Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Organizing and simplifying the article

Without deleting anything, I have moved some sections around to make the article more organized. In doing that, it is seems pretty clear that a lot needs to be removed from this article. There are too many things that are only notable inside this church that are given too much weight. There is too much unnecessary detail. If you agree- what do you suggest be taken out? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for removing sections of the article that don't seem that they should be included in an encyclopedia. Particularly, I'm in favor of removing the bits about the Ministry Training Academy and many of the paragraphs discussing the "sinner's prayer" in the Beliefs section. I'd remove the "sinner's prayer" paragraphs starting with the paragraph on David Platt and continue removing the paragraphs in that sub-section. In my mind, they belong in the "sinner's prayer" WP article, not here. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The following section has no references at all:

"Bible Talks

A Bible Talk is a small group of disciples that meet usually once a week. They can meet almost anywhere, including college dormitories, restaurants, and members' houses. Bible Talks, or 'Family Groups', are designed so that disciples can read the Bible together and build relationships with others in the church. All are encouraged to invite guests as a way for the guest to be introduced to the Church in a more informal setting. The Bible Talk is very similar to the "cell group" or "small group" structure found in many churches to facilitate close relationships amongst members."

There are no references for this section Qewr4231 (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever is written, the truth needs to be told. If the International Churches of Christ are regarded as a cult by most people outside of the ICOC, then let that be known in the article. An encyclopedia article should have all the facts about the ICOC both good and bad. The problem is that what is good and bad about the ICOC is opinion. Devoted ICOC members and leaders will see everything that the ICOC does as benevolent and good due to brainwashing. People that leave the ICOC (ex-ICOC) see the ICOC as a cult. People outside the ICOC and Christian leaders and ministers outside the ICOC see the ICOC as a cult.

Another issue is that the ICOC claims to be the one true church. The ICOC claims that only ICOC members known as disciples will be saved. The ICOC claims that all other churches are following a false doctrine of Christianity and are going to hell. When the ICOC makes these kind of claims, then the ICOC is considered a cult. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Qewr4231 The word cult is totally subjective as is everybody outside the ICOC. Can you provide definitive evidence for this? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine as you mentioned earlier this article does come across like a WP:Battleground. I have pulled all the criticisms in the article (by section) onto this page, maybe we can develop a consensus based on WP:BALASPS and cull the less necessary sections:

Lead

In 2000, it was described as "[a] fast-growing Christian organization known for aggressive proselytizing to [US] college students" and as "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus".[18]

This quote sounds like it is from a news agent. From an encyclopedia I don't think it is appropriately factual or specific enough for the Lead. I propose to insert it into the History section in the chronological section that the specific article was written. Then whoever posted it can keep their edit, it will just be more appropriately placed. Thoughts?JamesLappeman (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Origins

Both procedures led to "in-depth involvement of each member in one another's lives", and critics accused Lucas of fostering cultism.[19]

This governing system attracted criticism as overly-authoritarian,[25]

comment on the above "Origins" section
"fostering cultism" may be the words used in the source but it is unclear terminology and violates WP:LABEL. I suggest a paraphrase of "...accused Lucas of excessive control."
I think the sentence: "This governing system attracted criticism as overly-authoritarian,[25]" is fine.JamesLappeman (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

McKean

Critics of the ICOC claim that Kip McKean's resignation sparked numerous problems within the ICOC.[30] One such critic, Gretchen Passantino, claims that both members and ex-members of the ICOC noted the movement continued to experience problems.[31]

According to the paper, "the ICOC has attempted to address the following concerns: a top down hierarchy, aggressive discipling techniques, and sectarianism".[32]

Discipling

The church's emphasis on discipling has not been without its critics. "The Boston Movement", a book written by Carol Giambalvo and Herbert Rosedale in 1997, contains the testimonies of ex-members of the ICOC. Amongst other things, ex-members allege that they were brainwashed, psychologically and emotionally abused by their "discipling" partners within the ICOC.[67] Specifically, the ICOC is criticized for its discipling methods, where the personal life of members are said to be controlled by their disciplers.[68] Critics accuse the ICOC of employing a hierarchy of disciplers that goes all the way to the top.[68]

comment on the above source
I have just read this source (Carol Giambalvo and Herbert Rosedale. 1997) and will remove it once you have commented for the following reasons:

It was published by AFF in 1997, the same year that the author Rosedale was the president of AFF WP:OR,WP:SELFPUBLISH

It is a collection of reports from upset ex ICoC members, this violates WP:NPOV.

The sample of testimonies is made from 100% upset ex-members, this violates WP:BALANCE WP:WEIGHT.

The book is mainly based on ex member testimony which was a popular medium for discrediting religions in the 1980’s. Now known as "atrocity tales", ex member testimony has been significantly discredited as source of information on religious movements by prominent sociologists ^[1] ^[2] WP:IMPARTIAL.

It uses many 'contentious labels' in WP 'words to watch' WP:LABEL.

Here are some quotes to illustrate the problems with WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL:
From the Introduction:
"How, after their experiences with the International Churches of Christ (ICC), they felt depressed, discouraged and disillusioned."

"These new victims of cult exploitation projected a different identity within the

population of former cult members..."

"First, members of the Boston movement, like members of other cultic groups, are simultaneously victims and victimizers."

From pg 21-22
"How Can You Keep from Getting Involved In a Destructive Religious Group?"

"...Faith occasionally is destructive and divisive. Certainly it is in the case

of the Boston Church of Christ."
Self published, contentious claims are not WP:RS. I will remove it unless there are objections? I think a substantial argument will need to be made for it to be re-included as a reliable source.JamesLappeman (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, JamesLappeman, but I object. The Boston Movement is not a self-published source and meets the criteria found in WP:RS. Not including the fact that a significant number of ex-members are dissatisfied with the ICOC would violate WP:NPOV. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche123, I agree that the ICOC had a significant attrition rate and that this should be included. Giambalvo and Rosedale is not, however, a WP:RS. My rationale makes that very clear and your response is not substantiated enough to deal with the specific reasons stated. JamesLappeman (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, you haven't stated reasons for doubting that The Boston Movement meets the definition for WP:RS, which states that: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Boston Movement was published by The American Family Foundation, which is a third-party that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nor have you provided reasons for thinking that The Boston Movement is self-published. Typically, self-published sources consist of weblogs, personal webpages, or even self-published books. If Giambalvo and Rosedale published the text themselves on their own dime, then I'd say that you have a point. Including the fact that some ex-members are unhappy with their experiences with the ICOC is not contrary to WP:NPOV; rather, it is in accordance with it. Nor does having two sentences represent that fact contravene WP:BALANCE or WP:WEIGHT. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nietszche, WP:BALASP says: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. The Rosendale book makes very subjective claims: "brainwashing" etc...I agree with @JamesLappeman this is not very Encyclopaedic, might be better suited material for other types of publications. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, thanks for your comment; but I believe you are mistaken. If there was an entire section dedicated to The Boston Movement and its contents, then I'd say that maybe you'd have a point that the article gives undue weight to the text. But surely having two sentences concerning The Boston Movement places no undue weight on the text. TBM is published by a reliable third-party source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The sentences used to describe the TBM are neutral and balanced. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, it's not the length of the section that is being highlighted but rather the subjective nature of claiming "Brainwashing" etc... Simply because it is verifiable and impartial doesn't mean it should be included as per WP:BALASP JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I think you should your quote again. It begins with the following: "An article should not give undue weight..." The current sentences neutrally report that some ex-members think that they were psychologically and emotionally abused as well as brainwashed by their "disciplers". -Nietzsche123 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, the relevant section of the policy I think applies here is criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, "criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" is prefaced by "For example", making it subordinate to the prior sentence, namely: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" (emphasis added). So I don't think anything in the material from The Boston Movement in this article that violates WP:BALASP. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have re-looked over the Giambalvo and Rosedale book (The Boston Movement) and, as stated above, the book is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It is only one sided and uses terminology and makes accusations of a highly subjective nature. Please see the highlighted quotes above. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, in your recent response you failed to address any of my responses to what you wrote above. Please see above comments, where I have already addressed your points. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 I have to agree with JamesLappeman, very subjective claims that are disproportionate to the their overall significance should be culled from the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I previously addressed your points concerning WP:BALSP; please see above. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read through the talk page discussions going back 1-2 months and whilst Nietzsche123 and JamieBrown2011 have both rendered compelling arguments under this specific section, Nietzche123 seems to want to lend undue weight (WP: UNDUE) to the Giambalvo & Rosedale book (The Boston Movement). Id agree with JamieBrown123 as well as Jameslappeman in this instance. Psmidi 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Having gone through the different aspects of this discussion, I do feel that a lot of criticism is being based on two sources (The Boston Movement by Giambalvo & Rosedal and The Discipling Dilemma by Flavil Yeakley), both of which are fairly outdated for an ongoing movement (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS] and seemingly biased (WP:BIASED), as both state they are critical works. Nietzsche123 I would suggest additional (and preferably more recent) sources be supplied to provide more weight to your argument. Sandelk (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Sandelk, I suggest we move the Yeakley material to the section in 'history' covering the 1980s since we have consensus on its inclusion but in line with your point it would be more relevant as history given it's dating. Giambalvo and Rosedale, however, has no place in an encyclopedia and the arguments for it to stay purely because it is a published work ignore half a dozen Wikipedia rules that I will not repeat again (see above). JamesLappeman (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Sandelk. By what grounds do you declare that The Boston Movement and The Discipling Dilemma are outdated? Just because they were written 10-15 years ago doesn't mean that they should be excluded from WP. At best, if you find a reliable source that claims the criticisms offered by the aforementioned texts no longer apply to today's ICOC, that source should be represented in the article. We just don't remove the The Boston Movement and Discipling Dilemma. Just because a work is critical of the ICOC doesn't mean we don't include it in an encyclopedia. By your standard, we would include no criticisms whatsoever. According to WP:NPOV, we are required to portray prominent controversies covered by reliable, verifiable, sources. JamesLappeman, as I already mentioned we agreed to keep Yeakley in its own section on the DRNs. Let's not change that now willy-nilly. As to your arguments for why The Boston Movement shouldn't be included, I addressed all of your points above. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzche, Giambalvo & Rosedale is not appropriate for the encyclopaedia. It is published but it still breaks rules for Wikipedia inclusion. Here are the ones mentioned by a number of editors: WP:BIASED, WP:UNDUE, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:BALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:LABEL. Just standing by the fact that it is published is not sufficient grounds for you to keep the source on the main page (at least until there is some consensus on it). The ICOC page needs criticisms to be represented, just not from this source JamesLappeman (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree Nietzsche123 that we should portray the criticism, but it would more appropriately be placed in the History section of the article. The references are almost 20 years old and reflect a potentially biased opinion that is not mentioned any later in the church history. The criticism can certainly be relevant, but to a certain time in the movements history and this should be accurately portrayed. Sandelk (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with JamesLappeman, that this source material on its own does not meet the requirements of WP. There is also mention of this discipling in a few earlier sections and perhaps that can sufficiently address this era/criticism of the movement. Sandelk (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, please see my comments above for why The Boston Movement (TBM) does not in fact violate any of WP policies that you mentioned, namely: UNDUE, NPOV, WEIGHT, BALANCE, and BALASP. If you disagree, please show me where, specifically, you think I'm wrong. Sandelk , I fail to see how TBM violates WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which states: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". TBM is a reliable source for the statement "The church's emphasis on discipling has not been without its critics. "The Boston Movement", a book written by Carol Giambalvo and Herbert Rosedale in 1997, contains the testimonies of ex-members of the ICOC. Amongst other things, ex-members allege that they were brainwashed, psychologically and emotionally abused by their "discipling" partners within the ICOC". As EastTN mentioned previously, "The source is appropriately described so that the reader can understand and evaluate who is making these criticisms and reach an informed judgment on how much weight to give them". And TBM accords with, does not violate, WP:BIASED, which states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."" (emphasis mine). While TBM is critical of the ICOC, this is not a reason to exclude it. It's a reliable text on this topic.

JamesLappeman, you also deleted a series of other comments critical of the ICOC in the belief section that referred to articles written by the CRI's CRJ. Since you failed to provide a justification for this, I'm returning them with immediate effect. CRJ has an editorial board and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123, 4 editors provided strong WP evidence that TBM is a problematic source in this context. The fact that the ICOC's discipling has been criticized is ALREADY FAIRLY REFLECTED in the article without it. Your opinion has been read and consensus has leant against your above rationalization JamesLappeman (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nietzsche123 that it is appropriate to include a source that documents what ex-members have to say about the movement. The text that was just now deleted appropriately identifies the criticism as coming from ex-members, which allows the reader to determine what weight to give it. The question of where to put the text is a separate one, and doesn't justify deleting it entirely. It seems particularly odd that the sourced criticism would be deleted and an unsourced response added ("While the church has adapted its discipling practices in response to some of the criticism, mentoring and accountability is still practiced in most ICOC congregations.") EastTN (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, I responded to the evidence that you and the other 3 editors have provided for thinking that TBM violates WP policy. I contend that NPOV and BALANCE require us to portray prominent controversies in a fair and neutral way from reliable sources. The statement in question fairly and neutrally reports a prominent controversy from a reliable source--TBM. I provided evidence for thinking that TBM doesn't in fact violate CONTEXTMATTERS, BIASED, BALASP, or UNDUE. I believe that covers all of the given reasons for removing the disputed statement. While 4 editors contend that the statement in question should be removed, 3 contend that it should not. Consensus has not leaned against my view. And I agree with EastTN that it's odd of you to replace a properly cited statement with an unsourced one. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, in addition to unjustifiably removing mention of TBM from the article, you also deleted a series of other comments critical of the ICOC in the belief section that referred to articles written by the CRI's CRJ. I've mentioned this before. Please try to explain your edits more fully on the talk page before removing properly cited material on the article's page. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Movement is not just a collection of ex-member testimony. Here are some of its accusations:

"These new victims of cult exploitation projected a different identity within the population of former cult members..."
"First, members of the Boston movement, like members of other cultic groups, are simultaneously victims and victimizers."
"How Can You Keep from Getting Involved In a Destructive Religious Group?"
"...Faith occasionally is destructive and divisive. Certainly it is in the case of the Boston Church of Christ."

WP:BLPGROUP has a problem with such accusations. Yes, there have been problems with discipling. TBM doesn't fairly represent these issues in the ICOC without problems.JamesLappeman (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123, the problem with TBM is that it is biased and doesn't reflect the context of the movement. It is a book written about the movement over 20 years ago, by a very small subset of members located in a few congregations within the movement. I do agree with JamesLappeman that the issue of discipling is fairly represented in the article already and that it should remain as part of the history section of the movement. TBM as a source material on its own does not justify any further attention on its own. Sandelk (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, you still have failed to address your reasons for deleting the aforementioned CRJ material. I'm returning it with immediate effect. As to the quotations you provided from TBM, while it is true that TBM is critical of the ICOC, that's not a reason for excluding TBM. It's not clear that we have a WP:BLP issue, either. I refer you to WP:BLPGROUP, which states: "This policy [that is, WP:BLP] does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies". Moreover, even if BLP was a concern here, the high quality of the source in question--TBM--should allay such concerns. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandelk, while TBM was written about 15 years ago, mention of it should only be placed in the history section of this article if reliable sources can be used to place it there. That is, if the criticisms can indeed be reliably shown to be a part of the group's history. The same point applies to your additional consideration, namely: if reliable sources can be shown to argue that these criticisms only apply to a few churches within the ICOC, not the entirety of the ICOC, then those sources should be mentioned, too. While it's okay to engage in original research WP:OR on the talk page, it's not okay to engage in OR on the article's page. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Beliefs

Critics claim that not only does the ICOC require water baptism for salvation, it requires one to be baptized as a disciple, suggesting that ICOC members alone are saved.[68]

comment on the above "Beliefs" sentence What critics claim about the ICOC beliefs does not go in the "Beliefs" section. This is for the ICOC's beliefs to be stated. I will remove this if there are no objectionsJamesLappeman (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I object here, as, to JamesLappeman's proposal. A beliefs section should of course describe the beliefs of the ICOC; but it should also contain any specific criticisms from reliable sources. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche123, I understand that you want to make sure that the article is not void of criticism. Almost all religious groups have different doctrines and they are entitled to hold these beliefs. The beliefs section is a place for the encyclopedia to state the ICOC beliefs. It is up to the reader to make a judgment on whether they like them or not. WP:OPINION must be considered when stating a judgment on a person/groups beliefs. Putting subjective criticisms in a beliefs section violates WP:NPOV and WP:OPINION. Remember, this is an encyclopedia and not a commentary on what some people like/dislike about the ICOC beliefs. Please reconsider your stance. JamesLappeman (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, placing criticism in the beliefs section neither violates WP:NPOV nor WP:OPINION. If you would like to suggest a place where criticisms of the ICOC's beliefs should go, please feel free to do so. But simply deleting criticisms of the ICOC that are presented in a balanced and neutral way is not the way to go. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 The article gets messy when too many sections about the ICoC have criticisms inserted. Yes if there are significant criticisms they should be referenced but is it really necessary here? The criticism is weak as almost all religious groups have critiques of each others doctrinal stances. The sentence uses the word 'suggesting' which is open to interpretation. It also refers to 'critics' which is misleading as this could be two people or many. A comment like this on the churches doctrinal stance is not significant enough to be inserted hereWP:OPINION or would need more relevance. Thoughts? JamesLappeman (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, I don't think that we should remove this criticism. The criticism is made by a reliable source and is verifiable. In your research of the ICOC I'm sure that you've come across how its doctrinal stance on baptism and salvation is controversial. So, yes, I think this is a relevant criticism. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Nietzsche123 is correct that it is within policy to allow criticisms of a religious groups beliefs as long as the name of the person criticising is mentioned. I will check, but I think that is correct. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe both Nietzsche123 and JamieBrown2011 are correct in the practice of criticism. However, as mentioned above, I am concerned about the relevance of the criticism sources due to the age of the source material. Sandelk (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If we take a look at Wikipedia:Criticism it notes that there are several different approaches to presenting criticism. It describes an "integrated" approach as "ideal," where "negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections. The article does not have a dedicated "Criticism" section." That's not the only approach, and it may well be that another would work better in this particular case. But it's certainly not inappropriate to include criticisms such as this in the "Beliefs" section. One thing that may be helpful in this case is to include a direct quote from the source, specifically naming the author, so that it's very clear where the criticism is coming from and to avoid any appearance that we are editorializing ourselves. EastTN (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

thank you for your input EastTN, very helpful and I see the policy relating to a criticism in the 'beliefs' section as appropriately placed. What I have been attempting is to clean up a very messy article. Although there is no specific 'criticisms' section, authors have taken certain criticisms of the ICOC and instead of integrating them into the article they have made them entire sections. Both Yeakley and the USA Campus criticism could be placed in the appropriate section in the ICOC history. That would apportion the weight better and help the article to flow better.JamesLappeman (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'm personally agnostic as to whether integration works better than a separate criticism section. Where a group has been the subject of extensive criticism (as has this one), a separate criticism section can in my judgment sometimes be helpful. The reason is that avoids constantly breaking up the flow of the other sections and makes it easier for the reader to first understand the subject before having to deal with the back and forth of criticism and response. On the other hand, if we can find sources that suggest the ICoC has significantly changed its approach in these areas, integrating them into a historical discussion could help place the criticisms in the appropriate time period. However, if we take that approach, we would also have to integrate the beliefs and practices being criticized into the same historical discussion. In other words, if we're going to talk about the criticisms of the 1990s, then we have to talk about the practices of the 1990s for it to make sense. EastTN (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, the ICoC has much justified criticism and this must be fairly reflected. The problem we have all been facing is that those critical want the worst possible things said in the most prominent places (cult, brainwashing, banned) and those on the other side want the current ICOC (very different to the Boston Movement) to be better reflected in the article. Critics have regularly placed poorly sourced criticisms in almost every section (most of this has been dealt with). Encyclopedic objectivity has therefore often been compromised with the neutral reader getting a negatively biased perspective on most areas of the ICOC. You did this in your recent edit in the 'beliefs' section. When making a valid point on the ICOCs beliefs and how many converts are rebaptized, your wording made sure it was negative as opposed to objective. Please consider stating your point more objectively? JamesLappeman (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, if you object to the manner in which the criticisms in this article are placed, then we can discuss about where we think they should be properly located. Currently, they're woven throughout the article, which as EastTN points out, is in accordance with WP policy. That is, criticisms to the beliefs or discipling techniques are placed in their respective sections. Simply deleting properly cited material as you have done is not acceptable. I agree with EastTN that if sources are found that the ICOC has changed its approach, the criticisms should be placed in the history section (with the appropriate responses). I said this in a previous comment above, actually. But until evidence can be found that the criticisms in questions are indeed a part of the ICOC's past, the criticisms probably shouldn't go in the history section, as it would be better to weave them throughout the article. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with both Nietzsche123 and EastTN that more reliable sources stating the change in the ICOC stance would be helpful. However, I do still feel that the critical source is aimed at a small subset of the movement and a fair time ago with no further criticism appearing since (at least not that I've seen stated here in these discussions). To continue to malign a movement based on such, is unfair towards the movement as a whole. Is there not a better way that we can represent this that is more objective in tone, as per JamesLappeman suggestion? Sandelk (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be helpful to turn the question around and ask it the other way. Is anyone aware of - or can we find - reliable sources that document a material change in the particular beliefs and practices involved since these criticisms were raised? Even better, can we find a secondary source that says the level of criticism has decreased, or perhaps even ended? If so, then I would suggest a "two-step" approach to resolve this: 1) create a "historical criticisms" section, and then 2) create a "changes in the movement" section to follow it. If we can document such a change, then theis would seem to appropriately address the concerns on both sides. It's not appropriate, though, to declare the criticism "historical" if we can't find sources to document either a change the beliefs and practices that were challenged or a reduction in the level of criticism. I know that there have been significant organizational changes, so it wouldn't surprise me if there weren't cultural and doctrinal changes as well - I just haven't seen the sources for them yet. While the ugly stuff is an important part of this group's history, if we can document that it really is history now, we should do so. EastTN (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with EastTN here. Until reliable sources can be found that show that the criticisms were indeed a part of the ICOC's past, I'm moving the criticisms back to being interwoven in the article itself, in accordance with WP policiy. If reliable sources are found that show that the criticisms are no longer valid, or valid only for a small segment of ICOC churches, then we can discuss creating EastTN's two-step process. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the belief's section should focus on the specifics of what the church has stated as their beliefs and free of critical elements ^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6],^[7] to quote a few sources from around the globe. Any controversy around the beliefs is already discussed in the history section and I think should be focused on there. Sandelk (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Having some criticism covered in the history section is not a justification for deleting any other criticism from the article. Where it should go is a legitimate questions, but we're talking about criticisms that are both well-documented and notable. Recognize, though, if we want to cover the beliefs of the group without any "critical elements," then it isn't fair to include certain selected criticisms just so we can turn around and refute them (such as the discussion of water baptism and the "sinner's prayer" under "Beliefs"). If criticism is going to be in a separate section, then it should all be in a separate section.

I still think the way forward is to find reliable sources that document the changes in the ICoC that would mean these criticisms are only relevant historically. I know the group has gone through some significant leadership changes in the wake of Kip McKean's resignation in 2002 and eventual departure in 2006. My understanding is that the current leadership has tried to rebuild some bridges with the Churches of Christ. I suspect that there have been other changes, at least in tone and culture. Given the debate that occured around the time of McKean's departure (see the [http://www.reveal.org/library/stories/people/hkriete.htm Kriete letter), those changes may well have been significant. In that case we would have a once controversial movement that has matured and moderated over time. If that's all true, let's document it. My suggestion would be to create a "Historical criticisms" section, pull into it all of the documented criticisms we've discussed, and at the same time put in a stub section for "Changes in the movement." I'll have to defer to editors such as Sandelk and JamesLappeman to provide the sourcing for that second section, because I really don't have much. If the sources for that second section simply don't exist, then we have an entirely different situation, and the criticisms become even more relevant to the article. We don't have to worry about that right now, though, because it will become evident if we create the "Changes" section and no one can flesh it out. EastTN (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I was told by other Wikipedia users that Reveal is not a reliable source because it is an organization made up of ex-members of the ICOC. (There are a lot of ex-members of the ICOC. I guess if these folks were happy and content as members of the ICOC they wouldn't leave?)Qewr4231 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

While I prefer to keep fair and neutral criticisms from reliable sources interwoven throughout the article (which is the preferable way to go according to WP policy), I'm willing to compromise and place the criticisms in a "Historical criticisms" section, as EastTN suggests. But as EastTN intimated above, that would mean putting all the criticism from well-documented and notable criticisms--like those from TBM, CRJ, and Christianity Today--in the "Historical criticisms" section. In my view, much well-documented and notable criticism has been removed from this article over the last few days without justification. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche123, It would seem we are losing sight of a few things. As Elmmapleoakpine argued in another discussion; simply because there are reliable sources that make negative claims does not automatically justify their inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Such as the negative claims in RS that say Barak Obama is an “illegally elected Muslim socialist”.

WP Policy guides us: “When incorporating negative criticism, the POV policy requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner. Additionally, the undue weight policy requires that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative criticism.

For example if we look at the mainstream Churches of Christ Wikipage. The page describes: • the organisation of the church, • it’s beliefs, • it’s history and • groupings outside the US.

Precious little criticism is forced into the page even though there has been a fair amount of it over the years. Just a brief google search of “criticism of the churches of Christ” brings up pages of people in reliable sources claiming the church is a “Campbellite cult” and “Campbellites have much in common with other cults and heretics” and “The Church of Christ claims Billy Graham is not a true Christian”

Books on Amazon include:

Inside the Churches of Christ: The Reflection of a Former Pharisee On What Every Christian Should Know About the Nondenomination Denomination {http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Churches-Christ-Nondenomination-Denomination/dp/1438901399/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1}

The Truth about the Church of Christ with a little summary: Dr. Hugh Pyle shares with us that many years ago, a strange religious sect’’’ joined the so called "Christian" community. Over the years they have gained a notable following of ill-taught people who are being convinced that this is the one true church’’’, and that it was actually founded by the Lord Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost. In order to prove their points of doctrine, they use the most chopped-up portions of mismatched and ill-chosen verses imaginable. About three-fourths of their proof texts do not even relate to the subject at hand.”

Further…

The Christian Research Journal (which both EastTN and Nietzsche123 are trying to have included here has an article on the “Churches of Christ, Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ”) {http://www.equip.org/articles/the-churches-of-christ-the-christian-churches-the-disciples-of-christ/#christian-books-2} with a few notable quotes:

“The COC go even further and teach that those who have been immersed as believers but do not regard baptism as essential for salvation are also not truly Christians. This rules out almost everybody except members of the COC (and some of the NACC churches) as genuine Christians…CRI has received numerous letters from members of the COC, as well as testimonies of non-COC Christians, that confirm the prevalence of this teaching.”
“The depths of error into which this principle of Restorationism can lead is best illustrated by the fact that the early leaders of the movement were prepared to accept Barton Stone as one of them, despite the fact that he denied the Trinity and the deity of Christ… Indeed, the members of the Restorationist churches are a prime target of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because of their weakness on the Trinity.”

And I could easily go on and on… yet none of these criticisms are found on the mainstream CoC Wikipage and I haven’t seen EastTN or Nietzsche123 advocating for their inclusion.

The point is, that we can dig up criticism of just about any religious group and portray it in a manner that “draws attention to the negative”.

Even the NIV translation of the bible has generated a huge amount of criticism among scholars but a look at the Wikipage has only a very brief mention of the controversy and none of the gory details. Because Wikipedia is not a depository for every negative thing that can be found in reliable sources and expressly states that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative.

I think that the criticism of the ICOC should not be avoided and it should be mentioned. At the same time we should not attempt to drag every criticism made over the years into the article. Maybe a sentence or two describing the article linking to a RS per major controversy i.e “Discipling” “US Campuses” and “Beliefs” (although that one is debatable).

Thoughts? (I have repeated this at the bottom of this page as it may be easier to follow the conversation down there) JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How about just including criticisms that have been proven to be true? I'm sure there are many.Qewr4231 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

On College Campuses

The ICOC has received criticism for its proselytizing on US college campuses. The evangelical periodical Christianity Today in 1997 reported that campus ministers and religion scholars state that although the ICOC is "among the nation's newest and fastest growing movements", "it may also be among the most dangerous". The spokesman and elder of an ICOC church, Al Baird, disputes this charge, claiming that the "group's intense focus on evangelism and discipleship is grounded in Scripture"[32] Robert W. Thornburg, former dean of Boston University's Marsh Chapel, says that the church is "the most destructive religious group [he's] ever seen."[32] The dean goes on to say that "[t]hey're a destructive religion, everyone else calls them a cult, and they're the only group about which I would say that unambiguously"; he adds "[t]hey are destructive to freedom of thought, freedom of movement, and freedom of activity. They cut kids off from their families, and their method of recruiting and keeping kids in qualifies as first-rate mind control". In the same article the Rev. Peter J. Scanlon, Catholic chaplain was less concerned and said that: "I think our kids will be OK. ...cults aren't limited to religion - you could have a beer-drinking cult too, and we do have that."[84]

U.S. News and World Report ran an article in 2000 discussing proselytizing on college campuses. The article's author, Carolyn Kleiner, describes the ICOC as "[a] fast-growing Christian organization known for aggressive proselytizing to college students" and as "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus". Kleiner states that "some ex-members and experts on mind-control assert [it] is a cult". Furthermore, "[a]t least 39 institutions, including Harvard and Georgia State, have outlawed the organization at one time or another for violating rules against door-to-door recruiting, say, or harassment." In response to the question "A zealous group to be sure, but is it a cult?", U.S. News and World Report also quotes ICOC spokesperson Al Baird, who says "We're no more a cult than Jesus was a cult" and Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden, who agrees with Baird, saying "[e]very new religion experiences a high level of tension with society because its beliefs and ways are unfamiliar. But most, if they survive, we come to accept as part of the religious landscape".[18] Chaplains at both the College of the Holy Cross and MIT sent letters warning their student bodies of the practices of the ICOC.[85][86]

It seems UNDUE to have two long critical articles about the ICOC on College campuses. I think we can keep the US News and World report and cull the other? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see this before. I don't see how it's UNDUE to have these two paragraphs. They don't repeat any of the same quotations. They also have different content. While in the former college officials themselves who criticize the ICOC, it's the US News doing the criticizing in the latter. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Two critical articles covering a niche part of the ICOC (on US campuses) definitely violates both UNDUE and BALANCE. Plus Thornburg is at best a questionable source as he had to resign his position at BU under a cloud of controversy. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I doubt that the paragraph in question violates WP:BALANCE, which states that "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". If the paragraph didn't portray Al Baird's and Professor Hadden's responses, then I'd say you have a point here. But the paragraph portrays both sides in a disinterested way, in conformity with BALANCE. According to WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views". Christianity Today is a reliable source. Further, the paragraph in question represents a significant viewpoint not repeated by other paragraphs, namely: the view of a college official--Dean Thornburg--who is critical of the ICOC's specific efforts on his campus. Whether Thornburg resigned under "a cloud of controversy" is tangential to his credentials and the fact that he's regarded as an expert at determining whether a religious group's practices on campuses are destructive. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, As you quoted Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. Here you have aprox 400 words dedicated to 3 critical articles with only a sentence or two given to Baird, concerning a very small section of the ICOC. It absolutely violates BALANCE. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, the paragraph in question contains both Baird's and Professor Hadden's responses. It also contains Dean Thornburg's criticisms. Thus, it is balanced in that it portrays "opposing views clearly". Notice that WP:BALANCE doesn't imply that both sides should be expressed in the same amount of words. The paragraph in question references an article that's critical of the ICOC's evangelism on BU's campus. Even if BALANCE did require the same amount of words to portray opposing views, however, there wouldn't be a problem here. In the paragraph, two sentences are from Thornburg and two are from Baird and Hadden. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, the issue here is one of prominence. 3 largely critical articles concerning a very small segment of the ICOC. This is UNBALANCED. Maybe some other editors can help us resolve the deadlock. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I see only two articles in the two paragraphs above. While the articles are critical of the ICOC, they contain views from prominent parties--i.e., Baird, Hadden, Scanlon, and Thornburg. These views are fairly represented in the article. I'm curious as to why you say that the ICOC's evangelism on US college campuses is a "very small segment of the ICOC". If you watch the Fox and 60 Minutes documentaries that Qewr4231 provided, you'll see that (at least at one point in time) the ICOC seems to regularly engage in college recruiting. Regardless, the ICOC's recruiting practices have received much criticism. So even if you're right, WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE require us to portray prominent controversies in a neutral and fair way. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 and JamieBrown2011, I haven't looked at this whole USA college campuses thing before but it is unbalanced for an article of this nature. The criticisms are isolated and hard to extrapolate onto the entire ICoC which has 600+ churches in 150+ countries. How about a balanced statement explaining that the ICoC was not liked on some campuses and received criticism for proselytizing. Then we insert it in the history section. Most of these criticisms appear to be in the 1980s and 1990s. The section as it stands does not warrant the amount of space on the article. JamesLappeman (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, this criticism is also made by a reliable source that's verifiable. The ICOC has come under much criticism for its evangelism on US college campuses; so the criticisms are also relevant. While there are two paragraphs on this topic, roughly half of each is dedicated to ICOC response to the criticism. So the criticism is portrayed in a neutral way. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 Not ever source that is reliable and verifiable should be included in a Wikipedia article WP:BALASP states criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. The fact that the articles themselves are impartial is irrelevant. The question is should there be three articles criticising the ICOC on US Campuses? I think not. JamesLappeman highlights a good point, they cover a small segment of the ICOC in a narrow period of time. We should keep the US News and world report and cull the other two.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, due to the controversy that the ICOC has amassed regarding its evangelism on US college campuses, I fail to see how citing three articles is disproportionate. While I agree that the articles themselves are impartial, our description of them is also impartial. Just as much time is spent defending the ICOC in this section as criticizing it. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not the specific criticisms pertaining to the ICOC's involvement on U.S campuses in the early 2000's (as these sources report) are a balanced reflection of a global organization spanning 500+ churches in over 120 nations? In my opinion WP: UNDUE again applies as these are microscopic 'snap-shots' of a macro religious group. Psmidi 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Psmidi, I agree, this is completely out of balance. I think one article covering the criticism of the ICOC on US campuses is more than sufficient. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see my above points. Including the aforementioned paragraph violates no WP policy. Even if you can find an article that argues the criticisms that the ICOC received in the recent past for its evangelism on college campuses, what would we do is faithfully and accurately represent that source; we wouldn't just not mention that the ICOC once received criticism for its evangelism on college campuses. The paragraph in question here faithfully and accurately represents the Christianity Today article it's associated with. The paragraph accurately represents the criticisms made in the Christianity Today article by Thornburg. It also fairly and neutrally represents the responses to that criticism offered by Baird and Scanlon. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, none of your arguments address the problems being highlighted. Simply because something is reliable and fair doesn't mean it should automatically qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:BALASP JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, you haven't addressed my responses. WP:NPOV' and WP:BALANCE require us to portray prominent controversies in a fair and balanced way. The paragraph in question does this. As I stated above, I fail to see how this paragraph violates WP:BALASP: since the ICOC's evangelism on US campuses is a prominent controversy, citing three sources is not disproportionate. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 I've read through all of your preceding paragraphs but you've still failed to answer the above fundamental question that I've posed. I guess 'prominent controversy...' is certainly in the eyes of the beholder, in this instance. Please help me understand how WP:UNDUE doesn't apply here when we are referring to university campuses in 1 country (out of 120 nations that the ICOC operates in currently) over 10yrs ago? Psmidi 20:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psmidi (talk • contribs)

I do agree with Psmidi here - this campus criticism is too isolated to sufficiently warrant a reference as the entire movement. A reference could be made in the history section relating to a particular campus/campuses, but should not be used to reflect the movement as a whole.Sandelk (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I propose including the USA campus criticism twice in the ICOC 'history' as it is a cited criticism. I agree with Psmidi and Sandelk - this campus criticism is too isolated to sufficiently warrant a whole section. JamesLappeman (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Psmidi, please refer to the documentaries cited above to see why the ICOC's involvement on college campuses is a prominent controversy: 1) ABC News' 20/20 http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv, 2) Inside Edition http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/InsideEditionSmall.wmv, and 3) http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/FoxFilesSmall.wmv. There are also the news articles that the section in question refers to from US News, Christianity Today, and The Boston Globe. JamieBrown2011, you deleted the paragraph in question without adding anything new to the talk page, without addressing my reasons above for including it. If someone would like to modify the paragraph in question, please make suggestions. But simply deleting a paragraph from a reliable source that accurately and fairly represents its source is not appropriate for WP. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition, JamieBrown2011, why do you think that we should just eliminate two of the three sources on this topic? WP policy does not require us to or even advise us to cull citing sources. The fact that three sources in print focus on the ICOC's evangelism on college campuses strengthens the idea that this is a prominent controversy. If your problem is the size of the paragraph in question, then we can work together on addressing that as we did before, with the other paragraph in this section. I just want to fairly and accurately represent the source. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123, I agree with Psmidi, JamieBrown2011 and Sandelk. The section is warranted but not in its current form. The page runs smoothly through history-governance-beliefs-practices and then goes into a number of specifics that do not represent the current ICOC. You are correct that this material should be in the article, where you are not fairly using WP policy is your insistence that they are given separate prominence and large weight. JamesLappeman (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, what about the paragraph in question do you object to? The ICOC's evangelism on US college campuses is a prominent controversy. As I said above, this is evident from the three documentaries and the three print sources. If there's something in particular about the paragraphs in question that you would like changed, then let's discuss it. But simply deleting mention of a reliable and properly cited source on a prominent controversy won't do. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I attended my first ICOC Bible talk on a college campus. I was invited to a Bible study from 12-1 PM. I attended the Bible study, ate my lunch there, and was invited to an ICOC Sunday service. There were about 20 to 30 people in attendance. I attended a Sunday service. I began studying the Bible. I began hanging out with disciples. I went through a whole series of Bible studies on campus called "First Principles." I got baptized and became a member of the ICOC. Later on, I became a house church leader and attended leader's meetings. A lot of members are recruited from college campuses. Qewr4231 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nietsche123, I am sure @JamesLappeman can explain his viewpoint but this has been explained already in the above sections. So once again Wiki policies state Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, the ICOC on US campuses (as explained above) is a very small proportion of the ICOC as a whole, therefore giving three articles nearly 400 words in the main article, whether they are reliably sourced or not, is overblown. I left the US News and World Report article in which highlights the controversy on US campuses. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I have already rebutted JamesLappeman's views above. The ICOC's evangelism on college campuses is a prominent controversy. You don't deny this; otherwise, you would be advocating for the removal of the entire section. We have two reliable sources that should be cited here--US News and Christianity Today. One other, the statement about college chaplains at MIT and Holy Cross sent warnings to their students is relevant, too. So that shouldn't be excluded. Simply deleting mention of the Christianity Today article isn't acceptable. I'll gladly work with you on re-writing the disputed paragraph in question, but let's not delete verifiable information that's prominent and neutrally summarized. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 your insistence on the inclusion of the ICOC's evangelism on college campuses as a prominent controversy continues to baffle me. I do not deny that the ICOC has been without its critics in the last 2-3 decades specifically on campus. However, what the above 3 editors are trying to communicate to you (without effect it seems) is the undue weight that you are wanting to place on this criticism within the broader scope of this article. I've worked through your referenced material but it still leaves me unsatisfied. If we were talking about an organization that was just isolated to the U.S I'd agree, that this would be a prominent controversy worth documenting...in the history section of the 90's & early 2000's. But we are referring to a movement that has 500+ CHURCHES IN OVER 120 NATIONS to date!!! It would seem like you need to expand your worldview to fully appreciate the logic here Psmidi 19:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psmidi (talk • contribs)

Psmidi, above I argued why I contend that the disputed paragraph fails to violate WP:UNDUE. I'm going to quote my argument now.

"According to WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views". Christianity Today is a reliable source. Further, the paragraph in question represents a significant viewpoint not repeated by other paragraphs, namely: the view of a college official--Dean Thornburg--who is critical of the ICOC's specific efforts on his campus. Whether Thornburg resigned under "a cloud of controversy" is tangential to his credentials and the fact that he's regarded as an expert at determining whether a religious group's practices on campuses are destructive." (end quote)

It does seem UNDUE to include the disputed paragraph. Simply deleting reference to reliable source about a prominent controversy isn't in accordance with WP policy. If you would like the section to be re-worded, please make suggestions. I'll gladly work with you on improving the quality of the paragraph in question. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 I appreciate you recognizing that the disputed paragraph '...does seem UNDUE' given the scope of this organization. Just to clarify, my figures were outdated with regards to the global span of the ICOC. It actually has 637 churches in 155 nations. This in my opinion, requires us as editors to have a more macro worldview of this family of churches, steering away from isolated incidences affecting a few campuses in 1 country over +- 10 years ago. I further appreciate you willing to partner on the disputed paragraph, however I'm inclined to now weigh up bothJamieBrown2011 and EastTN in this matter. Please see my further comments at the bottom of this section so as to keep with the flow of the discussion. Finally, I wanted to also apologise for deleting material without bringing it to the talk page first. Thank you for pointing this out with regards to my editorial 'habits.'Psmidi 15:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Psmidi, I didn't read your comment until now. All this text is rather confusing for me: it's becoming to difficult to keep track of everything. Despite what I typed (that is, "It does seem UNDUE to include the disputed paragraph"), I meant to say that it does not seem UNDUE to me to include the disputed paragraph. Apologies for the typo. If it's the size of the paragraph in question that's worrisome to you (and others), I'd be glad to work with you (and whoever else) on reducing the paragraph's size. I just want it to accurately and fairly reflect The Christianity Today article it uses as its primary source. I figured the quotations that I provided best represent both the criticisms and the ICOC responses to the criticism. No problem on the deleting material without comments on the talk page. I deleted some stuff a while back and it took JamieBrown2011 helping me out to learn the ins and outs of WP editing. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeakley

In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test to the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. Yeakley passed out three different MBTI tests, which asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types.[87][88][89] While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. A great majority of those respondents changed their personality type scores on the three different tests in convergence with a single type: that of the group's leader.[87][88][90] After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm".[91][92]

comment on the above "Yeakley" source As part of the article clean up, I will shortly upload a revised 'history' section. The above section will fit well into the history by providing balance. This is better than having its own heading WP:BALANCE. Unless there are valid objections, I will do so when I upload the updated 'History'JamesLappeman (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 How about putting this in the History section (1980-1990)? seems to fit perfectly there as opposed to randomly in the article. Thoughts? JamesLappeman (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I object to moving the Yeakley material. We already discussed at DRN. We agreed to place the material in its own section. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 Maybe you would like to quote where the DRN suggested, or we agreed to have Yeakley in it's own section, otherwise lets move it to it's appropriate section.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I'd rather not go through the entire DRNs again. I remember JamesLappeman asking if this should have its own section or be moved to another. We agreed that it should have its own section. JamesLappeman criticized me for previously using the title of something like 'Alleged Personality Changes of the BCC'. I accepted the title that you previously used, namely: 'Yeakley's Research on the BCC'. Moreover, I think it's proper place is its own section. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has improved significantly since then and an isolated issue from 1985 like Yeakley should go as a paragraph (this identical one) into the history section. Nietzsche123 why is this not clear to you? JamesLappeman (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, while I doubt that the article has "improved significantly" since our dispute on the DRNs, that's irrelevant. With the help of neutral editors on the DRNs we reached a consensus not only on the content of the Yeakley bit in this article, but also its placement. To willy-nilly change our minds now is irresponsible. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nietzsche123, JamieBrown2011 and Elmmapleoakpine. The ICoC has had some issues that must not be avoided. The inclusion of so many criticism segments, however, violates WP:WEIGHT and needs to be contained to a reliable and relevant extent. I will upload some revisions to the 'history' section where some of the problems in the ICoC over the last 30 years can be inserted. Above I have started to tackle some of the sources that still need to be removed/moved/changed. JamesLappeman (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, JamesLappeman, but I disagree with your proposals. Including criticism in the article in a balanced way is in fact required by WP:NPOV and doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. Of the 5,766 words in this article only 790 are contained in sentences critical of the ICOC. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 This is a discussion on how to clean up and organize the page. JamieBrown2011 has brought to our attention that some editors have tried to add criticism to every aspect of the ICoC from all kinds of sources. As I look through your particular editing history, there is a trend of "seeking" criticisms of the ICoC from various writers in order to insert them under the relevant heading. This practice undermines the nature of an encyclopedia to be unbiased. As to your point above ("beliefs") I would propose that the 'History' section be expanded and the main criticisms of the ICoC be inserted there (most criticisms relate to the ICoC 20 years ago under Kip McKean who is no longer a member of the ICoC). The 'Beliefs', 'Structure', 'Affiliated organisations' etc... should just describe the organization and not present a judgement on whether it is in anyones opinion "good/bad". JamesLappeman (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, your tendency to focus on the editors of this article rather than their arguments is not very constructive; so I ask you to please stop. Let's instead focus on improving the quality of this article. I like how you are now proposing where to place some criticisms instead of simply removing them. But I disagree with the rationale of your proposal. If the criticisms were directed against McKean, then I think you may have a point in moving them. But they weren't: the criticisms you mention are directed to the ICOC, as an organization, not specifically to McKean. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have explained the rationale for changing/removing some of the criticisms that hurt the neutrality of this article. Please see in each section above and we can hopefully reach consensus on wording, placing and reliability.JamesLappeman (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC) JamesLappeman, please see above for my responses. I think that I covered all your new points. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion here. I have not weighed in in a while. In reading through, there are several things I wanted to say. (I apologize for not nesting these points) 1) The American Family Foundation is also the International Cultic Studies Association. I think we must assume bias in considering this as a reliable source. 2) I do not think the beliefs section should contain criticism. There is no need. 3) Although I know it is not reccomended per Wikipedia Policy. I do think it would be much easier to make progress in this article to have a controversy/criticism section. I just think it would make this subject easier to understand and facilitate in cleaning up the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine I think your points are valid, you may want to place them in the "beliefs" section of this discussion or they may be missed. Just a suggestion. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Following on from the discussion further up the page to create a clear follow on discussion)

As Elmmapleoakpine argued in another discussion; simply because there are reliable sources that make negative claims does not automatically justify their inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Such as the negative claims in RS that say Barak Obama is an “illegally elected Muslim socialist”.

WP Policy guides us: “When incorporating negative criticism, the POV policy requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner. Additionally, the undue weight policy requires that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative criticism.

For example if we look at the mainstream Churches of Christ Wikipage. The page describes: • the organisation of the church, • it’s beliefs, • it’s history and • groupings outside the US.

Precious little criticism is forced into the page even though there has been a fair amount of it over the years. Just a brief google search of “criticism of the churches of Christ” brings up pages of people in reliable sources claiming the church is a “Campbellite cult” and “Campbellites have much in common with other cults and heretics” and “The Church of Christ claims Billy Graham is not a true Christian”

Books on Amazon include:

Inside the Churches of Christ: The Reflection of a Former Pharisee On What Every Christian Should Know About the Nondenomination Denomination {http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Churches-Christ-Nondenomination-Denomination/dp/1438901399/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1}

The Truth about the Church of Christ with a little summary: Dr. Hugh Pyle shares with us that many years ago, a strange religious sect’’’ joined the so called "Christian" community. Over the years they have gained a notable following of ill-taught people who are being convinced that this is the one true church’’’, and that it was actually founded by the Lord Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost. In order to prove their points of doctrine, they use the most chopped-up portions of mismatched and ill-chosen verses imaginable. About three-fourths of their proof texts do not even relate to the subject at hand.”

Further…

The Christian Research Journal (which both EastTN and Nietzsche123 are trying to have included here has an article on the “Churches of Christ, Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ”) {http://www.equip.org/articles/the-churches-of-christ-the-christian-churches-the-disciples-of-christ/#christian-books-2} with a few notable quotes:

“The COC go even further and teach that those who have been immersed as believers but do not regard baptism as essential for salvation are also not truly Christians. This rules out almost everybody except members of the COC (and some of the NACC churches) as genuine Christians…CRI has received numerous letters from members of the COC, as well as testimonies of non-COC Christians, that confirm the prevalence of this teaching.”
“The depths of error into which this principle of Restorationism can lead is best illustrated by the fact that the early leaders of the movement were prepared to accept Barton Stone as one of them, despite the fact that he denied the Trinity and the deity of Christ… Indeed, the members of the Restorationist churches are a prime target of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because of their weakness on the Trinity.”

And I could easily go on and on… yet none of these criticisms are found on the mainstream CoC Wikipage and I haven’t seen EastTN or Nietzsche123 advocating for their inclusion.

The point is, that we can dig up criticism of just about any religious group and portray it in a manner that “draws attention to the negative”.

Even the NIV translation of the bible has generated a huge amount of criticism among scholars but a look at the Wikipage has only a very brief mention of the controversy and none of the gory details. Because Wikipedia is not a depository for every negative thing that can be found in reliable sources and expressly states that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative.

I think that the criticism of the ICOC should not be avoided and it should be mentioned. At the same time we should not attempt to drag every criticism made over the years into the article. Maybe a sentence or two describing the article linking to a RS per major controversy i.e “Discipling” “US Campuses” and “Beliefs” (although that one is debatable).

Thoughts?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd make a couple of comments. First, the churches of Christ page is not entirely free of negative material. It explicitly discusses the various disagreements and splits that group has experienced. It also has a section on race relations that says things like "As with the country as a whole, the assumption of white racial superiority was almost universal among those on all sides of the issue, and it was common for congregations to have separate seating for black members" and "During the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s the churches of Christ struggled with changing racial attitudes. Some leaders, such as Foy E. Wallace Jr., railed against racial integration." In the discussion of Baptism, it says: "Because of the belief that baptism is a necessary part of salvation, some Baptists hold that the Churches of Christ endorse the doctrine of baptismal regeneration." In the discussion of the approach to church history it says: "One affect of the emphasis placed on the New Testament church is a 'sense of historylessness' that sees the intervening history between the 1st century and the modern church as 'irrelevant or even abhorrent.'" Is that article perfect? Of course not - but it does have negative material woven in, and it has successfully gone through a Good Article review. Whatever the remaining limitations may be, I do think it's fair to say that it has a reasonably neutral and encyclopedic tone. (I would also note that the article on Barton Stone has a discussion of his view of the Trinity, since you mentioned that one.) Second, most of the current criticisms of the churches of Christ are theological; the most common are that they teach baptismal regeneration and tend towards exclusivism. Historically, the most common criticisms of the ICoC have been related to misuse of the discipling relationship.

Focusing on this article, I have no desire to drag in every criticism that's appeared in a blog somewhere out on the web. We should discuss which criticisms come from reliable sources, and whether they are accurately and neutrally described. We should also document where changes may mean that the criticisms are now less relevant (as the "Race relations" section of the CoC page does). But we seem to have gotten hung up in an unproductive back-and-forth that is getting in the way of making progress on these questions.

One concern that's been expressed is that weaving the criticisms through the article breaks up the flow and makes it difficult for the reader to understand what the ICoC current believes. Bearing that in mind, I would like to suggest the following:

1) Create a "Historical criticisms" or "Past criticisms" sub-section at the end of the History section;

2) Add a "Changes in the movement" or "Response to criticisms" sub-section immediately after it;

3) Move all of the criticisms into the criticism sub-section;

4) Move all of the responses to criticisms into the changes/response sub-section;

5) Then, once we have it all in one place, we can go through and talk about what's reliably sourced.

My expectation is that putting all of the criticisms and responses in one place will make it easier to focus on what should - and what should not - be included. I'm sure there's stuff that needs to go - let's just make sure we do it for the right reasons, and not because we simply disagree with it. It also seems likely that some of the rebuttals that have been offered up in this discussion can be documented by reliable sources. My hope is that creating a changes/response sub-section will encourage editors to find those sources and incorporate them into the article. EastTN (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple more thoughts. Following up on JamieBrown2011's last comment about having a sentence or two on each major point of controvesy linking to a reliable source, I agree that a) we don't need more text than is necessary to accurately describe the controversy, and b) we should identify and use the best sources. That takes cooperation from editors with all points of view, though. In my experience, these things tend to spin out of control because someone says "that's not accurate/complete/fair . . ." so other editors pull in more text to better describe the criticism. Then someone puts in a response, and someone on the other side says "that's not accurate/complete/fair . . ." so editors who agree with the response pull in more text to better describe the response to the criticism. Then people start questioning the sources - there's just one, or it's not notable, or no one else is saying that, or it's not official, etc. - and folks on both side start scrambling to find as many sources as possible.

It might be helpful if we could agree on what the major criticisms are, whether we agree with them or not, and what the primary response to each is, whether we agree with it or not. If we can, I'd suggest looking for two to three reliable sources on each criticism and response. The reason isn't to pile on, but because controversial statements by their very nature call for stronger than usual sourcing.

Finally, I do think a vital question is whether we can document that there have been material changes in the practices of the ICoC that affect the validity of the criticisms. We know there have been significant organizational changes, and there's some evidence that ICoC leaders are reaching out to the CoC. Given that, it seems likely that other things have changed as well. It would be very, very helpful if someone could find a reliable source documenting those changes. Is anyone aware of anything that's been published on this? EastTN (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@EastTn, none of the editors here are suggesting including info from blogs etc... into the article, but just like the mainstream CoC Wikipage, there are a number of critiques found in Reliable Sources that are not represented on that page (which I agree with, as Wikipedia is not a repository for every critical thing that can be found in published sources) and I don't see yourself advocating to have them included on the CoC page.

As you describe, there is a sentence of two (in your words) "woven into the article" describing some of the major controversies the CoC has been through in a manner that does not draw excessive attention to the negative. I think we can achieve that here. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Both EastTN and JamieBrown2011 make valid arguments with equal 'pros & cons' to both options as to how we incorporate healthy criticism of the ICoC into this article. I'm however leaning more toward WP Policy which states "The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the articles flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme - not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections." To create a 'historical criticisms' section is not in line with this policy in my opinion. Allowing for possibly 2-3 'lines' for 'necessary criticism' in each section is more aligned with this policies guidelines. I agree with EastTN that the current editors showing interest in this article could work together to source reliable information concerning the changes the ICoC has made with regards to organization, structure, discipling etc. to balance this criticism. This could more accurately reflect the direction the ICoC has taken in the last decade or so, post Mckeans departure.Psmidi 15:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with either organizational approach, as long as it lets us deal with the substantive issues. I'm going to create a new section on the talk page to start that conversation, because this one has gotten long enough to make editing awkward. EastTN (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I already addressed Elmmapleoakpine's argument above. Like you say, he argued that "simply because there are reliable sources that make negative claims does not automatically justify their inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Such as the negative claims in RS that say Barak [sic] Obama is an "illegally elected Muslim socialist"". To repeat what I said above, this analogy is inapt: Barack Obama is not a church. There are BLP concerns that exist for criticizing the president that don't exist for the ICOC. Further, while reliable sources report that some people believe that Obama was born in Kenya or is a Muslim, the people making these claims are all non-experts and not reliable sources themselves. The same cannot be said for the critics of the ICOC EastTN and I are trying to fairly represent. While some criticisms of the ICOC appear in blog form, such criticism of course doesn't meet WP criteria. TBM and CRJ both do, however. As you well know from the DRNs, ICSA was deemed a reliable source by WP standards. While CRJ did publish an article critical of the COC, this doesn't mean that it's not a reliable source. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Taking all the criticisms and putting them in a "historical criticisms" section is not a good suggestion. When is something current and when does it become history. Remember, the ICoC still exists and so even defining history in this manner is too ambiguous for Wikipedia. The removing of criticism from the current history also harms the integrity of that section as the ICOC was criticized along its chronology. The way forward is to keep getting well sourced information about the ICOC and design a page that is readable and accurate. Returning to a comment made earlier by Elmmapleoakpine, inserting criticisms of beliefs has a biased tone. If there are significantly sourced criticisms of the ICOC's beliefs at any point they can be inserted at the appropriate chronological place. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, as EastTN and I argued above, we can leave criticisms in the "history" section of the article only if the criticisms are indeed historical, not current. In order to show that the criticisms are merely a part of the ICOC's past, you need to provide some evidence for this. Come to think of it, I'm even uncomfortable with the title "historical criticism". Instead, I'm more in favor of adopting Elmmapleoakpine's suggestion of just having a "criticism/controversy" section of the article. We would, then, also need an "ICOC response to criticism/controversy" section. The only other way to go is interweave the criticisms and responses throughout the article. But as Elmmapleoakpine notes, it may make reading the article a little more difficult than having dedicated sections to criticism and controversy. I don't see how inserting criticisms of the ICOC's beliefs in the "beliefs" section "sets a biased tone". Doing so is in accordance with WP policy. It also doesn't erroneously suggest that the criticisms are merely a part of the ICOC's past, as placing them in the "history" section of the article does. While it's okay to engage in original research (WP:OR) on this talk page by implying that criticisms apply only to a certain segment of the ICOC's past without reliable sources to support the claim, it's not okay to do that in the article.

So we have two options going forward. We either (1) interweave criticism and response throughout the article, or (2) have dedicated sections to criticism and response. Qewr4231, EastTN, and Elmmapleoakpine appear to be in favor of option (2). JamieBrown2011 and Psmidi seem to be in favor of (1). I'm still not sold on either, yet. While I've been advocating for (1) for months now, I'm willing to compromise and accept (2). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with either (1) or (2). My primary motivation for suggesting (2) was to get past the "where do we put it" debate and focus our talk page discussion on content - especially on whether or not we can document substantive changes in the movement. To me, that's a threshold question. If we do have reliable sources for substantive changes in the ICoC, then the criticisms become a historical issue - and should be treated as such. If we can't document those changes, then the criticisms have to be handled differently - either woven into the rest of the article, or in a separate criticisms section.

JamesLappeman, are you aware of any good sources that discuss substantive changes in the ICoC's beliefs, practices and culture since the departure of Kim McKean (beyond simple changes in leadership)? If so, I would ask that you add them to the new section I started at the bottom of the page. If they don't exist, or we simply can't find them, it becomes difficult to justify relegating any and all criticisms to the history section. I find it very plausible that the organization has changed, but I myself don't have any good sources on it. EastTN (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 is good at finding sources, maybe he can find some? JamesLappeman (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In the mean time I think we should take each case separately based on merit. Things that have a historical nature can go to history and things that are more current can be fitted in elsewhere. I had a look at the Churches of Christ "beliefs" and "doctrine" section and like how it is phrased. Some criticisms are included but not in any attempt to be inflammatory. JamieBrown2011 mentioned that there are many more critical articles/books/chapters available on the CoC from good sources but I agree with whoever has edited the CoC page that it would be unnecessary to include them as the CoC beliefs are stated clearly and defended in light of alternative thinking. The recent inclusion (in the ICoC 'beliefs') of an article from the clearly labeled "Encyclopaedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions" makes comment of the ICoC's baptism practices (which are almost identical to the CoC). I don't see this as a necessary edit or why the source was so particularly highlighted since we have already discussed being wary of using the word 'cult'. JamesLappeman (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JamesLappeman that we need to take each case on its merits and each criticism/issue should be looked at separately. I'm still of the opinion along with JamieBrown2011 and Psmidi that the criticism should be woven throughout the article and placed in the correct location, where appropriate. Sandelk (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As I've said several times, I'm agnostic about where we put the criticims. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Either way, though, we need to focus on the substance. To do that, I would suggest that we focus on identifying the criticisms, responses, changes and best sources for each in the section on Talk:International Churches of Christ#Identifying Criticisms and Changes in the Movement Over Time. As part of that discussion, I agree that we should look at the sourcing for each separately. I strongly agree that we should select the best, most creditble sources for each one, rather than throwing in the kitchen sink. My ideal would be to find two to three very solid sources for each point, pro and con. That's what I'm hoping we can do in the new section below (this one's becoming too large to be manageable).

Turning to the question of changes in the movement. Nietzsche123 is good at finding sources. But what do we do if he doesn't manage to find any reliable sources that say the ICoC's beliefs, practices or culture have fundamentally changed since McKean left? I want to be very polite about this, but it has been other editors who have argued that these criticism are either outdated or apply to only a very small segment of the ICoC. They may be right, especially on the "outdated" front since the leadership of the organization has changed. But while I'm willing to look (more), and I suspect Nietsche123 will be willing to look, at the end of the day it seems reasonable to ask the editors who're advancing that view to provide the sources to support it.

On the discussion of baptism, I agree that the question of baptimal regeneration is not worth more than a couple of sentences. I'd also cut all the the business with the "sinner's prayer" (that's just another way of saying they believe baptism is a necessary part of salvation) and the appeal to Staten and Chen (why is that relevant? Catholics and Orthodox also believe baptism is necessary, and we don't mention that). The other criticism which is important, though, is how the approach to baptism is tied up with exclusivity. That's what the sources were getting at when they said:

Bjornstad - they "have rebaptized their own people, including elders, who were baptized previously in the Boston movement, but were thought to have lacked the necessary commitment of a disciple at the time of their baptisms" and "[g]iven their standard and additional condition for baptism (and salvation) which only they seem to meet, one could conclude that those in the Boston movement alone are saved"
The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions - "Members believe that one must be a disciple first for baptism to be valid. A person baptized in any other religious group is almost always rebaptized upon joining the movement. Often a member who has been previously baptized in the International Church of Christ will decide he or she did not have a proper understanding of baptism at the time of his baptism or that he was not a true disciple at the time of the earlier baptism and will be baptized a second time. Discipleship is very important to the movement. In the movement, a disciple is one is faithfully following Christ and has taken on the lifestyle and purpose of making disciples of all nations. Every single member of every congregation is supposed to be committed to making disciples. Any who are not so committed are not disciples themselves and will not go to heaven."
The Encyclopeida of the Stone-Campbell Movement makes the same point, saying they "saw themselves as the only true Christians and insisted on reimmersing all who come into their fellowship, even those previously immersed 'for remission of sins' in a Church of Christ"

Do we need all of three of these sources? Perhaps not - or perhaps we can summarize the point in a sentence or two and drop the rest to a footnote. But this is getting at something very different than an assertion that the ICoC has baptism practices that are virtually the same as the CoC. Why did I put the name of The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions directly into the text? Because given the level of controversy it seemed appropriate to me to use direct quotes from the sources to avoid any question that we might be misrepresenting them, and to specifically identify each source so it was clear where the quotes were coming from. If you're more comfortable dropping the name of the source to the footnote, that's fine with me. EastTN (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Melton#Christian_countercult_and_secular_anti-cult

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement#Former_members

[3] ttp://www.columbiachurchofchrist.net/OurBeliefs.html

[4] ttp://www.thelondonchurch.org/ChurchWide/ContentPage.aspx?PageTitle=Beliefs&Region=London

[5] ttp://www.milwaukeechurch.org/AboutUs.html

[6] ttp://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/2207

[7] ttp://www.seachurchesmedia.org/articlelive/our-beliefs-.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]