CEO who sets church policy or speaks for the church with one voice.  (Catholocism and the Pope may be an exception, but the Evangelical churches are Protestant, not Catholic).


 * Fourthly, I think you misread Magog's response (and you're welcome to ask him), but he didn't rule on any merits as to the inclusion of the material you suggested.


 * Finally, with verifiable sources (see WP:V for the definition of what is truly a verifiable source - self-published pages on a church website, blogs, etc. do not qualify), please demonstrate (with quotes from these sources) that The Rock Church is notable (abnormally and significantly different from other Evangelical churches) in its support of traditional marriage, and that it has abnormal and significant influence - as a church - in this debate. Without a high level of notability, Magog is right that is it not fit for inclusion, and simply a WP:COATRACK for an unrelated issue.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also - if you so desire - once you've crafted a section for inclusion in the article, we can request a third opinion if we are unable to reach an agreement as to the notability and/or potential WP:UNDUE weight such a section would have in this article.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) sure did. wires crossed but I came up with a solution in the other one I'll prolly carry over here somehow because it's just a good way to avoid criticism language. 2) see 1. 3) if all I have to do is find one source that shows it was a major political player to satisfy you request (it won't since you have no desire to see this go live) then I'll find it soon enough. I'm gonna focus on saddleback first though. too many articles. 4) he ruled on the neccesity to cover political action. he even stated it would be within the bounds of the article's scope to show activism. but he merely stated an opinion which I somehwta agree with that it often becomes weighted to modern issues and criticisms. I'm going to be conscious of this in my revisions. 5) they don't normally qualify unless it's the original material. or should I run out and get some out of context quote that you'll surely complain about as about to what came straight from the horse's mouth? This will go live soon enough... don't you worry. Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * With #3 realize that it is a two-part test: First, the article needs to demonstrate that the church was a major political player (clearly different than other Evangelical churches in CA responding to Prop 8), and secondly (like w/ Rick Warren and Saddleback) that it is not simply the pastor giving an opinion, but the church itself pushing a notable agenda. The notability test is important.  As it is, if a church's support of Prop 8 was notable for wikipedia inclusion, 95% of churches in CA would need to have their Wikipedia pages altered to include sections on Prop 8.  What needs to be demonstrated is that the church was unusual (for a large Evangelical church) in its opposition to Prop 8.


 * Example: Almost all ducks quack. The base article on ducks notes that they quack.  There is no need to call out a duck's quacking on the wikipedia page for every subspecies of duck.  Only if the quacking of a subspecies of duck was significantly and prominently different than the quacking of other ducks would it be notable.  In the case of this article (and the Saddleback one), nearly all Evangelical churches and all SBC churches only support traditional marriage, and none came out in opposition to Prop 8.  So, in order to make a big deal out of The Rock (or Saddleback) supporting Prop 8, the verifiable source needs to demonstrate that the church was significantly and prominently different than the rest of similar churches in its support of Prop 8.


 * With #4, take notice of Collect's point (recognized by Magog) that the Saddleback article was part of the Rick Warren arbitration, which agreed that the pastor is not the church, and that criticisms should not be duplicated across both entities, but should be clearly delineated. We cannot conflate pastor and church as equivalent.


 * With #5, verifiability requires independently published material that, typically, cannot be altered/removed by its source. Church websites are not considered verifiable sources (and wouldn't speak to an independent view of notability, anyway).--Lyonscc (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

this is ll wrong. you're example doesn't even come close to applying since not all church actively take part in politics. in actuality most church's don't because it threatens their tax exempt status. it doesn't need to establish it was a major play also. Magog just said it had to be major action for that body. it is fair to note that an organization is politically active no matter what the scale. wikipedias undue rules just ask that it be kept proportionate to the scale of the article itself. the saddleback pastor example does not apply here. this church used it's resources and it's pulpit to supply volunteers for a 24 hour prayer vigil which it promoted and funded through it's opperation. this is a major political event that carried real weight. they filled a stadium with hundreds of thousands of people for a long time in support of the action... if you think this isn't notable for an article on a church the size of 3500 people then idk what is. if they held an event that brought 3500people to a stadium for a worship conference this would easily make the cut.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is kind of a side note, but I mentioned it before. You stated an opinion as fact with "in actuality most church's don't because it threatens their tax exempt status."  Taking a stand on public policy is clearly allowed for churches and other non profits (as opposed to support for a candidate, which is not).  You may want to review the exempt organizations section of the IRS website. 72Dino (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconding what 72Dino said, churches (and other 501(c)3 organizations) know the rules very well about "politicking" - which only applies to endorsing candidates for office, not taking (or pushing) a position on a particular issue. So this is a complete non-issue.  It is incredibly common for Evangelical churches to be quite vocal in support/opposition of specific issues.  As for The Rock Church, they don't have enough members to "fill a stadium with hundreds of thousands of people", and the blog-accounts I read on the subject suggest that there were members of hundreds of churches from San Diego at one of the Prop 8 support events, so any one church's participation is rather non-notable.  The pastor from The Rock Church was one of several people who spoke at one of these events, and that is included in an article on him, but that has no bearing on justifying its inclusion on the church's article.  If we're going to make a big deal out of the church opposing same-sex marriage, we might as well include that they're pro-life, anti-drug, they believe God created the world, and that they are opposed to polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia, premarital sex, adultery and divorce, as well.  All of these are Evangelical church beliefs and none of them (including opposition to same-sex marriage) is notable.  Gee, it's a duck!  And look, it quacks!  Show me a barking duck here, and then we'll talk.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

you know what.... I agree with you two! the sentence on politicking is a non issue which is why I deleted it myself after coming to the conclusion that it's too POVish. however, if an org also does politics on the side and has major sway in an election... it's defintley 'not a non issue. an orginization which does activism on the side should have that noted about them. it's not like they just said. we're anti gay. that would make it a non issue. most churches are after all. but they didn't just say that. they helped the yes on 8 group run a faith-based campaign in san diego county and cranked through millions of people in one 24hour day over at qualcom... please tell me how that is a small thing that shouldn't be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is, The Rock Church wasn't a unique entity supporting Prop 8 - it was one of hundreds of churches in San Diego county that supported Prop 8 (as you note, this support was unsurprising). How, based on WP:V sources, is TRC uniquely notable out of the hundreds of churches that publicly supported Prop 8?--Lyonscc (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Rock - Temecula Valley
Is there any connection with The Rock Temecula Valley and the San Diego church? Are they part of the same organization, or is it just a coincidence that they share the same name? Is The Rock a denomination similar to Calvary Chapel? Can we have an update by someone familiar with the organization?96.247.7.59 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)