Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WMSCOG history

WMSCOG history

 * Users involved in dispute
 * , filing party


 * Articles concerned in this dispute


 * Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God&action=edit&section=4
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive217&action=edit&section=57

Issues to be mediated
''All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.''

Because of the sensitivity of this issue, and because the tensions that exist between the two churches, as well as the subjective nature of the history, I suggested that this bullet should not be included. I don't think it is from a NPOV to include a church's website as a source that has tensions with the WMSCOG as a reference. Superfly94 has stated that because there exists the same founder of the church, it is acceptable and shared history. Firstly, WMSCOG states that they do not have the same founder, but members of their church left the WMSCOG and formed their own group many years later, claiming to have the same founder. Secondly, to give an example of how wrong this reasoning is - other Christian believe they have the same founder as Jesus Christ but it is not common to use another church's website as a reference - for example, the Baptist Church wikipage using a Jehovah Witness site as a reference does not seem appropriate, just because both churches believe in Jesus and claim that Jesus is their founder. I do not think this materal is objective enough to be included on the page. Since it is a claim of the NCPCOG, however, I suggested that Superfly94 create a wiki article for this church, since it is an issue of concern and importance to Superfly94. He expressed no interest in doing so. (This leads me again to believe he has impure motives in insisting to include this information on the WMSCOG page). Additionally, Superfly94 stated that the beliefs and doctrines of the church are so similar, so therefore this bullet should be included. However, they are as different as Christianity and Islam. NCPCOG believes their founder Ahnsahnghong to be a prophet/teacher, while WMSCOG believes the founder Ahnsahnghong to be God Himself. Doesn't Islam believe Jesus as a prophet/teacher and Christianity believe Jesus as God/Savior? Their doctrines would not be considered "similar" by people, because their core belief as who is their God is completely different - Allah vs. Jesus. Therefore, they are not as similar as Superfly94 claims. Superfly94 continues to request history from WMSCOG or a third source that the church did not split, however, the WMSCOG will not include this "history" on their website as it wouldn't make sense to include history that did not occur as part of a church's history. I'm not sure why it is so important to Superfly94 to include this information when clearly there is a discrepency in the history claimed by the two churches, while Superfly94 claims to have no interest in these churches on the talk page. If you could please help to resolve this issue I would sincerely appreciate it.
 * Primary issues
 * Issue 1: On the World Mission Society Church of God History section, Superfly94 has added history that the church split in 1985 into the New Covenant Passover Church of God (NCPCOG) and World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG), referencing the NCPCOG website as a source: http://www.ncpcog.net/eng/?page_id=13 . I deleted the section and on the talk page discussed with Superfly94 that this history is subjective, and the source is unreliable. The NCPCOG website is a blog website and also subjective, not fact - it is the opinion of the members of the church, and contradicts the history provided by the WMSCOG. Furthermore, it is a translated page which doesn't accurately translate. I also referred Superfly94 to websites that accurately show the history as claimed by members of the WMSCOG: http://wmscog.org/index.php/the-church-of-god-sectarianized-after-christ-ahnsahnghong-ascended/  and  http://www.thetruewmscog.com/ncpcog-vs-christ-ahnsahnghong/ so he could understand that there exists a discrepency between the beliefs of the history that occured between the two churches, so that it should not be included. However, Superfly94 seems to have impure motives and still insists this history be included despite it being completely denied by the WMSCOG.  I also explained that the reason this history is not included on the official WMSCOG page (english.watv.org) is because it did not happen - therefore it wouldn't be included. I explained that I have a direct association with the church and so have seen evidence that there were members of the WMSCOG who prior to 1985, and then decades later formed their own group, NCPCOG. This would not constitute the church "splitting". For example, during the reformation era, when members of the Catholic Church left the church and formed Protestant bodies, it was not recorded as the Catholic Church "splitting" but rather members leaving the church, and forming their own group. In the same way, it should not be recorded that the WMSCOG was "split" as it is innaccurate.


 * Issue 2


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation
''All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.''
 * 1) Agree. Sticks830 17:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree. Will agree to mediation after less formal ways, such as 3O, have been tried first, as recommended below.  Superfly94 (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.''
 * Recommend rejection: No prior dispute resolution, as required by the prerequisites for mediation, has been attempted in regard to the dispute set out above. (A Third Opinion was given on a different, though somewhat related, dispute between one of the editors listed here and a third editor not listed here, but that does not suffice for the current, much broader dispute.) This needs to go to Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or Request for Comments before being filed here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC) (Committee member.)

Ok, I will try 3O first. Thank you TransporterMan. Sticks830 19:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Sticks830 Would you be able to help me correctly open up a 30? I went to the page and tried to do it but am having trouble understanding. Sticks830 19:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Sticks830


 * Given the lack of prior attempts to resolve the dispute, and the lack of agreement to mediation, I'm declining this request. Following the above discussion, I've listed the dispute under Third opinion. PhilKnight (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)