Talk:Scum of the Earth Church

Language comment
The addition of the "Brethren, churchgoers, etc...." seems really excessive. I think it should be edited down. Adowoody238 05:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted this passage because no one took the initiative to talk to me about it. If it is reposted and not edited down, I will do it again.Adowoody238 17:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proofreading of article
After relaunch of article from deletion, proofread to remove any language that appeared unobjective per wiki objectivity rules, use of 3rd person, etc. FlinklockNed 7-30-11 —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

Our People
Our congrigation consists of a lot of different people who feel alone sometimes. The love of Jesus is for everyone, but still a lot of people show up at Scum feeling alone. If you come to Scum, sometimes you may end up feeling left alone. Some of our people like that, sometimes. Some people feel like Scum is an incredibly cliquey place. 24.8.198.60 11:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is because it IS an incredibly cliquey place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepherd119 (talk contribs) 07:27, 6 November 2007

Advertisement?
I'm not sure why this page was marked as having been written like an advertisement. Any thoughts on how we can get rid of this heading? Jtcroft 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, this warning was probably added for content the likes of which Adowoody238 removed. As such, I took down this warning. Jtcroft 21:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability
The article contains references to over 20 items of media coverage on the subject, from the likes of CBS Evening News and The New York Times, making it clearly notable per WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Brianhe (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Most recently article was deleted citing Notability issues. Deletion revoked per request against WP:PRO and cited Westword article as independent verification.  Article is linked in the media section of the page now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlintlockNed (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Article issues
,, The article, as it stands, violates WP:VERIFIABLE. Every factual statement that appears needs to be supported by an attached source. If an entire paragraph is from a source, then a single paragraph footnote can appear at the end of the paragraph. But in an article that was originally placed without references, to be sure that all is verifiable, the text will have to be checked line by line.

As you can imagine, with line after line of unsourced text, and a mega-list of potential sources at the end of article, we are faced with a daunting task, to make this article compliant with WP policies, and therefore encyclopedic.

If I edit it, I will take large blocks of text, out of the main article space, and place them in Talk, until they are sourced, leaving in place the lines whose sources are clear. This is allowed by policy and guidelines.

If you wish, as a regular and interested reader or editor, to prevent this article down-sizing, please either (1) begin to add inline citation footnotes, line by line, and/or (2) identify the small group (perhaps 1-3 or 4) citations that most likely cover the majority of appearing content.

Articles on churches should not for any reason be held to a higher standard than other articles; but they should not be held to any lower of a standard.

Cheers, Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue as I see it is that the sources are not in-line. The sources need to be vetted and moved to in-line. Until that happens, there are no other issues. It does not violate WP:V as it has 22 references, and I'm sure more can be found after 2007. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also sure more can be found. But, Per the summary of WP:VERIFY,"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."


 * And I will say simply, that I challenge the material as it appears, because in my reviewing it, (i) various sentences checked against sources have information distinct from that appearing in the source, and (ii) the text as it stands is not clearly derived from any one or clear subset of the 22 appended sources, as I said above.
 * Because In checking the text, I find discrepancies against the sources consulted, inline citations must be placed. As it stands, I suspect that significant parts of the text contain unpublished personal knowledge, and therefore are WP:OR.
 * Please note that I/we may be sympathetic toward the title subject, but we may not allow them a different standard. I am simply trying to make the article encyclopedic. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that you have not read the content of those references, you just assume that they do not support specific information in the article. if you want to make the article encyclopedic, do the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Chill mate. I think it is very clear from the work today, that I am reading them, and am doing the work (more than any editor of recent history). And having read them, and compared them to the text, I repeat what I said above—that there are repeat occurrences, where the sources are at odds with the article text. As such, and per policy, I challenge the whole of the unsourced block of material, as suspect of not being fully accurate to source (two points minimally define a trend line, three even better, and here there are four five examples of discrepancies found thus far)—as anyone with integrity about their scholarly writing would do. And again, per policy, if the material is challenged, the inline citations must be put in (and again, I have done the work to try to move the article in this way). Tell me, is it better to have the organization's theme statement unsourced, or specifically sourced? Do you disagree with this new trajectory of the article? What is the real issue here? Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Date formats
Eventually, all date formats should indeed be uniform. But for now, I ask that tools to make the dates uniform not be applied until all other major editing to update the article and make it encyclopedic are completed. I ask this because how an access date is written, can in the interim, make clear whether a particular citation has been checked (source to source, and source to text). Applying a tool now destroys all of the in-markup annotations of progress toward completion. I would ask, therefore, that the tools be applied later (if they are still needed, when the process of updating is done). Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As well, because the earlier inline citations were either dead, or incomplete, the citation style for inline has evolved. Now, all inline citations have authors, publication dates, titles, working URLs, access dates, etc. For now, the publication dates are of the format YYYY-MM-DD, so that at a glance, during the overhaul editing, one can tell quickly between sources, which is the most recent (for when information in the source and text are at odds, so one knows which source of history is more recent). Please allow this, until a further discussion displaces the YYYY-MM-DD style. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will not be kowtowing to this request. There no guideline or policy to support the request. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Register, so we can have a discussion. This is a personal request from an editor that has spent hours working to improve the article, to make it encyclopedic. You are not "kowtowing." You are showing mutual respect over a minor point, that as you say, is a matter of discretion, and not policy. As an editor who does much editing, both scholarly and here, one of the biggest wastes of time is trying to edit text where a variety of formats are present. The request to leave the dates YYYY-MM-DD for the present allows for ease of the hard task of editing, pure and simple. For instance, having them in this format allowed me to very quickly sort and order the Further reading, from latest publication to earliest so that most recent sources can be addressed first, in the article's updating. The "19 April" component, while illogical in the long run, makes it easy, during the focused period of editing, to see which sources have been checked for accuracy, lividity, completeness, etc., as well as for accuracy of source to text. I am asking this to ease process, which I've entered into, the first concentrated work in a long time. AGF, and offer respect. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You may have a discussion here. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really from you, mate. Unless the foregoing 23 words is a discussion. Me saying please, you saying no, me saying please again, you not answering! Cheers, bro. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please look to this starting point,, with no organizational Description or Impact sections, essentially no sources at all in the History section (including no source for the organization's theme), all of the in-use citations and several of the Further reading entries incomplete, and with no single style of presenting the references, and dead links in several places… And compare it to now, and tell me you want to go back to the way things were before. If article are to be edited by several, then the idiosyncrasies of others must also be allowed, at least while they are working. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Call for more up to date sources, so citation extraction at a pause
I added the book title of the pastor's memoir, which bears this church's name, to Further reading. This can be extracted carefully—autobiography is not history—especially for his views, stated as his views, and as corroborative of historical details sourced elsewhere.

However, in the earlier described reference list, now listed as Further reading, we are now down to one minor, poorly traceable source to a North Carolin Baptist publication, and then we are back to 2006—and so citations only relevant to history, and not very germane to the contemporary description of the subject. (In the description, using only the citations provided, the most recent description we are able to provide was from 2007.)

I am therefore putting out a general call for newer good citations, to major Denver and national periodicals, that can be used to update the article. Please, if you will, place the newer at the tome pot the Ruther reading list for a while, so we all can see them. (Like the memoir book citation added today.) Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:V
Per WP:Verify, and every other major WP guideline and policy, an article is not verifiable until there are inline citations for material that is questioned. If we are this far apart on this basic tenet of encyclopedic writing, we are unlikely to be able to edit alongside one another (and I have been editing at the article all morning). How shall we proceed? Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:V does not say that content has to have a reference next to it, it only indicates that it has to have a reference. I think you've missed that point. In fact, I would like you to show me that content needs to have the reference immediately next to the content it references. You are simply too green to know that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Walter, MDR, I am not green, you are simply incorrigible. The policy and guidelines are clear. I will not repeat myself. If content is challenged, the inlines have to appear. I have challenged because I have found repeated discrepancies between text and source. Shall we call an admin? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To avoid confusion, it's best to keep the references immediately after the content it refers to. If there is no likelihood of confusion, the ref can be at the end of the sentence, or even paragraph, if all the content is from the ONE source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The refs were added at the end of the article though. That does not mean V is not met, only that it's difficult to match a source with what it's supposed to verify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please AGF and follow stated policies
. Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, MOS:DATERET, and WP's AGF/respect policies: Please correct me if you find me misstating these guidelines.
 * dates are to be uniform
 * the date you you find at the article, that is preponderant, should be followed;
 * If no preponderant date is found, the dates should eventually be made uniform;
 * other active editors should be consulted in doing this;
 * both DD MONTH YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD are acceptable styles;

This said, I make the following observations: Please correct me if you find me misstating any of the matters that have transpired.
 * No one had edited this article since August 2015, so there was no one I failed to consult in beginning my edits;
 * There was no preponderant style when I came to the article today, but rather a mishmash of styles for publication dates, access-dates, etc.;
 * There was a preponderant style for the dates of publication when you came to the article today, and a mishmash for other dates such as access-date;
 * You used a script to change that publication date style from YYYY-MM-DD to DD MONT YYYY, knowing that I had asked not to, on two bases:
 * My preceding you to the article, and
 * The convenience that the YYYY-MM-DD date style afforded me in the extensive edit that I had undertaken.
 * Moreover, you did not angage the discussion here, at Talk, to an significant extent,
 * That I had preceded you to the article,
 * That I had placed and under construction or in use tag
 * That I had made dates uniform, per guidelines, around YYYY-MM-DD, because that was convenient to the extensive updating and editing I was undertaking, and
 * That I asked that a scrip-applied date modification wait until the under construction tag was taken down, indicating that I was done with what I could offer to the updating.

I note now that you have reverted the tag, though I am using per training, and that you have again reverted, and returned your desired date format.

This is the last effort I am making to settle this here, before I take this to an Administrative venue.

Your applying the script to assign dates—as the only thing done at this article in the last six months, against the wishes of an editor that has spent hours improving the article, in hundred of ways—and then reverting the under construction tag, these things to me rise to the level of disruption. I won't waste further time undoing, or discussing. Relent, or we go to adjudication. Sadly, at an article about grace, and mercy. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith, which is why I warned you (as my anon self from work) to stop showing ownership.
 * Since the subject is American, MOS:DATETIES says MDY is the only correct format. I read that you want to use ISO-8601 format, and I indicated, you may do so, in your own space.
 * under construction is clear:
 * This template is for articles actively undergoing construction. If the article instead is actively undergoing a major edit, please use In use.
 * Again, as I stated, the best way to make major edits it to do so in your user space.
 * You also forgot to complain about me alphabetizing the references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The under construction is to stay in place when I am away, the in use is to appear when I am working. You came when I was away, so the under construction was appropriate.
 * The issue is not whether your date style can ultimately go in. It is whether there can be another, for a time, while the edits are being done. You notion of imposed, immediate uniformity flies in the face of the realities of the thousands of articles at this encyclopedia, and your persisting in this at an article that another is trying to improve smacks of pure mean spiritedness. Leave the article alone for a few days. Go run your script on the thousands of articles that are not uniform to your standards. Let me finish work here, please.
 * Otherwise, lets take this to an admin. You are disrupting active edits, and you have done nothing at this article, at all, for many moths (as far as I can see). You are disrespecting active work that has taken this article miles toward being a GA. Your touching up the dates can wait a few days until I am done. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. Your incorrect use of under construction may stay. Your incorrect date format may stay. Your incorrect bibliographic format may stay and removal of my fixes to them as well. I was planning on actually fixing the article myself, but it's clear that you don't want any help, so when you're done, I'll fix all of the messes you've made.
 * As for taking this to an admin, I'd be fine with it. You'd be surprised by the WP:BOOMERANGs that can fly around here (see WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:3RR). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not worried about boomerangs here, for reasons obvious (extensive good faith work effort here), and less so.
 * Potentially more productively, please let me know, via links, the docs governing how these tags should be used. I was trained in them by someone with more experience than you, but grant that they could be in error, and I could be mis-trained. As well, you should make clear, not by citing an article, but by citing specific sections, the unequivocal rules that exist saying alphabetical over chronological in Further reading. Never hear of this, and have seen it both ways.
 * As for dates, ultimately, I have no opinion about eventual date styles (though I know from deeper experience than you care to acknowledge, that you are not in so crowded a company as you present, in demanding they be the European style DAY MONTH YEAR. But I am fine with you making them this way, ultimately. I have just asked that while the review of the sources, and attempts to place the inlines is taking place, the list remain the preponderant, earlier YYYY-MM-DD format (though you loathe it, it is easy on the eyes to find things in a specific date range).
 * Finally, you argue ownership, yet all I am asking is a non-disruptive working environment. And I would have gladly welcomed help, had you not come in "majoring in the minors". There are many tens of sentences needing to be matched with sources. For most of those ones I have already matched, the sentences were not correct to the majority of relevant sources. This is what needs our first attention. See below for three facts in the lede that I cannot source to a doc in the Further reading list, or existing refs. If you want to help, please, yes. Deal with the real issues first. The formats can come next. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please help find support for the statements

 * that the congregation is evangelical, non-denominational. I am sure this lede statement appears somewhere, but the bulk of the reading does not mention non-denominational, and when it mentions evangelical, it appears mostly to be for the purpose of making distinctions between SOTEC and evangelicalism. Please help find sources to support this opening statement. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * that their location is in Lincoln Park. I can find no mention to this effect in the sources, through I am reviewing quickly. It may have to be sourced indirectly—sourcing the current address (in 2015, from a published account, or at least one more recent than the bulk of articles in 2004-2007)—if it is important and the detail should stay in.Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ You can't have this two ways. You just took ownership and told me to stop interfering and then you ask for help. Either do the work or tag the content, but don't expect help when you've made it impossible for others to work with you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The only contributions that you attempted to make, to which I objected, were (i) imposing a blanket change to the date formats of the article, using a script, and (i) reordering/reformatting the Further reading. (You have since found updated links to be able to remove some of the added dead link tags, and that was a valuable contribution, and I thanked you for them if I recall.) With regard to the two concerns, which led to reversions: I do not object to normalizing the dating, and eventual reformatting of the Further reading. I simply asked that it not be done during the course of a major edit, because the dates, as they appear, clue editors into whether the citation has been checked (the sloppier the citation, the more different styles in a citation, the more likely it is not yet checked). With regard to the reordered reading list, again, I have no long term objection, but simply ask that it stay as it is for a time—inverse date order—so that it is easy to work with most recent articles first (given the problem of the dated information currently in the article). Leaving it inverse chronological means that any newly discovered additions of very recent articles will go near the top. This is simply an editorial prerogative, and since I arrived first (of the two of us editors), have been committed to making major time-consuming improvements, and have asked for this flexibility (in areas not held fast by firm policy), that these format remain until the major editing is done. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The MDY date format change is the correct format for an American subject. Do you agree or disagree?
 * The references in further reading were ordered in chronological order with spaces. They should have been in alphabetical order. I'm OK with the order you have now, but it should go to the correct order.
 * You also reverted correct changes of parameters removing last= and first= while restoring authors=. The fact that you move them back in the reference template just shows you're not looking at the order the template displays the content in.
 * I have also marked links as dead. Reverted. Then you marked them as dead.
 * You did ask that it not be done during your page ownership, and I suggested that if you needed a specific and incorrect format for you to work on the article, that you take the article to your draft area and work on it there and return with your changes. You didn't even enter a discussion on that matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't like being called out here, but I have taken on two roles on Wikipedia. The first is that I have a long list of articles I watch and revert unconstructive edits on. Once that is done, I work on improving articles. I was doing the former when you got into the edit war with me and told me to leave the article alone. As I have promised to stay away until you feel you're done with the article, in part to avoid conflict, but also, because you don't appear to want to be cooperative, I will supply my sources when you're done. Sorry you didn't understand that. Other editors are free to help, but I have not seen a lot coming to this article over the past few months, so you'll have to canvas further afield. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Statement made after a further reversion of dates and reading list order: I accept your "not done" statement/rejection, and its inability to compromise. I have become sorry that I agreed to review this article and am looking forward to turning it back over to you. I hope you prove to be as committed to maintaining the article as you are to winning your points of date format and reading list arguments here. Now, please allow me the freedom to return my invitation section to being an invitation to other editors to find content for key elements of the lede that are unsourced. Recall, this is where it all began—you arguing that there was nothing wrong with the status quo (four poor inline citations and a long non-specific reading list, all more than five years old), and me committing hours of effort because it was clear that the status quo was not approaching a GA. The article is now clearly nearer to what an article should be, for all of the owning efforts (as you say). Please, let others discuss and do what you will not, and leave the following section alone. That I cannot collaborate with your leave-it-alone and urgent re-formatting initiatives certainly does not mean I do not wish to collaborate with others who can focus on content and improvement of sources. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Section discussion closed by initiator. I have struck out my own content, because the discussion has become personal, and is off the subject proposed (which was aimed at improving the article). I've therefore started a new section, see below. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please help find support for the statements, redux
,, et al.:I am starting a new section so it can focus on the intended outcome, that sources be found for unsourced lead material. Please add new content, or discuss the needs, here. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * that the congregation is non-denominational. I am sure this lede statement appears somewhere, but the bulk of the reading does not mention non-denominational. Please help find sources to support this opening statement. Thank you. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Found and added, Whitesel (2006), p. 9.1. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * that the congregation is evangelical. I am sure this lede statement appears somewhere, but when it mentions evangelical, it appears mostly to be for the purpose of making distinctions between SOTEC and evangelicalism. Please help find sources to support this opening statement. Thank you. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, largely, though more can be added (to clarify reservations appearing elsewhere); added, Merritt (2014). Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * that their location is in Lincoln Park. I can find no mention to this effect in the sources, through I am reviewing quickly. It may have to be sourced indirectly—sourcing the current address (in 2015, from a published account, or at least one more recent than the bulk of articles in 2004-2007)—if it is important and the detail should stay in. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)