Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

RfC On Selected Sections

Request for Comment made on the current edit war going on between the current ongoing edit war. Has to do with 3 sections. The argument is over whether or not these should be included in the article, a length consideration. The opposing view is that the real reason Gatorgalen would like these sections removed is for their content. Would like a comment to help sort this out and avoid an edit war. 21:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(RFC Response Questions) Which sections on the talk page relate to the raised RFC, and can you put a diff link in with a before/after shot of one move in the edit war? GRBerry 21:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The sections have not been discussed in detail in the talk page, however the birth of the edits may have come from Talk:Great_Commission_Association#Reduce. Here is a diff link

  • Disputed Edits: [1]

The editors have kept their discussion within the edit summary portion of their changes to this point. 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who made the original comment, but I definitely welcome your input. Allow me to give you a play by play. Essentially what happened is that after basically two months of inactivity by anyone on the article, I decided to come back and take a fresh look at it and make a couple bold edits based on previous discussions, hoping to at least ignite some further discussion as the article still isn't very well done. So I made three separate edits - added GCM's official response to one of the books, and removed the irrelevant sections on the so-called Maryland controversy and the U of Guelph. Then Xanthius took them all and undid them as one, making it difficult to discuss the merits of each. You can see what happened from then on in the History section. The official prayer letter shouldn't be an issue - it's an official publication. Citation templates are irrelevant - not every source has to be cited with one, so I really can't even fathom what Xan is trying to get at there. He and his roommate protested it earlier, and I uploaded it for them, gave them ample time to peruse it, and have now put it back. The Maryland section definitely doesn't fit in the history section. It disrupts the flow, and it really has no context in the history of the organization. And even according to the section it's pure speculation. As other people have mentioned in the past, it's pretty irrelevant to the article. If anything it could be shortened to a sentence and put in the criticism section, which Xanthius seems to think it is considering he accused me of "removing sourced criticism". It's actually pretty telling about how he views the article - from the beginning he and his roommate, ClaudeReigns, have held the article hostage in an attempt to ensure that it makes GCA look as bad as possible. Even more irrelevant than the maryland part is the part on the U of Guelph - a university in canada that no one's ever heard of, a very small event in the history of an international organization. It's irrelevant to the article - if we were writing a book about every negative thing that ever happened it might be relevant, but not in an encyclopedia article. Thanks for letting me ramble, I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Gatorgalen 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(RFC Response) I'll comment on the edit war itself. I considered protecting the page, because the edit war behavior is not acceptable. Discussion should occur on the talk page, and there should be an attempt to compromise. If the behavior continues in the absence of discussion, I will protect the page. Undoubtedly, when and if I do so it will be on the Wrong Version. Hopefully this will not prove necessary as the edit war parties will begin discussion and seek a compromise. GRBerry 21:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the past, Gatorgalen (an employee of Great Commission Association, as noted on his user talk page), and some other editors associated or employed with the group have attempted to remove information critical of it. You can find these types of occurrences in the edit history of the article and discussion history (much of it archived now.) On multiple occasions, third-parties have come in and affirmed various Wikipedia policies to the contrary of what these employees/members were trying to do, and the edit wars stopped for a time, only to resume later. It's important to note that the third-parties not familiar with the group that have been brought in have never bought into the the notion that the critical information, which is highly sourced, should be removed. Only Gatorgalen seems to have retained this stance, even to this day.
Now, regarding the recent edits. At some point in the last several months, activity on this article stopped completely. It was only until recently that Gatorgalen returned to the inactive article, and implemented the edits he had been unable to retain when editors were actively checking this article. I fortunately did notice, reverted his edits, a day later he'd revert my revert, I'd notice a day later, and so on. This has been going on for about a week and a half.
Gator is a SPA, paid employee of GCA with a serious conflict of interest (he has been warned about this by more than me), with a history of questionable edits that have had to be corrected, and this is another case of that. The "publication" he is claiming he should be allowed to cite is a letter, nothing more. As he was told in the past, there is not a cite letter template because you cannot cite letters or other such correspondences. There are already two reliable fact-checked sources responding to the criticism, if he wants more, he should find -reliable- sources for that section.
Last, there has been no violation of 3RR as far as I am aware. 3RR requires three reverts in a 24 hour period.
Xanthius 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Xanthius, I'm disappointed. I've never known you to stoop so low. I mean, blatant lies? Come on.
Nonetheless, I'll respond to those accusations for the sake of our friendly non-biased editors. I'm not an employee of GCA; I am a missionary technically employed by GCM. I can't speak for others - there have been other unnamed editors, even recently, who may or may not be involved with GCA, I have no idea. Third parties coming in and affirming policies contrary to employees/members is a blatant lie though. That simply hasn't happened, at least not since I started editing. I've never advocated removing criticism either. Making it the focus of the article is a bit preposterous (as it was when I first started editing), especially given that that hasn't been an issue for two decades.
I returned to give it a fresh look; two of the edits aren't ones I've done before, to the best of my knowledge. The official GCM prayer letter is not a personal correspondence; it is an official organizational newsletter, printed, dated, responding to a specific book. It can be considered a press release if you like. Regardless, citation templates are not an argument. Templates don't determine the rules. Rules determine templates. Rules determine what sources are reliable. The letter is a reliable source for GCM officially taking that position and saying that, which is all anyone wants it to do. FYI, we did discuss this earlier, and I scanned and uploaded this document for Xanthius, who then went into hibernation. Prior to this his argument was that it didn't exist and he wanted to see it; now he seems to be sticking to a wholly irrational citation template argument.
I've never attempted to deny my involvment with GCM, and I'm aware that there is a conflict of interest and try to act accordingly. Let the reader be aware however, that Xanthius and his roommate ClaudeReigns are both ex-members with a serious ax to grind. They seem intent on using this article as a weapon against GCA, which they hate intensely for some reason. It's obvious from their edits that they view this as a vehicle and forum for criticism. Wikipedia is not the only place online in which they seek to criticize GCA; they are quite prolific in that respect. It would seem to be somewhat of a life mission.
Xan, Claude, and myself have been the primary editors, with NateSwinton also playing a role. I came in because the article was a farce. However, I'm not a single purpose account by any means. If you check my user page you'll see that there are a lot of articles I'd like to edit and have edited; I just don't really have that much time. I do have a full-time job and many other things to do.
Finally, Xan, as to the 3RR, it's simple mathematics. I made three separate edits, you reverted all three but masked it as one by copying and pasting. Then you reverted my revert. Thus, it can be 4 or 6 edits, but not less than three. Three plus one equals four; three plus (one times three) equals six. Simple math. Gatorgalen 04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The first major incident of critical information removed by current members began here: [2] Editors involved include Mfpantst (third party), Chondrite (GCM member according to user page), Dina (another third party), Infinitelink (another third party), and myself. Basically, members of this religious group were reprimanded for attempting to remove large amounts of sourced criticism. To quote one of the third parties: Removing referenced criticism is bad enough, doing it without an edit summary is sure to catch the eye of someone like myself. As a third "third" opinion, I think that including "notable" criticisms of any organization is, indeed encyclopedic. Obviously, the must be verifiable, sourced. I think the editor(s) that don't agree with the criticisms can a)work on their phrasing to make them less POV if they think that's the problem or b)look for sources that contradict or respond to the criticisms and include them in the article. But wholesale, repeated removal of sourced sections of articles that one personally disagrees with is not constructive editing. Cheers. Dina
This pretty much sets the theme for the remainder of the article's edit history. Attempts to expand the article were often interrupted by people dropping in and removing the criticism, and subsequent reverts. NSwinton at another point brought in another third party editor [3], who made a few minor changes but pretty much left the criticism intact and warned against the danger of those who are too close to the subject trying to be NPOV.
Regarding the split, with the exception of Gator, the consensus in the past has basically been that if there was any trimming, it would be on a few of the less controversial sections of this article, such as the section that describes the numerous subsidiary organizations. It was also generally agreed upon that a split was not immediately necessary but may some day be. Quoting Nswinton, another employee of GCM who edited here for some time: I can see why someone would want to split it, but at this point I don't see that as being necessary. I think if we were in the 75-100k range, that'd be a good idea, but this article is, in my opinion, thousands of edits from being there.
Lastly: Gator, I have added over 30 reliable sources to this article, and have attempted to provide information both critical and positive about the movement. I have at many times in the past challenged you in the area of reliable sources, and told you that if you are going to try to "defend" the movement with your edits, to do it by providing contrary but reliable sources. I have no problem with your slant as a paid missionary, but I do have a problem with the methods you attempt to get your slant into this article. The "prayer letter" is a great example. An unpublished, non-fact-checked letter with allegations attempting to discredit a respected researcher like Paul R. Martin is not an appropriate source. I have done my best to include reliable sources responding to the criticism, if you feel there should be more, then by all means find them and add them.
Xanthius 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see folks talking. Now how about building some consensus? I'll note a few things. First, "an edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article." Second, how slow or fast the reverts are is not relevant to edit warring, but it is to blocks under WP:3RR. Any 3RR violation here is clearly from days ago, and will not lead to a current block, so that part of the conversation is pointless and I recommend you drop it. Third, if push comes to shove, this thing may end up at an Arbitration case. Another religious organization did back in December, and ended with a finding that documents published by the religious organization were not considered verifiable. Our general guidance on self published sources limits the usage of self published sources (some usage is prohibited, some is permitted), and could be worth rereading by all involved in the dispute. Fourth, it may be worth adding {{POV}} to the article until consensus is obtained; it would be a service to our readers (who always come first), to let them know that he article may be biased and it might attract some other outside opinions. GRBerry 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey everybody, I'm back for a while. It was good to take a break from wiki for a few months :) You can probably all see that I made a few edits last night and this morning, mostly on simple formatting. Aside from the controversy, this page has become a mess of raw and improper linkage, masked as sourcing. Lets use some templates!
Also, coming back with fresh eyes makes it pretty clear that there are a few parts of this article that are just ready to go, and there are a few parts that just need re-wording. I'm willing (as always) to work within consensus and not make any significant edits without it. I'd like GRBerry to please stick around for the next few weeks and oversee the discussion, if he/she would be willing. In the past, consensus has been very difficult to build, due to the mistrust between editors and inability to assume good faith. Please stick around as a NPOV party for a while!
I'd like to propose my first significant edit right now. The below paragraph is, in my opinion, extraneous to the article. It concerns something of (from what I can tell) zero importance to the notability of GCA as an organization. If this was New Life Church's article, it'd be totally worthwhile, but is inappropriate here. The Sistine Chapel is not in the Roman Catholic Church article, there is no reason for this paragraph to be here. There are at least 60 churches in GCA in the US alone, and many of them have similar projects. In Ames, we raised half a million dollars to build the most modern concert venue in the region in the last few years for our GCA church. That's notable for my home church, but not notable for GCA as a whole. I'd like feedback on how this can be reduced or re-worded to be notable, or consensus to remove it. Since ClaudeReigns, GatorGalen, Xanthius and myself have been the main editors here, I'm hoping for at least consensus between the four of us. Ha ha, if I can get the four of us to agree on anything, I'll believe that God wills it :) Anyway, here's the paragraph, from the Great Commission Ministries section:

From 2002 through 2007, New Life Church received much media attention for its building project at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, MI. According to the Michigan Daily, New Life moved into its new building and had its first service on February 11, 2007.[4] New Life purchased an abandoned Delta Zeta sorority house in 2002. GCM had approved the building project in 1999 and had helped New Life raise funds for the $2.3 million dollar project. The first site plan developed by New Life was rejected by the Ann Arbor Planning Commission in mid-2004, prompting them to file a federal lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. In April, 2005, a settlement was signed after three months of negotiations between the two parties. [5][6][7]

Nswinton\talk 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. One could argue that because GCM approved the building project it technically has to do with GCM, but it really seems like a trivial news item that would only interest members of New Life church, and thus a good candidate to be trimmed. If it belongs anywhere it's in an article about New Life itself, methinks. Xanthius 03:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that a good standard to use would be: "an action by an individual congregation is not normally worth inclusion unless an independent source ha noted it as a significant or defining event for the association, or as an example of a broader pattern". That is a standard that could be applied to any religious denomination. By that test, the paragraph Nswinton highlights should come out. GRBerry 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, if I don't get any other responses in the next 48 hours, I'm going to consider this edit proposal a non-issue to Gatorgalen and ClaudeReigns, and make it without their express consent. It's been nine days already, so there's been plenty of time to post a response. Nswinton\talk 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry I haven't responded earlier. The reason I believe it is relevant (and why I put it in there originally) is simply that a)GCM approved it, which is unique b)It cost 2.3 million dollars - compare that to GCM's 14 million dollar yearly budget, it's obvious that it's pretty significant c)GCM itself is raising money for it (still, i think), so it's not a simple local church matter - they've asked every supporter GCM-wide to consider giving to it. So it's a pretty big deal. Plus the whole court case thing, and all in all in all it's certainly more relevant than U Guelph or the so-called maryland controversy. Gatorgalen 06:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Gatorgalen, your point B and C aren't actually noted in the paragraph itself. Do you have some sources for either of those? Comparing the cost of the building to the total national budget and showing that it was a nation-wide campaign would be very helpful to you if you'd like to build a case for keeping the paragraph. Do you have any response to GRBerry's comment right above yours? Nswinton\talk 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Nswinton, your changes and proposals sound good, but that hasn't addressed the real reason I put in a rfc. They have to do with the edits Gatorgalen made beginning with [1] and finally with [2]. I put in a rfc and put in a neutrality tag then because although I feel that what Gatorgalen wholesale removed from the article was a POV based edit, he obviously does not. Lets try and focus the conversation on this though, otherwise the edit war will probably pick back up and this page will probably be protected and in the end this page may go to arbitration. Lets talk out these changes, why xanthius feels they should stay, why gatorgale feels they should go, where you stand, where these disputed sections stand within the wiki world, and then move on. Tabling the issue and focusing on something else builds consensus, sure, but doesn't solve the problem. Mfpantst 12:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll try and comment on the original issue below.
  • Maryland Political Controversy
My thought is that this probably fits better under the "criticism" heading later in the article. I also think the section can be copyedited for size. It goes into great length on something that was clearly noteworthy at the time, but only barely remarkable under the history of the whole organization. This section, in my opinion, suffers from the similar problems that the paragraph about the new church building in Ann Arbor suffers from. It's very noteworthy for that particular church, but only somewhat noteworthy for the whole organization. I think that it's probably useful as a brief anecdote to characterize some practices of the movement over twenty years ago, and should be treated as such. If this section remains as-is, I think this article will be able to grow infinitely, as this goes with a standard of "anything in the news should be here". GC*.* has been in the news for thousands of separate and somewhat-noteworthy events. We need to think of the big picture here and have a vision of a future FA in our minds as we add and remove content. Think about this: "is this the kind of paragraph that will make it through a GA or FA review?"
  • Banned from the University of Guelph
I just frankly disagree with the removal of this whole section. It's in the appropriate place, and written appropriately. It's sourced and noteworthy. On a personal level, I'd actually like to know more about this incident, but I think that it's size, style and location in the article are appropriate. Also on a personal level, I just want to say that while I am a campus missionary working for GCA, I have no qualms about letting truth be known. Especially truth that is almost 20 years old. It sounds like there was some pretty bad stuff that happened at Guelph. No need to hide that, what is done is done. I just want to point out to others favorable of GCA (I know there are a lot of unregistered IP editors reading this) that if our practices are sound today, we have nothing to hide. Let's let these sharp criticisms be lessons learned and be humble about them. We have nothing to fear of our history as long as we don't repeat it.
  • A general thought
I'd like to quickly quote the first page of the 1991 apology letter, on the topic of wrong responses to criticism:
Please, let's not repeat history. This is an encyclopedia article, not a tool to make GCA look better (or worse!). It's just for facts and information. Let's all take a deep breathe. Nswinton\talk 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Commission_Association&oldid=145837464
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Commission_Association&oldid=148524645
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Commission_church_movement/Archive_5&oldid=512747074"