Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:06, 3 October 2010

Christianity Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. 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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arbitrary section name for formatting purposes

This article has serious problems, including a complete lack of sources, an inappropriate tone, and possible WP:BLP issues. I am going to start cutting things out in an hour and a half or so, unless there are serious objections. Natalie 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What you have here is a person who is leaving, a lot of personal feeling behind it, and thus the constant changes and adjustments. It might even be wiser to just eliminate the entry until after the dust at Overlake has settled and less biased heads can write an entry. User:Monkeyfriends133 Monkeyfriends133 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Monkeyfriends133

Remove the entry all together and let it start fresh at a later date.

That's my opinion. Looks like too many people are letting their feelings get in the way of what should be an unbiased article about the church.

Monkeyfriends133 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Monkeyfriends133

I'd say we could stub it - cut it down to 1 paragraph or two. Most of this is completely unsalvageable. Natalie 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub

I have stubbed this article due to its lack of citations, it's inappropriate tone, and the recent editorializing. Natalie 18:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call. As someone who knows and loves the church, it's sad to see what should be informational become a game for control of information. Thank you! Monkeyfriends133 03:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Monkeyfriends133

Sad to see this had to happen, but for now it looks like the best option. As a regular attender of OCC it makes me feel ill to see the vitriol going back and forth. 24.16.17.21 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we just have to remember...it ain't our church...it's God's right?!? He's in control. Monkeyfriends133 03:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Monkeyfriends133

Sex Scandal

Why this part of the article is being deleted? These are the facts.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.169.68 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Again this part is being deleted..Why????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.169.68 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor Quality

This article is very POV and it has WP:WEIGHT issues. I know that some of the editors have a deep connection with this Church, but that should not warrant writing it like this. Please expand it from what I have per WP:STYLE and WP:V. The current formatting of references is very poor...--Novus Orator 05:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to agree with user MathSci, who reverted your previous stubbing of this article. I have no attachment to this article or any connection/history with its subject, but I'm just not getting why you want to convert it to a stub. Is it that you want to see the earlier stuff about the church's trouble with their longtime minister's sexual deviance or how they dealt with that? ( Very badly, imo. I accessed the full text of the Christianity Today article, and the "elders" who managed that mess were shockingly unjust and ... well, I could think of other words to use about their actions, but I won't. But their behavior was really shameful, imo. ) Anyway, I'm sorry, but I just don't see that it's appropriate to stub it, so I, too, have reverted that. If you'd like to make a case here for working with the original text to make it more neutral in tone I'd have no problem with that, but I just don't see that starting from scratch is called for.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No way..I want the article to tell it as it was, but it needs to do so with reliable sourcing and independent analysis, so it isn't potentially libelious or biased. I merely turned it into a stub to form a good "foundation" to work off of. Please fix and increase the article by adding in good sources...--Novus Orator 07:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I think Terra Novus has a good point. As it stands, the article is a mix of indulgent promotion and scandal, none of which is sourced. The Moorehead scandal is notable, but does need clear sourcing and mustn't be given undue weight. Stuff like the books looks undue in the lede. However - Terra Novus take note - I do not support restubbing as it would be out of line with WP:BRD, and there's nothing libellous. Someone re-write the lede, and we should create sections. With the material thus organised, we can focus on sourcing and weight. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Vsevolod. The "scandal" part was at one point cited to a "Christianity Today" article, I see from the article's history. I don't have any strong feelings about including that, although I don't think it needs to be emphasized as a "badge of shame" either. That article was very critical of the church's management (or whatever the right word would be, council of elders, or whatever), but it was awhile ago too. I'll let others decide about whether that ref should be reintroduced; I think it probably should be since the events are notable, but I have no strong opinion about it, as I said. As for the favorable tone, I agree it could be made more matter-of-fact, but I don't really consider churches in general as especially controversial, and thus don't personally object to a mostly favorable tone in articles about them. I haven't looked at articles about other individual churches, though, and I know very little about the history of this one, only what I've learned in the past few days. So perhaps others will find fault with that predilection, but I don't see how it greatly damages the encylopedia to allow a moderately pleasant tone about non-controversial organizations. But I admit that "non-controversial" is very much in the eye of the beholder (and agree that the pastor-scandal thing needs a cite), so I won't argue the point if others disagree. I would hate to see this article become a battleground between current supporters and former attendees, however. I infer from previous comments on this talk page, and from looking at article history during that period, that it was just that, at one time, and imo the encyclopedia wouldn't be well-served by allowing that to happen again. Just my opinion, though, and no one ever stopped in its tracks a religiously-fueled battle over pride and hurt feelings by expressing an opinion, AFAIK. ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus, I feel some mild concern about your comment, "I want the article to tell it as it was". I presume when you say "it" that you're referring to the internal strife and political battles that I've seen documented in earlier versions of this article? If so, I have to ask you (sorry, truly) whether you might have personal interest in this fight? Do not respond, please, with anything that could be in the least personally identifying, but I notice that you've edited some other articles have caused me to ask myself whether you might have been a former attendee of the church. Don't disclose even that, if you just don't want to, but it occurs to me that you might need to be especially careful about NPOV and COI rules if you were. I know that religious politics can generate tremendous bitterness (I think of the troubles in Northern Ireland, the whole history of the middle ages, the current hatred between Shia and Sunni factions of Islam, etc, etc) but ... excuse me for phrasing this so, but wouldn't Jesus just want people to try to forgive and let it go? I'm not religious, but from what I've read I suspect that would probably be his recommendation if he were to show up on this article's talk page. ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You are totally correct. My comment was callous sounding, and I merely meant that the truth should be told, but with a lot of grace..:-)--Novus Orator 06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your very gracious reply. As long as we stick to reliable, published sources, as you suggest, and eschew the (no doubt true) facts that individual attendees might also be aware of, I'm sure we'll do just fine. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles