Talk:New Testament Christian Churches of America

Restored page

This page was deleted per an AfD. It has now been supplemented with additional sources and restored by User:Becritical. I supported the notability of this article in the original AfD, and I continue to believe that this denomination is notable and worthy of an article. I do have some concern about WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT issues in the restored draft. I have made an effort to edit the article accordingly. Other opinions are, of course, solicited and encouraged.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Appears to be whitewashing of this article by a church defender. I'll revert and take it to the noticeboards. The article as restored [1] accurately reflects the RS which we have, and the recent edits are whitewashing. Becritical (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wishes, I could address the concerns raised in the edit summaries, such as that the lede contained POV... the lede summarized the sections, which is what it is supposed to do. It isn't Wikipedia's fault that most of the information on this church is negative. Becritical (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Becritical, that appears to be a personal attack on me and you should withdraw it. Please review WP:AGF and WP:OWN. I am a long, long way from a "whitewasher" or a "church defender", and I am certainly not a single purpose account--I have just gone over seven thousand edits on English Wikipedia, including a wide variety of articles on religious congregations and denominations. I am concerned that your restored version is potentially inconsistent with a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:ATTACK, and WP:BLP, and I am trying to help clean it up without losing the gist of the verifiable information. I hope you can see your way clear to collaborating on this and editing by consensus.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I expected you to be an SPA because of the nature of your edits, and you have my apology for the incomplete deletion of that accusation. I fully deleted it now. But I do stand by the article as written... not that it has to remain the same, but the information is a fair summary of the only RS we have, which are the Dispatch articles. I see no reason to vitiate the article by removing the summarized information. Also, the Dispatch articles are actually more negative toward the church than what I wrote, so I would think that things would go the other way rather than there being concerns about an attack article. It's only an attack article if the RS are not accurately reflected. Becritical (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Above it still says you're a church defender, and I think that's an objective enough reflection of the edits, but no offense intended. Becritical (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a battle-ground, nobody is here to attack or defend anything. All we need to do is reflect reliable sources in a neutral way. The facts will stand on their own without us needing to emphasise them. The article tone is currently far from neutral. Most of the opinions of Bruce Smith should be attributed to him unless a a large number of reliable sources share the same opinions. There are very few sources here, which is problematic in both establishing a properly neutral view and notability. Davémon (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the Wikipedia process. However, while some of the tone of the Dispatch articles may be biased (as distinguished from non-factual), I do not see them as reflecting the author's opinion. If there is reason to believe that the reporter was not accurately reflecting his own sources or didn't report accurately what his sources were, then we might have a problem. Nothing in the article as I wrote it, so far as I can discern, over-emphasized the content of the Dispatch articles. I tried to stay true to the actual facts reported in the article, without biasing them by tone. Of course those facts are mainly negative, but that seems to be just what the reporter found. Perhaps there should be mention of the born again experience of some members. But I don't see where anything in the article as I derived it from the Dispatch is actually Smith's personal opinion, and thus I don't see the need for further attribution. I tried to relay only the facts from the articles, not the opinion, which is why I say the articles are more negative than what I wrote. Becritical (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Davemon, can you tell me specifically where the tone is biased? Becritical (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made one edit that I think improves the tone considerably [2] (there might be some minor grammatical errors - apologies!) If you take that as an example and apply it to the rest of the article, in my opinion that would help shift the tone the right way. Davémon (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good edit in my opinion. I wouldn't want to do that with every sentence or even every paragraph, but it definitely belongs in some places, as where you put it. Becritical (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on the principle, and I agree that if over-used then attributing the authors can make the text awkward to read, but we do need to be clear where the opinion originates. I do see another problem with the article text, and that is with using http://www.ntccxposed.com/ as a source. Basically the problem is that this is an anonymous blog, and we cannot be sure of it's reliability. Sources for Wikipedia have to pass a certain level of scrutiny (see [WP:RS] for details), which means they have to be published by publishers with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and in many cases have had their content peer-reviewed, this means that as a general rule, forums and blogs aren't acceptable as sources. I am not saying that I think http://www.ntccxposed.com/ is inaccurate or wrong in any of the statements it's making (the truth is I don't know if it's accurate or not), but because the website doesn't show the level of independence and reliability required, that we can't use it as a source, and the content attributed to it should really be removed. Davémon (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, Ntccxposed shouldn't be used as a source. It's now being used only in the history section, which I copied without changing from the former article. I really think that it should be in the external links though, because it is a large part of the reaction to the NTCC. Or at least it deserves a mention somewhere, just because it's so prominent [3]. Becritical (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I just checked, and the only ntccxposed sourcing is to this copy of some NTCC materials, so that should be ok, don't you think? Becritical (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There is also the matter of the text that describes Ntccxposed, and quotes from "Anatomy of Power". Are there any reliable sources that describe Ntccxposed?--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I doubt there are any RS which describe it. It makes for a better article because Ntccxposed is actually prominent, but it's not strictly in accord with the rules. Becritical (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think because the claims attributed to Ntccxposed are quite controversial, and we can't find any RS which vouch for its reliability, we'd be better off not using it as a source. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and all that. Davémon (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not being used as a source for any material. Becritical (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following you on that comment: the text describes ntccxposed and then goes on to say: "It hosts articles which purport to document physical as well as psychological, spiritual and financial abuses of the church leadership and culture. For example, the accusation is made that 'Exclusivity plus Authoritarianism equals Power. This is the formula employed by NTCC.'" The only source cited is ntccxposed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

When we speak of using something as a source, we are usually speaking of using it as a source for information about the subject, not information about itself. That apparently was what I misunderstood. But, Davemon, considering the RS we have, they are very far from extraordinary claims, indeed they are the expected claims. Becritical (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we find sources that pass WP:RS that echo the claims that the NTCC carries out the types of abuse that the article states? If we can't find sources which support the specific claims, I do not think ntccxposed can stand on it's own, as it doesn't pass WP:RS, and subsequently the description becomes redundant. Davémon (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the main sources echo the claims, I think, except about hitting ("physical abuse"). Becritical (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But ntccxposed evidently isn't notable since there are no reliable sources describing it, so why is it in the article? And what basis is there under Wikipedia rules to quote its allegations against the NTCC?--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an article about ntccxposed, therefore notability doesn't apply. I believe, personally, it is significant in the context of NTCC, since it is a highly significant part of the expatriate scene. And the allegations are merely its description. They are also generally substantiated by our reliable sources. We are not using it as a source, but rather reporting its existence. However, it itself does not constitute a reliable source, neither is it notable in its own right, but only in the context of NTCC. If the consensus of editors is that it needs to be taken out, then let it be for other reasons. Becritical (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the article deserves a small section on the community of ex-NTCCers. We may be able to source that to the RS sources, and that this section would be a better place to mention ntccxposed. I will look over the sources to find out if we have what we need to do this. Becritical (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we've just got to the stage where we are expressing the same positions without making progress. If I might summarise - Arxiloxos and I find that the nttcxposed fails WP:RS and we shouldn't be using it to make controversial claims regards abuse, status as a cult, etc. Becritical finds that nttcxposed fails WP:RS but is a significant source in terms of the subject of the article, so we should use it. Shall we ask for some community input on the appropriate use of "ntccxposed.com", perhaps an RfC or a request on WP:RSN to see if that can help move towards consensus? Davémon (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't a good source for claims about facts, but it is a good source about it's own claims. And it's significant, because there is a large ex-NTCC community which is a really significant phenomenon connected to this church (and a large source for the RS articles about it.) I do recognize that there is a case for taking it out, yet to me common sense says it should stay in (a simple description such as what is there now), because it really is significant in context. Becritical (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is standard for articles on churches to have a "criticism" section. I would suggest changing the section heading to "Criticism", which could include information on the nttcxposed group and any other criticisms. It could be broken into subsections if such were desired and there were sufficient information to merit such sections. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like it would work, I didn't know that was standard. Thanks for commenting. Becritical (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Finances

The finances section was removed with the edit summary that it was unsupported. It was merely reporting the source in my opinion. If you wish we can remove it from the article again and paste it here and discuss it. Perhaps it needs further attribution? Becritical (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not merely reporting the source. The article makes the assertion that "Members are put under intense financial pressure". How do we know this? We only have the word of the critics. It's not a neutral term. StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the source makes that assertion in many different ways, and saying "intense financial pressure" is merely a summary of the source's information, an encapsulation of its information. However, it's not necessary so I redid the passage to accommodate and removed the tag. As a general rule, you'll find that the reliable sources on this church (as well as the impression one gets from reading the unreliable sources constituted by the comments of the ex-members on the articles, which to me as an editor confirms that the RS articles are accurate), paint the church in a much more negative light than this article. As I wrote the article it is about as positive as you can get. If you get further from the sources, you get less accurate, and if you get closer you get more negative. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

GA status

I've asked for this article to be reviewed for GA status. I think it could use more sources, but there are no other WP:RS sources available besides the ones used. I hope that the article accurately reflects the reliable sources which are available and has a neutral factual tone. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm really unhappy with this section. Most of it is not criticism at all, but statements of the church's practice: e.g. "Women must not wear makeup and must wear dresses and let their hair grow long." If that is properly referenced, it should go in a section on practice. But that sentence is not referenced. The footnote at the end of the paragraph does not mention it. But it gets worse. I changed "Church services are used to bully and humiliate members" to "Church services are allegedly used to bully and humiliate members", before checking the footnote, and seeing that there was one mention of bullying going on in a service - but that wasn't by the writer of the article, it was in a reader's comment! This does not constitute a reliable source. According to WP:SPS, "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." StAnselm (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right on the bullying. I believe I remember that it is in the articles, not the comments, but I have to find it. If it's not there we definitely need to take it out, thanks for noticing. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, here it is:

More troubling, though, is bullying from the pulpit. Any perceived transgressions in members' behavior can be cited during services, which many report as humiliating.

Further, when individuals leave the church they are shunned by the fellowship, losing lifetimes of friends and relationships.

When members have questioned these practices, ex-ers say they received a biblical tirade or were told they were "in rebellion." Oftentimes, though, they were simply ignored.[4]

There you go. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It still needs a lot of improvement. We ought to name the person who is saying that "Church services are used to bully and humiliate members", since it is an opinion and not a fact. (Who is to say when a certain type of behaviour becomes "bullying"?) AND "Women must not wear makeup and must wear dresses and let their hair grow long" is not a criticism. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've addressed the above concerns. StAnselm (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Are you sure you want to use the "beliefs and practices" section heading? It gives too much room for expansion. We don't want to have a huge rundown of doctrine, as this article used to contain. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Well, if that happens we could rename it to "Distinctive beliefs and practices", or something like that. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this be moved (over the redirect) to New Testament Christian Churches of America in accordance with the naming conventions for companies? – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

External links section

The EL section is way too long and should be pared down in accordance with WP:EL. If they are already references ("A deeper look" for example) they don't need to be ELs; if they should be references, they should be appropriately cited as such in the text and removed from the EL section. – ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to bring that up in the GA review comments. I will be weeding them out shortly. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Improvements for the article

Discussion toward improvements to the article following the GA attempt are located at the dedicated page, here. Contributors are welcome to take part. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the criticism section, there was a suggestion int he GA review to make "Beliefs and practices" and "Financial distribution" subsections of "Criticism". This doesn't work in the current set up, since everything in "Beliefs and practices" is (I trust) factual, while criticism implies an opinion being offered. It is not criticising the NTCC to say that they forbid/discourage women wearing make-up. StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Who wrote this opinion piece, only laced with facts? This biased garbage! Where is the bias? The whole "Beliefs and practices" belongs in a science fiction novel. Who has provided documentation for any of it? Financial sections uses the term: "and to give 'till it hurts' in special collections" and someone can't say that isn't bias? The issue in the statment is not tithing, which is a principle that is taught in many other religions, but is there a doctrine or statement from this group on (painful) giving?(talk) 04:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.23.169 (talk)

It's directly from the sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions

Added the title "Teachings" derived from the Churches Website in order to bring this article to a more neutral point of view, by at least conducting an analysis on their standard operating procedures and driving core beliefs, that have caused so much controversy to this midsize church organization. There isn't a lot of RS out there. All there is, is The Dispatch and the organizational website. I would encourage further analysis of this organization doctrines, to at least shed a brighter light on the other side of the coin, of such strife, negative report, and division among this organizations members.--ER 23:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

We don't do analysis, see WP:OR. There is no need for a rundown of their beliefs, that is pretty standard Evangelicalism as I understand it. It is also self-serving proselytizing. And the church website is not a very good source, nor is a blog. If, as you say, there are no RS out there, then the article is complete unless you want to discuss adding further information from the existing sources. B^e——C_ritical 10:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

USER:BeCritical, I see that deleting things without reasoning in the talk board is your scholarly duty. There was no reason for this act. According to the Talk page, many have suggested including yourself to shade light on this organizations teaching and philosophies, which can be derived from the companies website. There is no other way to do this at this current time, given the fact of limited sources.

I will revert all your doings. My doing, have made this article the closes so far to neutrality, with out eliminating, anything already stated. If you have a problem with how the page is arranged, then adjust accordingly.

I believe that that organizational website, is the only source right know that gives, the organizations point of view, which this article severely lacks. This organization has over 5000 members and this article only represents what 5% of them experience.

In the Scholarly world this organization, wouldn't even make it into a reputable encyclopedia due to the fact of limited information. Now the Enquirer, Saturday Night Live and all the other juicy, gossip publication would take this article and run with it.

Whats the objective then USER:Be critical?? Whats your objective now that this article is publish in this online encyclopedia?? Do you want to report all views, which true scholars en-devour to do? This article shouldn't be here, but it is , lets neutralize it with the available resources, which is the responsibility of every editor in this online community. --ER 16:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

USER:Becritical, using blogs is allowed in Wikipedia. The Blog that was used is personally the CEO of this organizations. Do you need the link to WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Blogs like that fall under our strictures on self-published sources, which may only be relied upon for a very narrow set of matters. Most blogs fail to meet our standards: reliable sources with a neutral point of view and a lack of conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And Kekel's blog and the Church website do not meet those criteria. It is already stated that they are Evangelical. This will lead to sufficient discussion of doctrines. Thus, it is unnecessary promotionalism to put their doctrines directly into the article. B^e——C_ritical 19:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

USER:Orange, what is the interpretation of the comment "which may only be relied upon for a very narrow set of matters"? Apparently, we have a wide range of experience in interpreting documents, therefore I pulled up the WP:RS for all to see: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Shortcut:

   WP:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

   the material is not unduly self-serving;
   the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
   the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;
   the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

For what ever reason, I just cant place my finger on it, and maybe,if any of you experts, USER:Orange and User:BeCritical would kindly explain, why am I interpreting this section as supporting my argument, that inserting this organizations personal belief and convictions and sourcing it directly to the organizations website is an issue. If this article was about Apple, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, etc... We would all use these companies website to describe the products and services being offered as a reliable source.

I believe that the section teachings being sourced to the companies own website, a verifiable, legitimate website, belonging to a registered Non-Profit Organization, which with what can be gathered, (with my personal expertize in real estate and intellectual property valuation) with over 20-40 millions dollars in real estate assets, is knocked down as being not a good enough source??? Lets reason about this USERS and weight the balances of justice by practicing sound judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

When you're using self-published sources, you have to be particularly meticulous about separating fact from assertion. What concerned me more was the enormous length of the content you dumped into the article, which constituted (to my eye, at least) undue emphasis on a fairly non-notable set of fundamentalist, politically-conservative doctrinal statements. By their fruits shall you know them and all that; what they proclaim is less important than what they do. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a very short discussion of doctrines (a couple of sentences in an already-existing section) would be appropriate if and only if their website claims ways in which their doctrine differs fundamentally from normal Evangelical doctrine. Otherwise, inserting a list of doctrines is unduely self-serving and unnecessary. B^e——C_ritical 21:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The recent additions consist of doctrine which may be shared by all Evangelicals, and what appears to be original research, because I looked for it in the alleged source [5] and didn't find it. Please state which, if any, of the "Teachings" differ from general Evangelical beliefs, and that can be worked into the article. And please give a quote to source the "history" addition, otherwise I'll remove it later. B^e——C_ritical 00:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this is how the process of communication works, amazing. Making headway here on the way to the center we go!. There is a comment on the financial section, that reads as follows: "and to give "till it hurts" in special collections for missionary programs" Ok... dont know about this one USERS. We already know that this organization believes in giving which is standard operation in the Evangelical world, why the sassy remark, no need for such language. Tell me facts, not emotions. I believe this statement should be omitted, what do you think USERS.--ER 03:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

The Section Finances and financial distribution is a straight copy and paste from The Dispatch??? Is this the Tabloids??? What does this nonsense have to do with Finances and financial distribution??? Mama mia! Ok... this section and cult like accusation or criticism should all be in one section called Criticism and Accusations. This section doesn't describe at all the cash-flow of this organization. The whole section only has two set of numbers stated, which are clearly opinions, being that this is a private organization which doesn't have to disclose its finances to the general public. We have "Up to $100,000 a year is raised for the field missions; however, only $300 of this total is given to each of the field missions per month (or about $43,000 yearly for all 12 missions combined)" I'm no mathematical genius here, but 12 different mission field, rising only $100,000 and over 40% is going back to cover "payroll", who's paying for the facilities??? operating expense?? etc... I'm seeing negative returns here USERS. Anyhow, this section has nothing to do with stated heading, sound to me like Accusation, criticism, etc... Needs to be updated, revised. --ER 03:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

Created Criticism and Accusations heading and sub heading. Content needs to be revised, lots of trash talking in there ( I guess it matches the title) Needs to be narrowed down to what really is the accusation?? I see accusation of accountant issues, the cult accusation??? don't understand, everything stated, giving, dress-code, courtship rules on campus seems like a normal conservative Evangelical practice, don't under stand the word cult being used??? Cult suggest, out of the ordinary practice of established main stream or Orthodox standards?? I don't see this in what can be gathered?? USERS?? --ER 04:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

It's obvious that the only reason for your account is to promote NTCC. Please stop trying to push your point of view into the article. Read WP:NPOV. B^e——C_ritical 05:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

USER:Becritical, is my bold editing offending you? this article, by the way, if you failed to realize on top of this talk page, mention the fact that this article is part of WikiProject- Christianity?? Guess what USER:Becritical, I join this project to bring christian articles that are bias, like this one, and help it. You don't own Wikipedia USER:Becritical this is a community of editors with different views and different convictions. Your double standard of editing is coming out on this forum is coming out USER:Becritical. You mention things like, you cant include that and this because that is a know fact in the Evangelical world, we don't need to copy and paste from the organizations webpage, people can go and check it out themselves

Well, USER:Becritical, I/m feeding back your own medicine and you don't like it???? This heading called finance, doesn't mention anything about finances and mention more of the same and its a straight copy and paste from the source.... unacceptable in a graduate study setting- it seems like you like the tabloids USER:Becritical-- this article belongs in the tabloid the way that it currently stands, and the Wiki community backs me up.(look on top of this page) The finance section of this article belongs under accounting criticism is more of a proper term and should be merged with cult accusation with is an incorrect statement, not my personal opinion, ask any theologian of christian terms and history of cults, this organization is no where need being a cult.

Anyhow, stop trying to get your own way all the time and stop just deleting and editing, based on your own preconceived idea's of why I set up this account USER:becritical. Why wont you support your changes like a true scholar would ( if you look above I'm the only one the has to write three to four paragraphs to support my views) and stop stumping your feet on the delete button. I'm being to believe, that you attend this church, USER:Becritical, because you are surly fighting my efforts except of helping me naturalize the article. --ER 15:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

If you feel this way, we have a noticeboard, WP:NPOV/N, where you can post your concerns. If you do so, I will support you in saying that there is a need for others to look at this article. Also: I tried to work with you but you refused to respond to my requests above. B^e——C_ritical 18:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Pattern after most Christian articles on Wiki

New Headings are normal title for most dominant churches and major ministers written about here on Wiki. Check out Benny Hinn,, Billy Graham and his organizations and many more groups listed here on Wiki, list these type of criticism, under Controversy, criticism or accusation. Thanks --ER 20:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

Just in case any USERS don't want to do the leg work required to research my insertion of the heading "Criticism and Accusations", the following are churches that are all on Wiki and have controversies and accusations on them. You will notice a common denominator on all these organization, they all have heading called criticism, no different then this organization, yet most of these articles aren't in dispute over major editing, which I'm contributing to stop on this one, because most of these article are properly balanced, and allows the readers to draw conclusion, not the editors personal biases and personal hangups. Most of them have great layouts that would be good to implement on this one. Scan and see as your heart desires. Enjoy

   Bread of Life Ministries International
   Brunstad Christian Church 
   Calvary Chapel 
   Christ's Commission Fellowship  
   Christian Congregation in the United States 
   Churches of Christ in Christian Union 
   Churches of Christ 
   Crossroads Christian Church
   Cornerstone Fellowship 
   Evangelical Christian Church in Canada (Christian Disciples)
   Family Stations, Inc. 
   Gordon College (Massachusetts) 
   International Churches of Christ 
   International Christian Churches 
   Independent Fundamental Churches of America 
   JIL 
   Local churches — The local churches (Chinese: 地方教會) 
   Newfrontiers
   Open Bible Standard Churches — Pentecostal
   Open Brethren — non-charismatic, of UK origin
   Plymouth Brethren
   Sovereign Grace Ministries 
   Victory Christian Fellowship 
   Vineyard Movement — evangelical/charismatic
   World Changers Church International

USER:Becritical is this sufficient evidence to justify my changes?(to headings) or are you going to continue to be the Edit Monster? --ER 21:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

One thing that you will also, learn if you sincerely scan these works, is most of them have teaching and Doctrine sections, oh wow... interesting... on works that are rated B and C Class..uhm food for though. And Guess what, there teachings came from the organizations website!! (what!! USER:Becritical, hasn't gone over there and deleted it) interesting... interesting. Is any body feeling me out there?? Does any body hear me??? Wake up virtual world!!! Its time to calibrate those scales of judgment!! --ER 21:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

You may be thinking of things like this, which are simply in need of cleanup/removal. At any rate, what matters is this article specifically and what we deem to be appropriate here. You need to form consensus before edit warring. Please read WP:BRD for the appropriate way to do things. B^e——C_ritical 22:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I signing all my post?? It appears in this talk page that I'm giving input, then deletion comes, then I'm revising and giving reasons for updates, and then deletions, then I changes my methods, and propose changes to find neutrality and I get placed on the "regimes page", which was cute by the way, I cant win. This page has been here since, what 2009, which you have contributed to it since, three years, and it still looks like trash, I come along and propose some legitimate changes that are already practiced in the Wiki community (the good ones, not the one you proposed trying to be funny I guess). I am going to sign this one twice, for what ever reason, its not working right or something. --ER 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)--ER 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

This is Fun Users, :) double standards lurks around this place. I am going to go to another christian website and see if I will encounter the same opposition, lol! User:Becritical has called this their turf, don't understand why, low traffic webpage like this one, don't understand why. --ER 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

• I wouldn't necessarily call it double standards, but there are standards for this Wikipedia, and claiming that because another non-compliant article exists, this one should also be non-compliant, is inaccurate. I suggest you refrain from editing this page until you are more familiar with our standards and policies Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

These are the current state of changes Since Edwinramos2 started editing. I asked above, first, for a quote supporting the paragraph which begins "In 2004 they experienced a schism when several dozen (about 5%)..." I believe this is true, but if I remember right I was unable to find a source for it previously, and so didn't put it in. So I'm asking again for a quote. I also said above that there is no need for a rundown of their doctrines, except where they say they differ from standard Evangelical doctrine. But my question about which of the doctrines are different was not answered. Please answer these questions, and we can discuss how to integrate the information into the article (or remove it as the case may be). Also, as you see some of the doctrines part is repeating information already in the article, search for "hair." B^e——C_ritical 05:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Are these your editing friends, BeCritical, I understand Wiki procedures and it seems like it only applies to my changes. I wont play that game, and get feed that garbage. Support your changes, support your editing, like I have presented here. USER:Becritical is the only spear head on this page, I have gone to other, Christian documents, that are great sources and are in compliance, and have implemented on them layouts no different then what I have suggested here. One thing I am noticing, that this is the Only, only work, that gets the most debate, why don't I see none of you in any of the other works that are worst of then this one, According to the history of this article, USER:BeCritical has contributed more then 85% of it suggested layout- who's the war monger?? I have come and peace, and have suggested changes the are from compliant works, like Benny Hinn, Bill Graham, and other reliable compliant documents. None of the Users on this page has contributed to make this work better. This page has been a start up page since 2009. Again look at this talk page and see who has been trying to be progressive on this document, and trying to be the solution not the problem. None of you own this page, none of you control wiki, none of you are above the law. I have the same power and authority as all users on wiki. I am entitle to edit this document, as much as you are entitle to delete it and send your threats of retaliations because I dare to change this article based on what I see as documents on wiki that are in compliance. Stop sending warnings to go to the talk page to discus editing - because I am in the talk page, I am supporting my changes, while every one else is siting ducks, holding the delete button, suggesting threats and warnings with out no contribution themselves. In the United States Schools districts call this bullying. --ER 13:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

You are expected to discuss changes and reach consensus as per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, I suggest you do so before re-removing sourced content. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, another user, which refuses to pay attention to detail. No sources have been removed, intentional any how, my main change is headings, headings, current sourced information from The Dispatch, belongs under the heading criticism. This doesn't involve removing anything. There is a big difference between criticism and fact. A fact is Church policy is women wearing dress, that belongs under church doctrine. They use the pulpit to bully is not a fact is an opinion of someone that the Dispatch happened to interview.

Therefore, I not suggesting to remove this opinion, from an RS, I am suggesting...are you ready for this? Is everyone ready for this? Is any one paying attention out there in the virtual world!?... Allow sound judgment to prevail! ...

ok ready, These opinions from this RS should be placed under the term/heading Criticism no different then what reliable, dependable, b class articles already have for these type of organizations.

Ok, am new here, and am being to understand why reputable colleges and universities discredit everything written on Wikipedia... because some of its editors, don't understand the basic principles of research. Popular opinion belongs in the tabloids, and famous gossip forums. If everyone want to keep these opinions, lets categorize them under the proper heading. Which every other, B, C class document already has.

Ok -- teaching moment -- does any one know how to make a start class article, move up to a C class? What about B? What about the Best of the Classes???....Yeah!! You guessed right, you try to construct them after the example lade before us from the best examples.

Should I wait 24 hours for consensus? what about 48 hours? what about 1 year, 2??? Every one can come to this page and delete everyone knows how to copy and paste Html codes, of warnings to behead USER:edwinramos2, the only advocate and only one writing on this talk page, the only one providing explanation after explanation, which no one apparently is reading (prime Example USER:IRWolfie, suggesting to stop removing sourced information?? Thats not the issue here USER, lol). This place should be called the WiKi-Bloids --ER 15:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

You removed information from the lede which was sourced. The lede summaries the article as per WP:LEDE. You appear to not know what consensus means, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. I also suggest that if you wish to gain some consensus you choose a less belittling writing style, also see WP:AGF.IRWolfie- (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I see everything is still the same

You, know, I was thinking about this (after the stoning) why is it, that no one else is suggesting, no one else is explaining their actions, all they have to do is change and mention some brief edit summary and its good...?

I started thinking about the word tyranny. Tyrants never have to explain anything. They don't have to explain why they're doing anything.--ER 22:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

User Becritical and others have provided many patient explanations to you above. Nobody stoned you. Nobody tyrannized you. Wikipedia runs on cooperation and WP:Consensus. If you want help in making an article better, there are literally thousands of people here willing to help you. Just ask. I see that you've joined WP:WikiProject Christianity: good idea. They could really use your help in improving any of the many WP articles on Christianity, and I strongly suggest that you take a break from this one, and work on another. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So if you want to keep editing on this article, there are some requests for information I made above and in edit summaries. Best. B^e——C_ritical 23:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Smith

There are a number of sources by "Smith, Bruce." Does anyone have any information on this author? It almost looks like a less-than-reliable set of sources due to the prevalence of one specific author. --Nouniquenames 01:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

All the links provided seem to have gone dead, and the Wayback machine does not have the pages archived, but I have found a copy of the material here. So in fact all this material is sourced to the one exposé, written by Bruce Smith, who is according to Linked-In, a freelance reporter. -- Dianna (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

As of 24 February 2019, the page has been vandalized. Most of it is clumsy, just inserting the word "not" to reverse the meaning of many sentences. (The tampering is obvious because many of the insertions result in incorrect syntax, and the original sources state the opposite of what is now on the page.) I am not a regular editor of this page, but it needs cleaning or correcting or it will be very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerios (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mikerios: thanks, I've fixed it. I've moved your post to the bottom of the talk page as a new thread. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)