Christianity C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

JamieBrown2011 has repeatedly taken out content sourced to James Bjornstad that he finds objectionable. (Bjornstad, James (1993). "At what Price Success?: The Boston (Church of Christ) Movement". Christian Research Institute.) His explanation is "Even though he may be a professor his site CRI is in effect a WP:SPS, there is no editorial board and no evidence of fact checking required for Wikipedia." The content is not in the voice of Wikipedia but is specifically attributed to the author, we link directly to the full article by Bjornstad, the subject is within his academic specialty (Philosophy and Religion), and CRI is not "his site." The article was published by the Christian Research Institute. This organization has been around for quite a while, is not focused exclusively on the ICoC, and is not exclusively an outlet for Bjornstad's views. JammieBrown2011 argues that appearing on the CRI site makes the article essentially self-published, which seems unjustified to me. Mr. Bjornstad is not just another internet crank, and he didn't publish on his own site or on a random weblog. Excluding this material for the reasons stated appears to me to unjustifiably set a much higher bar for this source is typical for the rest of the article, or is typical for Wikipedia. EastTN (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EastTN, on Wikipedia Reliable Sources need to have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". CRI has no editorial board. It is essentially a one-man-show. So my objections are two-fold: You have already inserted the same material about "re- baptisms" into the ICOC article from a far more reliable source, there is no need to repeat from a lower quality source. 2ndly, you have edited the Churches of Christ Wikipedia page Extensively and yet never sought to include Bjornstad's articles on the church of Christ on that page. Why is he not regarded as a source for the CoC but you deem him a Reliable source on the ICOC? His articles on the CoC are here [1]. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been on here in a while. Saw there was some activity and decided to weigh in. A cursory look at http://www.equip.org/article/at-what-price-success-the-boston-church-of-christ-movement/#christian-books-2 should make it clear to any serious wiki editor that CRI is hardly a robust source. The ICOC page is looking way better than it did a year ago (credit to you all) and starting to litter it with poor WP:SOURCES is a pity. Just because the words 'publish' and 'research' and 'institute' are used, it does not make CRI more than a personal website/blog. EastTN Why the desire to include CRI? JamesLappeman (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBrown2011, I don't recall ever arguing that Bjornstad isn't a reliable source. It's natural that different articles will have different sources, depending on what's available for each topic. The ICoC has both a shorter history and a more limited literature than the CoC. In particular, it's been the subject of less academic and historical study. My hope is that will change over time. I'm a bit surprised that the presence of an "editorial board" is becoming the proposed standard for what constitutes a reliable source. Are we asserting that the other sources cited in this article do have editorial boards and recognized fact-checking processes? I suspect demonstrating that would be an interesting process. I'm also interested in why we think the CRI is "essentially a one-man-show" - as of 2003 CRI had approximately 50 employees. I don't agree that a "cursory look" at the Bjornstad article demonstrates that "CRI is hardly a robust source," and would argue that any more than a cursory look would demostrate that it is in fact more than a personal website/blog. I get the sensitivity, but the issue of rebaptism is one of the central doctrinal questions separating the ICoC from the rest of the Restoration Movement in general, and the mainline CoCs in particular. EastTN (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EastTN, you may want to brush up your knowledge of CRI. This is not a reputable source or organisation. It is registered as a "charity" with the lowest possible score of 1 out of 4 [2]. Christianity Today on August 15, 1994 ran an article on CRI where 24 of the employees you mentioned signed a letter and sued CRI for "racketeering", "corruption", "Tax fraud" amongst a litany of other charges. We already have a reliable source in the ICOC article making the claims you are wanting added, there is no need to add poor quality sources here. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue to which you're referring had to do with excessive salaries for certain executives. This is, of course, especially inappropriate for a non-profit that solicits donations. But those allegations don't have anything to do with the content of the articles they published, and arose a decade after the Bjornstad article was published. This is a bit like questioning the quality of the New York Times' newsroom based on concerns about the ethics of their accounting department. If the content isn't the issue, are you suggesting that you're fine with the text, but just don't want to link to this particular article? One of the values of Bjornstad is that the article is available free online. The other sources are likely not easily accessible to the average reader. EastTN (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EastTN, you are making leaps of comparison here about the width of the Grand Canyon! CRI is nothing even close to the Wall Street journal. The problems did not arise like you compared "in the accounts department" but at the very top structure of CRI. The corruption was FAR worse than inflated salaries to Hanegraaf and his wife but included "Racketeering", and "Fraud". Unfortunately a requirement for Reliable Sources on Wikipedia is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". CRI falls well below that bar. As I said before the material you have inserted already has a Reliable Source supporting it and trying to force CRI material in here is inappropriate and would simply lower the quality of the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBrown2011, you and JamesLappeman were apparantly fine with using Bjornstad as a source as long as the text was limited to "According to James Bjornstad not only does the ICOC require water baptism for salvation, it also requires one to be baptized as a disciple." Unfortunately, that misrepresents what Bjornstad has to say. In the very same sentence, he links that belief to rebaptism. For some reason, the rest of what Bjornstad has to say seems to be an issue. Some of the arguments that have been advanced include:

• He's only talking about one congregation. That turned out not to be true.
• It's ""essentially a one-man-show" and a self-published source. That turned out not to be true.

Now we're saying that an article:

• that was fine to source for a short, positive statement;
• was written by a professor in his area of expertise;
• was published by an organization that has a substantial staff and has been around for 40+ years;

does not meet a reasonable standard for reliability even when the material is clearly identified as the view of the author:

• because of financial improrieties of the publisher (not the author) [you do realize that "racketeering" and "fraud" are technical legal charges that are commonly used by prosecutors in the case of financial misdealings?];
• that came to light a decade after the article was published.

Again, I would ask - if the content isn't the issue, are you suggesting that you're fine with the text, but just don't want to link to this particular article? I really do want to be clear about this, because I strongly suspect that if I dig out the printed sources again, I'll find that they contain essentially the same material as Bjornstad covers. But I don't want to go to the trouble if that's not the real issue here. EastTN (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you do have an underlying concern with the content, I would strongly encourage you find a source that says the ICoC has changed its practices in this area. If you can do that, it will genuinely strengthen the article. I haven't seen one, but given what I do know of the trajectory of the group, I suspect that it really has changed in this area. While this is an important part of the ICoC's history, because it was a significant source of controversy and friction with other churches, documenting the changes over time is equally important. EastTN (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something on Wikipedia that defines a reliable source? Please do not tell me what a reliable source is, but please, direct me to a page that says what a reliable source is. For example, would these articles constitute reliable sources?

A CHURCH OF CHRIST OR CULT OF CASH Critics slam group as manipulative BY Dave Saltonstall , Daily News , Staff Writer NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Sunday, October 22, 2000, 12:00 AM http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/church-christ-cult-cash-critics-slam-group-manipulative-article-1.887922

Church's Practices Criticized -- Seattle Church Of Christ Too Controlling, Some Say By Lee Moriwaki, Susan Gilmore The Seattle Times (Winner of nine Pulitzer prizes) http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930711&slug=1710557 Qewr4231 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If these are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia, then can you prove that these are not reliable sources? Both are respected newspapers. One is based in New York and another is based in Seattle. The Seattle one has won 9 Pulitzer prizes.

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCE & Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Why the challenging tone? EastTN (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to sound challenging. I apologize.

I am looking at this definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source

It says:

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)."

Henry Kriete and his wife Marilyn Kriete are the authors of the "Henry Kriete Letter" which brought to light many abuses in the ICOC. Would Henry Kriete and Henry Kriete's personal website be the authoritative source on the Henry Kriete letter? Why, when I tried posting Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own words from their own personal website about the Henry Kriete letter, do people say that it's not a proper source? Aren't Henry and Marilyn Kriete the authoritative source of the "Henry Kriete Letter?" After all Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter and are the authors of that letter. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"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 the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. 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 "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."

I think some of the sources that people are disregarding as unreliable may in fact be reliable as Wikipedia states on it's reliable sources page. Biased or opinionated sources are accepted by Wikipedia as long as they meet "editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." A person can't argue that a source is not reliable simply because the source is biased or opinionated. Biased and opinionated sources are acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. It would seem that sources biased against or opinionated against the ICOC are acceptable as long as they meet "the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Qewr4231 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Associations: HOPE Worldwide,[3] It goes to https://www.hopeww.org/ Where does it say that Hope Worldwide is connected to the International Churches of Christ on that page? Qewr4231 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Associations: HOPE Worldwide,[3] DPI Books [4] The DPI Books source goes to http://dpibooks.blogspot.com/ The source page says: "Now that DPI has ended operations, you can still find many books and other products that were published by DPI. Most products are available either through: Good Book Press or Illumination Publications" Qewr4231 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source Number 8: "Data and Analysis". ICOC Info. International Churches of Christ. April 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-09. It links me to this page: http://icocinfo.org/chartlist.html The page is in Japanese. How would Americans know what the page says?? Qewr4231 (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source Number 12: Beliefs, Columbia Church of Christ website (accessed 24 December 2013) It links me to this page: http://colachurch.org/ How do the beliefs of the Columbia Church of Christ substantiate or prove the beliefs of the entire ICOC? Where on this page are the beliefs of the Columbia Church of Christ listed? Qewr4231 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source Number 13: "It is a family or network of 650 churches spread across some 155 nations, they consider themselves non-denominational.[6][13]" It links me to: http://web.archive.org/web/20080325065212/http://www.nyccoc.net/home/whoweare.htm

How does the link prove that the International Churches of Christ is " . . . a family or network of 650 churches spread across some 155 nations, they consider themselves non-denominational.[6][13]" ??? This source is very confusing. Qewr4231 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources use ICOC Hot News whatever that is. Is this a blog? Is this a newspaper? Is this a credible news organization? What is this? Qewr4231 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source number 35 leads me to http://www.disciplestoday.org/has-a-new-era-begun-for-the-icoc which in turn leads me to the full article at http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/1959 which is entitled "OPINION: Has a New Era Begun in the International churches of Christ?" written by Mike Taliaferro. Who is Mike Taliaferro and why is he a good source for "Once the fastest-growing Christian movement in the United States, membership growth slowed during the later half of the 1990s" ????

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 89 leads me to this page: http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article.aspx?articleid=straitstimes19970717-1.2.44.11&sessionid=72180122d5ed4f80adf22fc659b9de9f&keyword=central+christian+church+hearings&token=hearings%2cchurch%2cchristian%2ccentral

I quote what is found on that web page:

"The Straits Times, 17 July 1997, Page 35 Church not a cult, says expert witness Article also available on microfilm reel NL20190 [Lee Kong Chian Reference Library - On shelf]

Note: This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries. For more information, please visit the FAQ page. To obtain an un-watermarked copy of this article, please visit our FAQ page for more information."

The source is not available to people on the internet which makes this a less than credible source. It's essentially the same as having no source because of the source's inaccessibility.

Source 89 also leads me to this: http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article.aspx?articleid=straitstimes19971111-1.2.37.14&sessionid=72180122d5ed4f80adf22fc659b9de9f&keyword=central+christian+church+hearings&token=hearings%2cchurch%2cchristian%2ccentral

"The Straits Times, 11 November 1997, Page 30 Newspapers' privilege no greater than private citizen Article also available on microfilm reel NL20213 [Lee Kong Chian Reference Library - On shelf]

Note: This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries. For more information, please visit the FAQ page. To obtain an un-watermarked copy of this article, please visit our FAQ page for more information."

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the ICOC.

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Affiliated Organizations section all have references except: Baltic Nordic Missions Alliance, European Bible School, Florida Missions Council, Taiwan Mission Adventure

Why do these not have references?

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://www.icochotnews.com/ a reliable news organization?

"Icoc HotNews was created by Mike and Justin with the simple goal of making available information and news from the ICOC (International Church of Christ) congregations around the world. Our goal is inform, give opinion and keep up to date with developments within this family of churches.

Who writes the stories? Our correspondents from around the world file stories and report the news. Our editorial team includes Karen Louis (MA - Counseling) from Singapore, Dave Pocta (MA - Div) from South Africa, Zach Fazio (BA - Communications/New Media/Journalism) from the USA. Our newest member comes with nearly twenty years experience as a professional journalist, Vida Li-Sik (BA - Journalism). This news site is absolutely a team effort. So sit back and enjoy.

The Editors" http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/17

Is ICOC Hot News a blog? Is ICOC Hot News a credible news organization?

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does the section entitled "See also" that links readers to Early Christianity have to do with the ICOC? What does the ICOC have to do with Early Christianity if anything? The ICOC was not around during early Christianity, and the ICOC certainly has nothing to do with early Christianity

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]