User talk:Walterkwhite

Wondering Why There Is No Mention Of The ICOC Being A Cult On The ICOC's Wikipedia Page?
When I do a simple Google search on "International Churches of Christ" I come up with many results that talk about the ICOC being a cult. Why are these things not mentioned in the Wikipedia ICOC article in a controversy section. The whole article reads like an advertisement for the ICOC. It is not encyclopedic in quality.

I did a simple Google search for The International Churches of Christ. Here are the results: 1. The Wikipedia article 2. An ICOC produced website 3. A website calling the ICOC a cult 4. A website stating that the ICOC has some controversial beliefs. 5. A website that would recommend people to stay away from the ICOC. 6. 3 videos talking about the ICOC being a cult. 7. A website calling the ICOC a cult. 8. A website discussing controversial beliefs. 9. A story of a person escaping the ICOC calling the ICOC a cult. 10. A website talking about the faulty beliefs of the ICOC. 11. A website calling the ICOC a cult. 12. A website calling the ICOC a cult. 13. An ICOC produced website 14. An advertising website 15. A website stating that the ICOC abuses people. 16. A paper written by an ICOC leader. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:299C:36C:B735:2293 (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no mention of the ICOC being a cult because Wikipedia user JamieBrown2011 works hard to control the content of what goes on the Wikipedia ICOC page. JamieBrown2011 has a history of deleting other peoples' comments and tries to control the content of the ICOC article. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5142:ABEC:5B2D:D219 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also it is my guess that members of the ICOC are trying to keep the page sanitized and not allow any negative information of any kind into the article. Yes I know that a simple Google search produces dozens of articles and websites on the ICOC  being a cult but there isn't even a criticism section or anything negative allowed in the ICOC article.  2600:1700:4260:35D0:5142:ABEC:5B2D:D219 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are "guard" editors at almost every page about a controversial topic. While their behavior is not ideal, there's a clear solution: build a strong enough consensus for the changes you wish to see. Then, reversions from guards/whitewashers/POV pushers will be re-reverted, and eventually the guard editors will face community sanction if their edits are reversing consensus.
 * I'm going to put this page on my watchlist and come back to it later. I think a good way forward would be to use this talk page to start compiling a list of potentially usable sources. I'm peripherally interested in this topic, enough so that I will do a Google search tonight and see if I come up with anything that looks reliable enough to use. Pecopteris (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)