Talk:Watermark Community Church

Added summary of doctrinal positions
Wikipedia can be very useful to get a potentially objective overview of churches or denominations. This page was woefully lacking in those factoids, so I edited them in from Watermark's own website. Where possible, bullet points perhaps can be super helpful -- espeically if a church fits nicely within a known template. Edit away if this isn't appropriate. Washi (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible "editing" to make church look good
I made some updates to this article to reflect recent stories about the church engaging in abusive behavior toward members and their families. However some of those updates were "creatively edited" to downplay the seriousness of the actions. It is likely that some Watermark members are doing this because they fear what may happen if leadership's actions are exposed.

The editors may need to put a block on edits by other than registered members of Wikipedia for a time. Quidam65 (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Is that like the “criticism” section which lists an article which is not a criticism but a reflection piece but yet it’s still listed as a criticism? Creative editing goes both ways. Especially by someone espousing to post “abusive behavior” when such behavior would need to be investigated by authorities and a plethora of evidence needs to be linked to substantiate said claims. Remember we are living in the age of disinformation. 184.102.177.52 (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for neutral point of view upkeep
As this article has undergone many competitive edits by people with conflicting viewpoints, I'd like to make some suggestions based on Wikipedia guidelines. I'll use a paragraph in the introduction of the article, which has an apparent bias, to make some points regarding neutral point of view. However, the guidelines apply to those with opposing opinions as well.


 * Watermark is well known for its "Re:generation recovery" program.

This sentence contains weasel words because it is numerically vague. A citation of a published survey is required, and the context of that survey should be included, e. g., "According to a survey of Dallas-area residents...." Also, the popularity of the program is implied by placing it in the introduction, so the current phrasing tips more toward advertisement than encyclopedia entry.

The next sentence:


 * … [the program] is devoted to helping people find freedom from all struggles …

This sounds like the organization's mission statement, which, if so, should be provided with context and a citation. Details about the program should contain concise, verifiable language without abstractions like "finding freedom" or absolutes like "all struggles" (it isn't hard difficult to imagine a personal dilemma the church might be opposed to addressing).

Additionally, I would recommend removing the list of "struggles" entirely unless it is a quote with a citation. It is presenting opinions as facts, originating from personal beliefs rather than scholarship. This isn't just detrimental because the article is out of parity with the rest of the site. It's just going to cause others to continue making edits because they know it will frustrate someone who made them frustrated.

I would suggest that updates be performed by someone who is knowledgeable about the church and frequently modifies this page. However, I'll provide a sample rewrite of what the section about the program could say:

"The program was started in by, with a stated mission to: … As of 2023, the program has employees and volunteers, and interacts with church members per year. " Digzignition (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)