![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In the 2nd paragraph of the introduction there is this statement "Calvary Chapels widely use a Pastor-led church governmental system sometimes referred to the "Moses" model; however some use an episcopal church-governance structure[citation needed]." What does this mean? Isn't pastor-led and episcopal church polities essentially the same, the idea being that the pastor acts in the same capacity as a bishop? If I'm wrong and there is a difference can the difference be mentioned in the article. Thanks. Ltwin ( talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a member of a non-denominational Pentecostal church and it is essentially the same. Our pastor in theory has a board he answers too, but, unless the pastor does something extreme such as kill someone, the board follows the pastor.
Why I asked about it is that I'm looking at the Moses mnodel, being pastor led, with the episcopal modedel, bishop led, as esentially the same idea. But I understand the difference when it is told in hierarchy terms. Ltwin ( talk) 19:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Those were good discussions. So it does appear to be significantly different structures, but only comes into play when church discipline is required. In the Moses model, the head preacher cannot be questioned because he receives "directly from the Lord" while everyone else is supposed to follow the lead. In an elder led church, the preacher is accountable to at least the elders. I added a section on the Talk page about church discipline, but maybe it belonged in this section. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 00:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this article written by persons affiliated with Calvary Chapel? I just finished reading Wiki articles concerning various denominations/churches and when I read the Calvary Chapel article, it didn't seem to take an objective viewpoint. Also, the writing style does not seem professional. I was surprised that scriptures of the Bible are sourced when the article states Calvary Chapel beliefs (much like a Church brochure). Usually, the beliefs of the church are simply summarized in Wikipedia articles. For example, the Wiki article on "Baptist" does not list the Biblical verse that supports their belief that a child must/must not be baptized, etc.
Basically, this article sounds like a pamphlet written by Calvary Chapel itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.96.197 ( talk) 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, a lot of the material reflects sources internal to Calvary Chapel and the tone of the article reflects that of members of Calvary Chapel or others sympathetic to this movement. An ambitious editor might go line by line to rework sentences. As a non-Calvary chapel person with a critical perspective I have to acknowledge that the most easily accessed information available is internal to Calvary Chapel. It would be interesting to hear what kind of formats and editorial standards are in place for similar articles,and then some suggested guidelines to follow for re-editing. 24.1.47.198 ( talk) 10:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Actually, I have seen this page when it reflects more realistically on the denomination. I expect when I look at the history, I'll find a bunch of reverts and other edits to remove the severe controversies within Chuck Smith's denomination. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have planned to work on this article, but to be honest get lazy everytime I attempt it. Besides that, I'm not in any way affiliated with Calvary Chapel so really can only offer copy editing and editing for verifiability and NPOV. But I could try with some help. Ltwin ( talk) 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, it seems we have a disagreement on whether Calvary Chapel is a denomination. In my opinion, it is a denomination as churches who affiliate with Calvary Chapel agree with that affiliation to take on those characteristics of Calvary Chapel and disavow characteristics which are not characteristic of Calvary Chapel. Just because Calvary Chapel sees itself as non-denominational does not mean that everyone else has to. The article should note that Calvary Chapel does not view itself as a denomination, but the article should also note that it has many of the characteristics of a denomination. On the point of it having no common governing structure, well that is not entirely true. It may have an extremely loose structure - and one that is centered in the influence and person of Chuck Smith - but it does have a structure. So I would say this is a denomination, albeit a very decentralized one and one that does not understand itself to be a denomination. Ltwin ( talk) 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Walter, there is a central governance. Calvary Chapel operates under a franchise model. For example, there is a protected radius between churches, and a new church has to be approved by the organization run by Chuck Smith. Please do your research before targeting another user. I'm sure you did it in good faith. Your statements would be used to suggest the Southern Baptist church is also not a denomination. Read Religious_denomination. So now that you are armed with the truth, please "be prepared to conclusively prove [your theory]." Sliceofmiami ( talk) 14:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Walter Gorlitz, I don't know why you lashed out at me. I didn't even make the edit. I saw it and left comments here. Wikipedia is not required to defer to an organizations idea of itself. It only has to note it. All Calvary Chaples must adhere to the Calvary Chapel Distinctives.
So, its not a denomination but a "movement", yet it requires churches to believe (and notice its not just sort of believe) and adhere to the distinctives. Sounds like a denomination to me. They have a "fellowshipping" process which entitles a minister and church to use the Calvary Chapel name. Furthermore, to stay a Calvary Chapel, an affiliated church must have a Calvary Chapel pastor. If they do not have a pastor who adheres to the distinctives then they are out. In fact, them naming there beliefs "Calvary Chapel Distinctives" implies that they are distinguishing themselves from others. The Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowships (CCOF) exists to insure that churches with the Calvary Chapel name are actually "doing business" as a Calvary Chapel. For example, "It is to this end that CCOF exists: To request and validate a man’s doctrine and to ensure that there is consistency of teaching style and content." There is also the authority element to a denominational identity, "Another dynamic to the request that a man go through the fellowshipping 'process' is to see if he is truly a servant; willing to bend to authority." Also, they have a chaplaincy program! Sliceofmiami is correct. CC's organization has parallels with the Southern Baptist Convention. Ltwin ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Valid points, Walter. So then Calvary Chapel is a Religious Movement that is operated as a franchise to protect the name. As Walter validly points out, "When a name comes into widespread recognition that describes what one can expect, it needs to be maintained as such." I support that position -- if I owned a trademark known world-wide, I would also want to protect it's use.
However, you have not identified how Calvary Chapel is not a denomination. Walter, if you wish to change the denomination page so that Calvary Chapel does not fit into that definition, please do. As it stands right now, the page identifies that "A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity" -- which the franchise model required of "doing business as" Calvary Chapel follows. Again, if you disagree, then please change the denomination page.
Walter, would it please you if we refer to Calvary as a Religious Movement instead of a Denomination? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I would not. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, then why not? On both. Here are the definitions we are using, taken directly from Wikipedia:
Sliceofmiami ( talk) 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I am asking Walter to explain how Calvary Chapel is not a Religious Movement and is not a denomination. I see Calvary Chapel as both, as defined by Wikipedia. Calvary Chapel is very young at 40 years. It is certainly not historic. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This is getting really long. Okay, here is where we stand:
Walter, please describe why you do not support either of these attachments. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, looking over articles, such as this (both from Christianity Today) and this, Calvary Chapel is referred to as a "network". While I still think it's a denomination, the term network describes Calvary Chapel alot better than an "association" as CC is highly relational. Ltwin ( talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The more I've researched the idea of "non-denominational", the more the movement appears to be a hostile organization with cult-like protection of personalities. I really thought the research would indicate it to be a Christian denomination. When I searched google for "calvary chapel denomination" I came up with a lot of articles just within the first twenty articles that cast a different shadow on the organization, and I'm not sure what to make of it. Here are a few:
I'll stand down for now. I no longer think that Calvary Chapel is a "christian denomination" like the Southern Baptist Churches. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, x.13.
One "tell sign" of a cult is if the organization preaches isolationism. It would be interesting to know if the followers of Coy have hostility against groups that are known to do the "will of the Lord" like Catholics and Baptists or other "christian" organizations.
So just now I googled for "calvary chapel cult deprogramming" and came up with 21000 entries. I'm sure some of them are "pro-Calvary" but all the ones I clicked on were deprogramming people from the Calvary Chapel movement. This is starting to remind me of the Jimmy Jones movement from the 70s.
Let's back up here. We are starting to discuss the church instead of discuss what entries belong on this page. So far the Calvary Chapel page looks like a slick marketing campaign for Chuck Smith's movement. Actually, see also above "Is this article written as an advertisement for Calvary Chapel?"
If everyone agrees to the Wiki guideline, then some of the research we've already found should be included on the page. It is not sufficient to define nor defend Calvary directly by the Calvary articles alone -- that is all "original work" by Smith and not sufficient for inclusion directly on the Wiki article. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 15:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Can the 66.177.182.13 contributor identify him or herself? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that the POV tags is a hammer. I would rather see sections tagged with POV tags rather than the entire article. I also think Sliceofmiami has a bias against this group. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Walter, I was adding the NPOV section as you were typing. I don't think it should be that either of our biases are used in the discussions, only referenced and verifiable material. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 16:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to follow what appears to be Wiki guidelines, not provide a hammer or a blow. Let me quote Wiki --
Sliceofmiami ( talk) 16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Can the 66.177.182.13 contributor identify him or herself? "All editors and all sources have biases," or so says Wiki. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 19:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it seems we have sufficient discussion here to identify that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. I am not sure exactly how to resolve the references and inclusions. I am still studying the guidelines of Wiki.
The problems arise from the first note on this talk page -- it seems as though this is a marketing campaign for Calvary Chapel, and that note was added quite a while ago. Some of the referenced articles come directly from Mr. Smith's organization instead of from external sources, which seems to be an issue -- resulting in a type of circular definition. For example, the "denomination" discussion -- from an outsider's point of view, Mr. Smith's organization fits the definition contained in Religious Denomination (subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity) and religious movement (loose affiliations based on novel approaches to spirituality), yet from an internal Calvary point of view, Mr. Smith's organization is an "association."
As I look through the edit history, there seems to be several attempts from those who appear to be "outsiders" to edit the page, only to be reverted by those who appear to be "insiders." Sliceofmiami ( talk) 16:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Note... I've researched through some of the Discussion history, and it appears that most of the severely controversial information against Calvary Chapel and Mr. Smith have been removed. I expect it would take quite a bit of time to resurface the information from history pages, unless someone has those skills. It also appears that clearly referenced material is regularly removed from the primary Wiki page. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems that those who posted the information did so with verifiable references, while my guess is that those who removed the information wanted to believe it was nonsense. The main page has been marked more than once with NPOV. Strangely, the history shows that the discussion page itself (not just the main page) appears to have been tampered with. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is an example from the edit history of the Discussion page that shows someone had removed information from the discussion page -- "(restoring material deleted from talk page (deleting other user's comments is not allowed))." Please look over the edit history and report back what you find. It would be great if you could figure out how to restore the Discussion page. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep up, Mr. Gorlitz. Read above, "I've researched through some of the Discussion history, and it appears that most of the severely controversial information against Calvary Chapel and Mr. Smith have been removed." With that as a reminder, please take a few moments to yourself, research the article, post the controversial information that is validly referenced, and that which is not validly referenced. This is not going to be an easy task. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 14:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Sliceofmiami, you know it is possible to link to specific edits in the edit history like this: this edit was made on 27 February by Sliceofmiami on the talk page. Just in case you didn't know. Ltwin ( talk) 15:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Ltwin, I didn't know, but that doesn't fix the problem of losing several hundreds of edits that were available on the page. If you know how to restore, please do so. I'm trying to find someone that can restore. Mr. Gorlitz, you seem to not understand the original statement. Please go to the top of your web browser and click "View History." Find the entries that describe "restoring material deleted from talk page (deleting other user's comments is not allowed)." Sliceofmiami ( talk) 03:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
What I'm saying Sliceofmiami is: Show us what you are talking about because I for one do not understand. Show us these edits that have removed information from the talk page. Ltwin ( talk) 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of this article sounds like it was coppied from a brochure.
"Calvary Chapel recognizes that people are not defined by their attire."
"...going wherever the text leads,..."
"To sum this up more appropriately, Calvary Chapel lives/teaches the word of God. Nothing more; nothing less."
One would have a hard time finding a relgious group that claims to not live/teach according to its sacred scriptures. These statements are obviously not NPOV.
Under "Practices" it says: "The frequency with which communion is taken and the practice of other sacraments varies."
This is unclear whether "other sacraments" means baptism or something else. Don't most protestant groups only have those two sacraments? Some charismatic groups also accepting foot washing.
The opening paragraphs need to be reorderd and made coherent. Is the "revival" refering to the Jesus movement or the Calvary chapel movement?
Not surprisingly the "references" section is empty.
I'm adding the cleanup tag. -- Victoria h 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It is not the edit that I am trying to restore, it is the pages that were deleted. Victoria tried to help out when someone deleted content -- which is the issue. It is not just a single edit, like you tried to help out with, it is a systemic issue of removing content. I don't wish to restore a single comment by a single user, that is not the point. I found a COI entry that seems to have been deleted, and just as you don't know, I also do not know how to restore information. I'll just restore the section. as a new section I suppose. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
LtWin & Mr. Gorlitz, just to show that Victoria's restoration was not the only problem, here is yet another undo because someone removed information from the page. "11:36, 13 July 2008 71.203.159.204 (talk) (73,845 bytes) (Undid revision 225315462 by 24.1.47.198 (talk) please stop removing others' contributions to the discussion) (undo)" Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
(This section was removed. Removing information that is not your own is not allowed. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC))
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.
Based on feedback from an outside editor, I've tagged the article for conflict of interest. In addition to frequent reversion of well sourced material without discussion, I note the following about this article.
1. The Calvary Chapel article contains a preponderance of material from Calvary Chapel itself, linked to web-sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.
2. The preponderance of links to other web pages are to sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.
3. The preponderance of source material and links in the article are to promotional materials produced by members of Calvary Chapel.
4. The edit history of editors demonstrates a pattern of removing material that might be perceived as critical or inconsistent with a "first person" view of a member of this church movement who adheres to and defends its beliefs.
5. The tone of the article has often slipped into a "first person" tone consistent with members of this church movement or with someone sympathetic to this movement.
While all of this might provide a reasonable starting point for developing a good article about Calvary Chapel, I think it is not sustainable as a de facto edit policy enforced by editors who are members of this church or who share similar beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanduyse ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(area restored by Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC). Please restore other information as it is found.)
How long have any of you been on Wikipedia? Let me introduce you to this talk pages' archive - Talk:Calvary Chapel/Archive 1. Have fun. All of the discussions are there. The archive box has been at the top of this page (under the talk page banner) this whole time. See WP: Talk page#Subpages and archiving for more info. Ltwin ( talk) 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Thanks for the pointer, LtWin. So it doesn't change the fact that other people have noted that this page has been scrubbed of user comments in the past, but it does help me resurrect (probably a loaded word in this churchy context) what the prior editors were experiencing. I won't be re-adding any pages. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually we established that this page is regularly reviewed, and the pages are regularly scrubbed. I'm not suggesting malice, that is your word. But I do appreciate that you helped me understand the archive function. Here's another quote from the archives "214 words were deleted in your edit, encompassing multiple authors. This is a serious edit that needs to be discussed with the other editors on the talk page first." I am not saying that I agree or disagree, only that the page has had it's share of 'editors.' Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Can 66.177.182.13 please identify himself or herself? You have identified yourself as a fourth party in these exchanges, and made rash statements about how you were involved years ago -- then show us that is true. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I want the neutrality dispute tag off this page. There has been no evidence of any POV statements. Sliceofmiami just added a POV statement in stating that it's a "self-proclaimed" evangelical association. Other evangelical associations (most noted Baptists and The Vineyard) consider them to be evangelical. So could the editor please refrain from adding POV statements?
Also, please list areas or comments that need to be cleaned-up, or just clean them up. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Gorlitz, I am trying to clean it up, and you just reverted an edit. I changed a word to reflect the referenced article, and supplied a note -- "The provided reference is self proclaiming the association. If someone wishes to revert the wording, please add valid external non-affiliated, non-COI, NPOV references" and you reverted the changes. I described the actions required to make it not self proclaimed (add valid external non-affiliated, non-COI, NPOV references), and your revert simply says "It's not "self-proclaimed", many other evangelicals see it that way too." Provide references. This has happened to other edits to this page, my own and other writers. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 15:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
New Religious Movement references.
LtWin, I think you have finally found my point. Wiki isn't about what you or I believe to be true -- in fact, I've not identified my own affiliation with Calvary Chapel because it is not material. It seems your question goes some way in identifying the NPOV situation. I have only requested that the page reflects that it is an internal reference ("We are an evangelical group" would be sufficient), or that an external reference be provided (one that meets the criteria that you have placed on my changes). Based on what Calvary Chapel believes, it is also a New Religious Movement. You made me find additional external references, which I've done. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh give me a break. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck its a duck. However, if you want to wikilawyer, I'll oblige. Statements about what a group believes from those groups themselves are reliable sources because they are the best source to find out what they believe. If you don't trust their sources, then you're free to question all you want. However, unless you have a reliable source which says the belief statements do not accurately reflect what they actually believe, its original research which is another Wikipedia violation. Ltwin ( talk) 01:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Call it a duck, then, and we'll be fine. "We are an evangelical group" is sufficient. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Why would the article need to say "Calvary Chapel says its an evangelical group" when all that is needed is "Calvary Chapel is an evangelical group"? Obviously, if they are labeled an evangelical group its because they claim to be an evangelical group! However, if your goal is to imply that they are not an evangelical group then the statement "Calvary Chapel says its an evangelical group" does just that. However, that is your pov and that violates the npov principle. Ltwin ( talk) 01:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree or disagree all you want, you haven't even identified yourself as a unique user, 66.177.182.13. Ltwin, the Peoples Temple Christian Church Full Gospel is also an Evangelical organization. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Lieutenant, the Captain said no more lawyering. Oh, no, wait, that was you that said no more lawyering. And yes, the inflated attacks are not welcome -- please stop. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Referenced article discussing dangers of Moses Model.
From Mr. Smith
From Christianity Today
So in reference to the Calvary Chapel article, we could add:
Change to make more neutral (defend changed to support):
I like the link cleanup. I think these still deserve to be in 'other organizations' list since they do fit that category:
Can anyone shed some light on why the Chuck Smith 1981 rapture report has not been incorporated into the Wikipage? Here's one reference: http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/1981 Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This sentence in the criticism section makes no sense:
This seems like the beginning of one sentence was just added on to an already complete sentence. Ltwin ( talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Gorlitz, I'm flabbergasted. You spent enough time to revert my changes (that I made because the sentence was not sourced and didn't make any sense), then you just removed the reverted changes -- AFTER you reverted? IMNSHO, you spend too much time trying to revert, Walter. But I will persist for the sake of the other brother... Sliceofmiami ( talk) 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'll take it all back... just keep making the article more NPOV. Keep up the good work, Walter. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried to spend some time requesting citations on the main page, and they are now gone -- not only my own requests for Citations, but also other people's requests, that have dated back for two years. The purpose was to be able to remove the overall NPOV, so each section could be reviewed for NPOV independently, as requested by someone.
The removals go a long way in supporting the position that the article is not NPOV, but instead an "article written as an advertisement for Calvary Chapel," to quote another user.
Why were the requests removed without adding the Citations? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
http://regenerated.us/is-calvary-chapel-theologically-sound/ "Conflicts with leadership at Calvary Chapels are nearly always resolved by the person making the charge being slandered and driven out of the church." http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/Calvary-Chapel-Authority-Structure http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/Conflicts http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/october/14.128.html http://surphside.blogspot.com/2009/05/calvary-chapel-fires-paul-smith-brother.html http://whorechurch.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/calvary-chapel-a-primer-on-the-dangers-of-non-accountability/ http://whorechurch.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/calvary-chapel-a-primer-on-the-dangers-of-non-accountability/ http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?id=2176&option=com_content&task=view
Someone reverted this addition on the Calvary page. This statement is verifiable. The additional quote was added while searching for reference articles. Please include additional references to satisfy everyone's questions on verifiability. Please also include any contrary positions, and include references for those as well. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Walter, please look over the articles. Help me find other verifiable references. Here's a telling quote about the leadership accountability structure of Calvary Chapel: "Ritchie says the accountability system has limits. It is voluntary for both the overseer and the pastors." And another: "Other churchgoers say Calvary Chapel pastors also don't like to be questioned. During the investigation for this article, Smith cautioned CT's reporter: "The Lord warns, 'Don't touch my anointed. " I'm not sure how much more clear Mr. Smith could be about being questioned. These are his own words. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I asked yesterday, but you seem to have missed it. Could you please disclose your affiliations, if any? I'm trying to understand why you're so anti-CC when it seems you've never stepped inside one, nor read any of their material first-hand. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That Calvary Chapel is referenced as a "New Religious Movement."
Sliceofmiami (
talk)
04:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, did anyone happen to notice that this page is already referenced in "B-Class New religious movements articles" and "Mid-importance New religious movements articles" Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Walter, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. There are references in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, and hundreds of other sources, that other people believe Calvary Chapel is part of the New Religious Movements. Have you even read what an NRM is? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is clear to all editors so I'll state it here: Wikipedia has rules on what is an is not considered a reliable source. I suggest that all editors review those rules prior to suggesting any source should or should not be considered. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to ask User:MiszaBot I to automatically archive some of the older messages. Pretty much all of the content on this page other than the section above. Are there any objections? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not see a compelling reason to archive. Why do you wish to archive? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive87. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand why the anonymous editor is removing refs to a radio programme or audio archive, it's because it's not WP:V. When we cite a book, we give a page number so that editors don't have to read the entire tome to determine if the citation is correct or not. Similarly, a radio programme must be cited correctly so that the reference can be found correctly. Wikipedia:Citation templates has the list of citation templates including {{cite episode}}.
My talk page is not the correct place to discuss issues related to this article. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Then change it the way it needs to be, Gorlitz. Do your part in making this page not so POV. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 02:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
How can this page be protected against IP user editing? We've had enough disagreements without a dynamic IP address contributing to additional issues. By the way, Walter, I just looked at the web page you referenced, and it says that the reference only needs to be "cite video" to be correct. That certainly didn't warrant a removal. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 03:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I just changed it with the cite video reference. Please update as required. It is the first time I've been forced to do something like that. Let's see if the IP user will roam somewhere else.
In terms of the IP user, I noticed a few high traffic pages were protected against anonymous postings. It really doesn't stop anything, since the IP user could just make a single use account to change whatever. The same user changed another page, and unfortunately never gives reasons for the changes. I posted a note on the IP talk page, but the person never acknowledged the request. Now he seems to be using a new IP address -- don't you love dynamic addressing... Sliceofmiami ( talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the IP editor that the souces provided are inadequate - including the .ra link. We don't allow cites to YouTube, this is even worse. I have asked for additional input at WP:BLPN. CIreland ( talk) 14:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
CIreland, the link is to a radio broadcast with Chuck Smith's voice. It doesn't matter where radio broadcast is stored. If you wish to put it on a different server, then download it and put it on a different server. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, you should not be " respecting and protecting" the pages of people on wiki. ("Respect denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity, and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem.") Your goal on wiki should be to provide adequately sourced neutral material. Sounds like you are not able to be neutral. Good thing we can't vote people off the island. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The section says nothing about what Calvary Chapel itself believes, but only what Chuck Smith has written about. The Calvary Chapel website says that it is against emphasizing doctrinal differences, and claims it itself is not a denomination. Calvary Chapel does not take a position on Calvinism or Arminianism, but Chuck Smith has written on these things. There is a difference if it is true that the individual churches have freedom to have varied beliefs on these things. Could this be clarified in the article? Kristamaranatha ( talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is since there is no such thing as Calvary Chapel apart from Chuck Smith. Smith's published opinion on Calvinism is therefore the stand of Calvary Chapel. Chuck Smith does take a clear position against Calvinism and has removed pastors from Calvary Chapel because they were/are Calvinists. There were also purges at the Bible College removing Calvinists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 ( talk) 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
First, you just copied and pasted a large section from http://www.rickross.com/reference/calvary/calvary5.html and that's copyright violation, even if you put it into quotes (which you didn't close). Second, you start the section by heading it Cult like practices (which again should read "Cult-like practices" and all of the experts deny they're cult-like. That's horribly biased and I slice of miami should stop pushing their own agenda on this group. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC) And then there's the lack of WP:V in the article which is self-published. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Walter, I did not actually add anything to the article that didn't already exist. Someone had put semi-quotes in the wiki article, but took the information out of context. I just tried to fix the invalid quoted material. Second, I tried to fix what was a very difficult to read "Criticisms" section by breaking it up into sub sections. The article as it read was difficult to follow. It appeared that someone was trying to spin, but spin very poorly. I think you should try to make the article a little more unbiased (and with an understanding that some of the experts claim "they're" cult-like) instead of pushing your own agenda... and relax a little. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: I did rename the "cult like practices" section on behalf of you. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I appreciate your honesty and your apology. Thanks, Walter. Blessings to you tonight... Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know why this was removed?
There are many additional references for this position. Here's one where Chuck Smith & his group telling a caller to not talk to Calvinists. The caller is told to "back off a little bit" because Calvinists are "kind of like cultists" -- but wait, doesn't the Bible say something about fellowship with believers? Calvary's position is that Calvinists are cultists, not brothers. The reviewer identifies, "Isn't it the cults that tell people to avoid other people?" -- http://www.vimeo.com/6886977
For disclosure, I am not supporting Calvinism. I only have an issue with Chuck Smith & group saying that someone should "back away" from another Christian group. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 02:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Walter, actually, that is not my quote. It is from a history page on this Calvary page. I was wondering why it was removed. In terms of church membership, you have never even been invited to become a member of a CC church. CC doesn't accept memberships. Did you happen to listen to the video? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 00:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This quote was removed because someone felt like it didn't apply to their church -- "I removed the following "Calvary Chapel itself is highly critical of other churches, and sometimes inherits the reputation as trying to portray themselves as the "one true church". I attend Calvary Chapel, and while it is agreeable that we do look down upon churches with false doctrines (especially prosperity gospel churches), I don't recognize "one true church" as a valid statement. Someone is obviously sabotaging this entry because they disagree with CC. ~~Iamvery~~" Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this video reference and Chuck Smith's position about Calvinists (that Chuck Smith believes Calvinists are "kind of like cultists") should be in the Doctrine area, since someone else has an unreferenced quote about CC "striking a balance" between Calvinism and Arminianism. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 14:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There are enough quotes on this subject that it's not possible to deny it. Calvary Chapel has declared themselves the church of Philadelphia and the other churches the church of Laodicea. That is to say other churches are apostate and they preserve the truth. http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/w/page/13146594/CC-attacks-other-churches
In addition to what was written in the revert comment about removing The Vineyard from the See also section, the guideline indicates "However, whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a 'See also' section at all.". To be fair, I'm not sure what asking people to also check-out Association of Vineyard Churches would assist in having people understand more about Calvary Chapel. If the Catholic Church article had a See also section, would you envisage including a link to Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed churches, etc.? It makes some sense to have a link back from Association of Vineyard Churches to CC, or at least to Wimber or Lonnie Frisbee and thereby circuitously to this article. It would be good to know what reasons the information needs to be in both sections. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
There's more than a sister church relationship between CC and the Vineyard. John Wimber was a Calvary Chapel pastor. The root church of the Vineyard is Anaheim Vineyard which was Calvary Chapel of Yorba Linda until it was removed by Chuck Smith. This is well documented in John Wimber's widow's book which describes how they were removed from CC by Chuck Smith personally due to differences in manifestations of spiritual gifts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 ( talk) 10:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize the primary objection in these articles is that it isn't neutral, but it is also simply inaccurate in its descriptions of other denominations and Christian movements. For instance, the article suggests that Calvary Chapel, unlike fundamentalists, believe in spiritual gifts. Oddly, I have been a member of a fundamentalist church for years, and know with certainty that there are many fundamentalist groups who do believe in spiritual gifts. This is not a neutrality issue--this is basic misinformation or ignorance on part of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.167.68 ( talk) 09:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to move the Smith 9/11 line from practices into escatology and delete the reference to Richard Abanes and the 80's rapture information because this appears to be redundant. Just the LA times quote should suffice. Any objections?
Years ago, I began a process of introducing some of the more multi-facaceted, non-CC, and sometimes critically oriented sources to this article. When I made reference to "group think" which is sourced to comments on the Rick Ross web site, this was when the article contained little non-cc material. At this point, although I wrote it (again, for what that's worth) I think the reference to group think is redundant. Another editor added a better reference to Rick Ross in the Sonoma County Independent which had some nice, balanced quotes for different sources within that article. Also, other editors developed material about the moses model and accountability. I think the "goup think" issue is more clearly addressed and better sourced in the Rick Ross and Moses model references before and after it. I favor removing the "group think" reference because it it redundant now. Also, I think the reference to "Calvanist critics" always had undo weight. Sure, some guy on a web site had a calvanist criticism of Calvary Chapel. But we could pile up web-based criticisms of this type from all kinds of sources and it wouldn't add up to anything substantial. I think in an odd way the "calvanist critics" section was an effort at self-flattery by CC-promoting/defending editors who wanted to prove that CC "strikes the right balance" as is noted in their promotional literature ala Chuck Smith. I propose removing the Calvinist critics material on the ground that it presents a very distorted sense of theological criticisms that are made in regards to Calvary Chapel. Better sourced criticisms focus more on eschatology. CCs "Lack of Calvanist doctrine" is a red herring. It is sourced to a blog or web site. Time to remove it. Don Van Duyse ( talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess this is just a comment, but it somewhat makes me wonder about an editor who is actively attempting to add critical references and information into a Wikipedia article. Sounds like someone with an axe to grind - doesn't it? Whether it's all good and non-biased, is this the purpose of some authors while adding content to the Christian-oriented Wikipedia pages that we NEED "to show balance" by finding defamative references/info to introduce?
Again I guess this is just a general comment and not necessarily critical of the author who wrote these words (as his discussion in the Talk section is perfectly legit and logical) - it just seems like Christian pages on Wikipedia are drenched with comments like "nobody really believes this crap" (attached to a reference from left-leaning newspaper or psychology magazine) while pages of other religeons are closely protected against these types of edits. While reading through what edits are and are not approved on pages that I read, it appears that articles that are termed "editorials" are commonly bounced as being biased - why are opinion pieces in papers and magazine that paint Christianity in a negative tone allowed when they have the same inherent bias (there is no Jesus or Christian God). Wikipedia wouldn't allow note on Brett Favre's page to the effect "it is obvious that by playing in 2010 he stayed in the NFL one year too many because he's been hurt a lot and generally played bad" - so an editor's first question would be "although this MAYBE true, it's obvious too whom" and he'd kill it? However in a similar vein, newsprint authors who convict Calvary Chapel of being a cult or into "group think" rarely have any evidence beyond their probably biased opinions, but these references are considered legitmate CC criticsm to be considered for inclusion. Huh?!?!
Probably a broad-brushed comments and not necessarily properly sourced, but there it is. Obviously this isn't the place for a global discussion on how "the world" treats Christianity so maybe I'm just venting, but I think the original observation is legitimate so take it for what it's worth (which is probably very little). Ckruschke ( talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke
Cool. I also pointed out that his arguments were valid - just that his original pretence was "interesting". If I want to have my insertions kept and read and be valuable, I need to learn to differ to others when in the heat of the moment I can allow opinion to sway. Thanks for the listen. Ckruschke ( talk) 04:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
I'd like to suggest that the talk be archived. I'd do it but I don't know how and as an IP editor I suspect I don't have the privilege. 71.23.13.152 ( talk) 01:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In the 2nd paragraph of the introduction there is this statement "Calvary Chapels widely use a Pastor-led church governmental system sometimes referred to the "Moses" model; however some use an episcopal church-governance structure[citation needed]." What does this mean? Isn't pastor-led and episcopal church polities essentially the same, the idea being that the pastor acts in the same capacity as a bishop? If I'm wrong and there is a difference can the difference be mentioned in the article. Thanks. Ltwin ( talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a member of a non-denominational Pentecostal church and it is essentially the same. Our pastor in theory has a board he answers too, but, unless the pastor does something extreme such as kill someone, the board follows the pastor.
Why I asked about it is that I'm looking at the Moses mnodel, being pastor led, with the episcopal modedel, bishop led, as esentially the same idea. But I understand the difference when it is told in hierarchy terms. Ltwin ( talk) 19:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Those were good discussions. So it does appear to be significantly different structures, but only comes into play when church discipline is required. In the Moses model, the head preacher cannot be questioned because he receives "directly from the Lord" while everyone else is supposed to follow the lead. In an elder led church, the preacher is accountable to at least the elders. I added a section on the Talk page about church discipline, but maybe it belonged in this section. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 00:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this article written by persons affiliated with Calvary Chapel? I just finished reading Wiki articles concerning various denominations/churches and when I read the Calvary Chapel article, it didn't seem to take an objective viewpoint. Also, the writing style does not seem professional. I was surprised that scriptures of the Bible are sourced when the article states Calvary Chapel beliefs (much like a Church brochure). Usually, the beliefs of the church are simply summarized in Wikipedia articles. For example, the Wiki article on "Baptist" does not list the Biblical verse that supports their belief that a child must/must not be baptized, etc.
Basically, this article sounds like a pamphlet written by Calvary Chapel itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.96.197 ( talk) 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, a lot of the material reflects sources internal to Calvary Chapel and the tone of the article reflects that of members of Calvary Chapel or others sympathetic to this movement. An ambitious editor might go line by line to rework sentences. As a non-Calvary chapel person with a critical perspective I have to acknowledge that the most easily accessed information available is internal to Calvary Chapel. It would be interesting to hear what kind of formats and editorial standards are in place for similar articles,and then some suggested guidelines to follow for re-editing. 24.1.47.198 ( talk) 10:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Actually, I have seen this page when it reflects more realistically on the denomination. I expect when I look at the history, I'll find a bunch of reverts and other edits to remove the severe controversies within Chuck Smith's denomination. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have planned to work on this article, but to be honest get lazy everytime I attempt it. Besides that, I'm not in any way affiliated with Calvary Chapel so really can only offer copy editing and editing for verifiability and NPOV. But I could try with some help. Ltwin ( talk) 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, it seems we have a disagreement on whether Calvary Chapel is a denomination. In my opinion, it is a denomination as churches who affiliate with Calvary Chapel agree with that affiliation to take on those characteristics of Calvary Chapel and disavow characteristics which are not characteristic of Calvary Chapel. Just because Calvary Chapel sees itself as non-denominational does not mean that everyone else has to. The article should note that Calvary Chapel does not view itself as a denomination, but the article should also note that it has many of the characteristics of a denomination. On the point of it having no common governing structure, well that is not entirely true. It may have an extremely loose structure - and one that is centered in the influence and person of Chuck Smith - but it does have a structure. So I would say this is a denomination, albeit a very decentralized one and one that does not understand itself to be a denomination. Ltwin ( talk) 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Walter, there is a central governance. Calvary Chapel operates under a franchise model. For example, there is a protected radius between churches, and a new church has to be approved by the organization run by Chuck Smith. Please do your research before targeting another user. I'm sure you did it in good faith. Your statements would be used to suggest the Southern Baptist church is also not a denomination. Read Religious_denomination. So now that you are armed with the truth, please "be prepared to conclusively prove [your theory]." Sliceofmiami ( talk) 14:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Walter Gorlitz, I don't know why you lashed out at me. I didn't even make the edit. I saw it and left comments here. Wikipedia is not required to defer to an organizations idea of itself. It only has to note it. All Calvary Chaples must adhere to the Calvary Chapel Distinctives.
So, its not a denomination but a "movement", yet it requires churches to believe (and notice its not just sort of believe) and adhere to the distinctives. Sounds like a denomination to me. They have a "fellowshipping" process which entitles a minister and church to use the Calvary Chapel name. Furthermore, to stay a Calvary Chapel, an affiliated church must have a Calvary Chapel pastor. If they do not have a pastor who adheres to the distinctives then they are out. In fact, them naming there beliefs "Calvary Chapel Distinctives" implies that they are distinguishing themselves from others. The Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowships (CCOF) exists to insure that churches with the Calvary Chapel name are actually "doing business" as a Calvary Chapel. For example, "It is to this end that CCOF exists: To request and validate a man’s doctrine and to ensure that there is consistency of teaching style and content." There is also the authority element to a denominational identity, "Another dynamic to the request that a man go through the fellowshipping 'process' is to see if he is truly a servant; willing to bend to authority." Also, they have a chaplaincy program! Sliceofmiami is correct. CC's organization has parallels with the Southern Baptist Convention. Ltwin ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Valid points, Walter. So then Calvary Chapel is a Religious Movement that is operated as a franchise to protect the name. As Walter validly points out, "When a name comes into widespread recognition that describes what one can expect, it needs to be maintained as such." I support that position -- if I owned a trademark known world-wide, I would also want to protect it's use.
However, you have not identified how Calvary Chapel is not a denomination. Walter, if you wish to change the denomination page so that Calvary Chapel does not fit into that definition, please do. As it stands right now, the page identifies that "A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity" -- which the franchise model required of "doing business as" Calvary Chapel follows. Again, if you disagree, then please change the denomination page.
Walter, would it please you if we refer to Calvary as a Religious Movement instead of a Denomination? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I would not. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, then why not? On both. Here are the definitions we are using, taken directly from Wikipedia:
Sliceofmiami ( talk) 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I am asking Walter to explain how Calvary Chapel is not a Religious Movement and is not a denomination. I see Calvary Chapel as both, as defined by Wikipedia. Calvary Chapel is very young at 40 years. It is certainly not historic. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This is getting really long. Okay, here is where we stand:
Walter, please describe why you do not support either of these attachments. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, looking over articles, such as this (both from Christianity Today) and this, Calvary Chapel is referred to as a "network". While I still think it's a denomination, the term network describes Calvary Chapel alot better than an "association" as CC is highly relational. Ltwin ( talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The more I've researched the idea of "non-denominational", the more the movement appears to be a hostile organization with cult-like protection of personalities. I really thought the research would indicate it to be a Christian denomination. When I searched google for "calvary chapel denomination" I came up with a lot of articles just within the first twenty articles that cast a different shadow on the organization, and I'm not sure what to make of it. Here are a few:
I'll stand down for now. I no longer think that Calvary Chapel is a "christian denomination" like the Southern Baptist Churches. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, x.13.
One "tell sign" of a cult is if the organization preaches isolationism. It would be interesting to know if the followers of Coy have hostility against groups that are known to do the "will of the Lord" like Catholics and Baptists or other "christian" organizations.
So just now I googled for "calvary chapel cult deprogramming" and came up with 21000 entries. I'm sure some of them are "pro-Calvary" but all the ones I clicked on were deprogramming people from the Calvary Chapel movement. This is starting to remind me of the Jimmy Jones movement from the 70s.
Let's back up here. We are starting to discuss the church instead of discuss what entries belong on this page. So far the Calvary Chapel page looks like a slick marketing campaign for Chuck Smith's movement. Actually, see also above "Is this article written as an advertisement for Calvary Chapel?"
If everyone agrees to the Wiki guideline, then some of the research we've already found should be included on the page. It is not sufficient to define nor defend Calvary directly by the Calvary articles alone -- that is all "original work" by Smith and not sufficient for inclusion directly on the Wiki article. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 15:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Can the 66.177.182.13 contributor identify him or herself? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that the POV tags is a hammer. I would rather see sections tagged with POV tags rather than the entire article. I also think Sliceofmiami has a bias against this group. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Walter, I was adding the NPOV section as you were typing. I don't think it should be that either of our biases are used in the discussions, only referenced and verifiable material. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 16:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to follow what appears to be Wiki guidelines, not provide a hammer or a blow. Let me quote Wiki --
Sliceofmiami ( talk) 16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Can the 66.177.182.13 contributor identify him or herself? "All editors and all sources have biases," or so says Wiki. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 19:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it seems we have sufficient discussion here to identify that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. I am not sure exactly how to resolve the references and inclusions. I am still studying the guidelines of Wiki.
The problems arise from the first note on this talk page -- it seems as though this is a marketing campaign for Calvary Chapel, and that note was added quite a while ago. Some of the referenced articles come directly from Mr. Smith's organization instead of from external sources, which seems to be an issue -- resulting in a type of circular definition. For example, the "denomination" discussion -- from an outsider's point of view, Mr. Smith's organization fits the definition contained in Religious Denomination (subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity) and religious movement (loose affiliations based on novel approaches to spirituality), yet from an internal Calvary point of view, Mr. Smith's organization is an "association."
As I look through the edit history, there seems to be several attempts from those who appear to be "outsiders" to edit the page, only to be reverted by those who appear to be "insiders." Sliceofmiami ( talk) 16:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Note... I've researched through some of the Discussion history, and it appears that most of the severely controversial information against Calvary Chapel and Mr. Smith have been removed. I expect it would take quite a bit of time to resurface the information from history pages, unless someone has those skills. It also appears that clearly referenced material is regularly removed from the primary Wiki page. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems that those who posted the information did so with verifiable references, while my guess is that those who removed the information wanted to believe it was nonsense. The main page has been marked more than once with NPOV. Strangely, the history shows that the discussion page itself (not just the main page) appears to have been tampered with. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is an example from the edit history of the Discussion page that shows someone had removed information from the discussion page -- "(restoring material deleted from talk page (deleting other user's comments is not allowed))." Please look over the edit history and report back what you find. It would be great if you could figure out how to restore the Discussion page. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep up, Mr. Gorlitz. Read above, "I've researched through some of the Discussion history, and it appears that most of the severely controversial information against Calvary Chapel and Mr. Smith have been removed." With that as a reminder, please take a few moments to yourself, research the article, post the controversial information that is validly referenced, and that which is not validly referenced. This is not going to be an easy task. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 14:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Sliceofmiami, you know it is possible to link to specific edits in the edit history like this: this edit was made on 27 February by Sliceofmiami on the talk page. Just in case you didn't know. Ltwin ( talk) 15:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Ltwin, I didn't know, but that doesn't fix the problem of losing several hundreds of edits that were available on the page. If you know how to restore, please do so. I'm trying to find someone that can restore. Mr. Gorlitz, you seem to not understand the original statement. Please go to the top of your web browser and click "View History." Find the entries that describe "restoring material deleted from talk page (deleting other user's comments is not allowed)." Sliceofmiami ( talk) 03:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
What I'm saying Sliceofmiami is: Show us what you are talking about because I for one do not understand. Show us these edits that have removed information from the talk page. Ltwin ( talk) 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of this article sounds like it was coppied from a brochure.
"Calvary Chapel recognizes that people are not defined by their attire."
"...going wherever the text leads,..."
"To sum this up more appropriately, Calvary Chapel lives/teaches the word of God. Nothing more; nothing less."
One would have a hard time finding a relgious group that claims to not live/teach according to its sacred scriptures. These statements are obviously not NPOV.
Under "Practices" it says: "The frequency with which communion is taken and the practice of other sacraments varies."
This is unclear whether "other sacraments" means baptism or something else. Don't most protestant groups only have those two sacraments? Some charismatic groups also accepting foot washing.
The opening paragraphs need to be reorderd and made coherent. Is the "revival" refering to the Jesus movement or the Calvary chapel movement?
Not surprisingly the "references" section is empty.
I'm adding the cleanup tag. -- Victoria h 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It is not the edit that I am trying to restore, it is the pages that were deleted. Victoria tried to help out when someone deleted content -- which is the issue. It is not just a single edit, like you tried to help out with, it is a systemic issue of removing content. I don't wish to restore a single comment by a single user, that is not the point. I found a COI entry that seems to have been deleted, and just as you don't know, I also do not know how to restore information. I'll just restore the section. as a new section I suppose. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
LtWin & Mr. Gorlitz, just to show that Victoria's restoration was not the only problem, here is yet another undo because someone removed information from the page. "11:36, 13 July 2008 71.203.159.204 (talk) (73,845 bytes) (Undid revision 225315462 by 24.1.47.198 (talk) please stop removing others' contributions to the discussion) (undo)" Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
(This section was removed. Removing information that is not your own is not allowed. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC))
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.
Based on feedback from an outside editor, I've tagged the article for conflict of interest. In addition to frequent reversion of well sourced material without discussion, I note the following about this article.
1. The Calvary Chapel article contains a preponderance of material from Calvary Chapel itself, linked to web-sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.
2. The preponderance of links to other web pages are to sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.
3. The preponderance of source material and links in the article are to promotional materials produced by members of Calvary Chapel.
4. The edit history of editors demonstrates a pattern of removing material that might be perceived as critical or inconsistent with a "first person" view of a member of this church movement who adheres to and defends its beliefs.
5. The tone of the article has often slipped into a "first person" tone consistent with members of this church movement or with someone sympathetic to this movement.
While all of this might provide a reasonable starting point for developing a good article about Calvary Chapel, I think it is not sustainable as a de facto edit policy enforced by editors who are members of this church or who share similar beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanduyse ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(area restored by Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC). Please restore other information as it is found.)
How long have any of you been on Wikipedia? Let me introduce you to this talk pages' archive - Talk:Calvary Chapel/Archive 1. Have fun. All of the discussions are there. The archive box has been at the top of this page (under the talk page banner) this whole time. See WP: Talk page#Subpages and archiving for more info. Ltwin ( talk) 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Thanks for the pointer, LtWin. So it doesn't change the fact that other people have noted that this page has been scrubbed of user comments in the past, but it does help me resurrect (probably a loaded word in this churchy context) what the prior editors were experiencing. I won't be re-adding any pages. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually we established that this page is regularly reviewed, and the pages are regularly scrubbed. I'm not suggesting malice, that is your word. But I do appreciate that you helped me understand the archive function. Here's another quote from the archives "214 words were deleted in your edit, encompassing multiple authors. This is a serious edit that needs to be discussed with the other editors on the talk page first." I am not saying that I agree or disagree, only that the page has had it's share of 'editors.' Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Can 66.177.182.13 please identify himself or herself? You have identified yourself as a fourth party in these exchanges, and made rash statements about how you were involved years ago -- then show us that is true. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I want the neutrality dispute tag off this page. There has been no evidence of any POV statements. Sliceofmiami just added a POV statement in stating that it's a "self-proclaimed" evangelical association. Other evangelical associations (most noted Baptists and The Vineyard) consider them to be evangelical. So could the editor please refrain from adding POV statements?
Also, please list areas or comments that need to be cleaned-up, or just clean them up. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Gorlitz, I am trying to clean it up, and you just reverted an edit. I changed a word to reflect the referenced article, and supplied a note -- "The provided reference is self proclaiming the association. If someone wishes to revert the wording, please add valid external non-affiliated, non-COI, NPOV references" and you reverted the changes. I described the actions required to make it not self proclaimed (add valid external non-affiliated, non-COI, NPOV references), and your revert simply says "It's not "self-proclaimed", many other evangelicals see it that way too." Provide references. This has happened to other edits to this page, my own and other writers. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 15:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
New Religious Movement references.
LtWin, I think you have finally found my point. Wiki isn't about what you or I believe to be true -- in fact, I've not identified my own affiliation with Calvary Chapel because it is not material. It seems your question goes some way in identifying the NPOV situation. I have only requested that the page reflects that it is an internal reference ("We are an evangelical group" would be sufficient), or that an external reference be provided (one that meets the criteria that you have placed on my changes). Based on what Calvary Chapel believes, it is also a New Religious Movement. You made me find additional external references, which I've done. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh give me a break. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck its a duck. However, if you want to wikilawyer, I'll oblige. Statements about what a group believes from those groups themselves are reliable sources because they are the best source to find out what they believe. If you don't trust their sources, then you're free to question all you want. However, unless you have a reliable source which says the belief statements do not accurately reflect what they actually believe, its original research which is another Wikipedia violation. Ltwin ( talk) 01:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Call it a duck, then, and we'll be fine. "We are an evangelical group" is sufficient. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Why would the article need to say "Calvary Chapel says its an evangelical group" when all that is needed is "Calvary Chapel is an evangelical group"? Obviously, if they are labeled an evangelical group its because they claim to be an evangelical group! However, if your goal is to imply that they are not an evangelical group then the statement "Calvary Chapel says its an evangelical group" does just that. However, that is your pov and that violates the npov principle. Ltwin ( talk) 01:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree or disagree all you want, you haven't even identified yourself as a unique user, 66.177.182.13. Ltwin, the Peoples Temple Christian Church Full Gospel is also an Evangelical organization. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Lieutenant, the Captain said no more lawyering. Oh, no, wait, that was you that said no more lawyering. And yes, the inflated attacks are not welcome -- please stop. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Referenced article discussing dangers of Moses Model.
From Mr. Smith
From Christianity Today
So in reference to the Calvary Chapel article, we could add:
Change to make more neutral (defend changed to support):
I like the link cleanup. I think these still deserve to be in 'other organizations' list since they do fit that category:
Can anyone shed some light on why the Chuck Smith 1981 rapture report has not been incorporated into the Wikipage? Here's one reference: http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/1981 Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This sentence in the criticism section makes no sense:
This seems like the beginning of one sentence was just added on to an already complete sentence. Ltwin ( talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Gorlitz, I'm flabbergasted. You spent enough time to revert my changes (that I made because the sentence was not sourced and didn't make any sense), then you just removed the reverted changes -- AFTER you reverted? IMNSHO, you spend too much time trying to revert, Walter. But I will persist for the sake of the other brother... Sliceofmiami ( talk) 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'll take it all back... just keep making the article more NPOV. Keep up the good work, Walter. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried to spend some time requesting citations on the main page, and they are now gone -- not only my own requests for Citations, but also other people's requests, that have dated back for two years. The purpose was to be able to remove the overall NPOV, so each section could be reviewed for NPOV independently, as requested by someone.
The removals go a long way in supporting the position that the article is not NPOV, but instead an "article written as an advertisement for Calvary Chapel," to quote another user.
Why were the requests removed without adding the Citations? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
http://regenerated.us/is-calvary-chapel-theologically-sound/ "Conflicts with leadership at Calvary Chapels are nearly always resolved by the person making the charge being slandered and driven out of the church." http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/Calvary-Chapel-Authority-Structure http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/Conflicts http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/october/14.128.html http://surphside.blogspot.com/2009/05/calvary-chapel-fires-paul-smith-brother.html http://whorechurch.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/calvary-chapel-a-primer-on-the-dangers-of-non-accountability/ http://whorechurch.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/calvary-chapel-a-primer-on-the-dangers-of-non-accountability/ http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?id=2176&option=com_content&task=view
Someone reverted this addition on the Calvary page. This statement is verifiable. The additional quote was added while searching for reference articles. Please include additional references to satisfy everyone's questions on verifiability. Please also include any contrary positions, and include references for those as well. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Walter, please look over the articles. Help me find other verifiable references. Here's a telling quote about the leadership accountability structure of Calvary Chapel: "Ritchie says the accountability system has limits. It is voluntary for both the overseer and the pastors." And another: "Other churchgoers say Calvary Chapel pastors also don't like to be questioned. During the investigation for this article, Smith cautioned CT's reporter: "The Lord warns, 'Don't touch my anointed. " I'm not sure how much more clear Mr. Smith could be about being questioned. These are his own words. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I asked yesterday, but you seem to have missed it. Could you please disclose your affiliations, if any? I'm trying to understand why you're so anti-CC when it seems you've never stepped inside one, nor read any of their material first-hand. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That Calvary Chapel is referenced as a "New Religious Movement."
Sliceofmiami (
talk)
04:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, did anyone happen to notice that this page is already referenced in "B-Class New religious movements articles" and "Mid-importance New religious movements articles" Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Walter, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. There are references in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, and hundreds of other sources, that other people believe Calvary Chapel is part of the New Religious Movements. Have you even read what an NRM is? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is clear to all editors so I'll state it here: Wikipedia has rules on what is an is not considered a reliable source. I suggest that all editors review those rules prior to suggesting any source should or should not be considered. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to ask User:MiszaBot I to automatically archive some of the older messages. Pretty much all of the content on this page other than the section above. Are there any objections? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not see a compelling reason to archive. Why do you wish to archive? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive87. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand why the anonymous editor is removing refs to a radio programme or audio archive, it's because it's not WP:V. When we cite a book, we give a page number so that editors don't have to read the entire tome to determine if the citation is correct or not. Similarly, a radio programme must be cited correctly so that the reference can be found correctly. Wikipedia:Citation templates has the list of citation templates including {{cite episode}}.
My talk page is not the correct place to discuss issues related to this article. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Then change it the way it needs to be, Gorlitz. Do your part in making this page not so POV. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 02:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
How can this page be protected against IP user editing? We've had enough disagreements without a dynamic IP address contributing to additional issues. By the way, Walter, I just looked at the web page you referenced, and it says that the reference only needs to be "cite video" to be correct. That certainly didn't warrant a removal. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 03:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I just changed it with the cite video reference. Please update as required. It is the first time I've been forced to do something like that. Let's see if the IP user will roam somewhere else.
In terms of the IP user, I noticed a few high traffic pages were protected against anonymous postings. It really doesn't stop anything, since the IP user could just make a single use account to change whatever. The same user changed another page, and unfortunately never gives reasons for the changes. I posted a note on the IP talk page, but the person never acknowledged the request. Now he seems to be using a new IP address -- don't you love dynamic addressing... Sliceofmiami ( talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the IP editor that the souces provided are inadequate - including the .ra link. We don't allow cites to YouTube, this is even worse. I have asked for additional input at WP:BLPN. CIreland ( talk) 14:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
CIreland, the link is to a radio broadcast with Chuck Smith's voice. It doesn't matter where radio broadcast is stored. If you wish to put it on a different server, then download it and put it on a different server. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, you should not be " respecting and protecting" the pages of people on wiki. ("Respect denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity, and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem.") Your goal on wiki should be to provide adequately sourced neutral material. Sounds like you are not able to be neutral. Good thing we can't vote people off the island. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The section says nothing about what Calvary Chapel itself believes, but only what Chuck Smith has written about. The Calvary Chapel website says that it is against emphasizing doctrinal differences, and claims it itself is not a denomination. Calvary Chapel does not take a position on Calvinism or Arminianism, but Chuck Smith has written on these things. There is a difference if it is true that the individual churches have freedom to have varied beliefs on these things. Could this be clarified in the article? Kristamaranatha ( talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is since there is no such thing as Calvary Chapel apart from Chuck Smith. Smith's published opinion on Calvinism is therefore the stand of Calvary Chapel. Chuck Smith does take a clear position against Calvinism and has removed pastors from Calvary Chapel because they were/are Calvinists. There were also purges at the Bible College removing Calvinists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 ( talk) 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
First, you just copied and pasted a large section from http://www.rickross.com/reference/calvary/calvary5.html and that's copyright violation, even if you put it into quotes (which you didn't close). Second, you start the section by heading it Cult like practices (which again should read "Cult-like practices" and all of the experts deny they're cult-like. That's horribly biased and I slice of miami should stop pushing their own agenda on this group. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC) And then there's the lack of WP:V in the article which is self-published. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Walter, I did not actually add anything to the article that didn't already exist. Someone had put semi-quotes in the wiki article, but took the information out of context. I just tried to fix the invalid quoted material. Second, I tried to fix what was a very difficult to read "Criticisms" section by breaking it up into sub sections. The article as it read was difficult to follow. It appeared that someone was trying to spin, but spin very poorly. I think you should try to make the article a little more unbiased (and with an understanding that some of the experts claim "they're" cult-like) instead of pushing your own agenda... and relax a little. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: I did rename the "cult like practices" section on behalf of you. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I appreciate your honesty and your apology. Thanks, Walter. Blessings to you tonight... Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know why this was removed?
There are many additional references for this position. Here's one where Chuck Smith & his group telling a caller to not talk to Calvinists. The caller is told to "back off a little bit" because Calvinists are "kind of like cultists" -- but wait, doesn't the Bible say something about fellowship with believers? Calvary's position is that Calvinists are cultists, not brothers. The reviewer identifies, "Isn't it the cults that tell people to avoid other people?" -- http://www.vimeo.com/6886977
For disclosure, I am not supporting Calvinism. I only have an issue with Chuck Smith & group saying that someone should "back away" from another Christian group. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 02:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Walter, actually, that is not my quote. It is from a history page on this Calvary page. I was wondering why it was removed. In terms of church membership, you have never even been invited to become a member of a CC church. CC doesn't accept memberships. Did you happen to listen to the video? Sliceofmiami ( talk) 00:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This quote was removed because someone felt like it didn't apply to their church -- "I removed the following "Calvary Chapel itself is highly critical of other churches, and sometimes inherits the reputation as trying to portray themselves as the "one true church". I attend Calvary Chapel, and while it is agreeable that we do look down upon churches with false doctrines (especially prosperity gospel churches), I don't recognize "one true church" as a valid statement. Someone is obviously sabotaging this entry because they disagree with CC. ~~Iamvery~~" Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this video reference and Chuck Smith's position about Calvinists (that Chuck Smith believes Calvinists are "kind of like cultists") should be in the Doctrine area, since someone else has an unreferenced quote about CC "striking a balance" between Calvinism and Arminianism. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 14:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There are enough quotes on this subject that it's not possible to deny it. Calvary Chapel has declared themselves the church of Philadelphia and the other churches the church of Laodicea. That is to say other churches are apostate and they preserve the truth. http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/w/page/13146594/CC-attacks-other-churches
In addition to what was written in the revert comment about removing The Vineyard from the See also section, the guideline indicates "However, whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a 'See also' section at all.". To be fair, I'm not sure what asking people to also check-out Association of Vineyard Churches would assist in having people understand more about Calvary Chapel. If the Catholic Church article had a See also section, would you envisage including a link to Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed churches, etc.? It makes some sense to have a link back from Association of Vineyard Churches to CC, or at least to Wimber or Lonnie Frisbee and thereby circuitously to this article. It would be good to know what reasons the information needs to be in both sections. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
There's more than a sister church relationship between CC and the Vineyard. John Wimber was a Calvary Chapel pastor. The root church of the Vineyard is Anaheim Vineyard which was Calvary Chapel of Yorba Linda until it was removed by Chuck Smith. This is well documented in John Wimber's widow's book which describes how they were removed from CC by Chuck Smith personally due to differences in manifestations of spiritual gifts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 ( talk) 10:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize the primary objection in these articles is that it isn't neutral, but it is also simply inaccurate in its descriptions of other denominations and Christian movements. For instance, the article suggests that Calvary Chapel, unlike fundamentalists, believe in spiritual gifts. Oddly, I have been a member of a fundamentalist church for years, and know with certainty that there are many fundamentalist groups who do believe in spiritual gifts. This is not a neutrality issue--this is basic misinformation or ignorance on part of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.167.68 ( talk) 09:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to move the Smith 9/11 line from practices into escatology and delete the reference to Richard Abanes and the 80's rapture information because this appears to be redundant. Just the LA times quote should suffice. Any objections?
Years ago, I began a process of introducing some of the more multi-facaceted, non-CC, and sometimes critically oriented sources to this article. When I made reference to "group think" which is sourced to comments on the Rick Ross web site, this was when the article contained little non-cc material. At this point, although I wrote it (again, for what that's worth) I think the reference to group think is redundant. Another editor added a better reference to Rick Ross in the Sonoma County Independent which had some nice, balanced quotes for different sources within that article. Also, other editors developed material about the moses model and accountability. I think the "goup think" issue is more clearly addressed and better sourced in the Rick Ross and Moses model references before and after it. I favor removing the "group think" reference because it it redundant now. Also, I think the reference to "Calvanist critics" always had undo weight. Sure, some guy on a web site had a calvanist criticism of Calvary Chapel. But we could pile up web-based criticisms of this type from all kinds of sources and it wouldn't add up to anything substantial. I think in an odd way the "calvanist critics" section was an effort at self-flattery by CC-promoting/defending editors who wanted to prove that CC "strikes the right balance" as is noted in their promotional literature ala Chuck Smith. I propose removing the Calvinist critics material on the ground that it presents a very distorted sense of theological criticisms that are made in regards to Calvary Chapel. Better sourced criticisms focus more on eschatology. CCs "Lack of Calvanist doctrine" is a red herring. It is sourced to a blog or web site. Time to remove it. Don Van Duyse ( talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess this is just a comment, but it somewhat makes me wonder about an editor who is actively attempting to add critical references and information into a Wikipedia article. Sounds like someone with an axe to grind - doesn't it? Whether it's all good and non-biased, is this the purpose of some authors while adding content to the Christian-oriented Wikipedia pages that we NEED "to show balance" by finding defamative references/info to introduce?
Again I guess this is just a general comment and not necessarily critical of the author who wrote these words (as his discussion in the Talk section is perfectly legit and logical) - it just seems like Christian pages on Wikipedia are drenched with comments like "nobody really believes this crap" (attached to a reference from left-leaning newspaper or psychology magazine) while pages of other religeons are closely protected against these types of edits. While reading through what edits are and are not approved on pages that I read, it appears that articles that are termed "editorials" are commonly bounced as being biased - why are opinion pieces in papers and magazine that paint Christianity in a negative tone allowed when they have the same inherent bias (there is no Jesus or Christian God). Wikipedia wouldn't allow note on Brett Favre's page to the effect "it is obvious that by playing in 2010 he stayed in the NFL one year too many because he's been hurt a lot and generally played bad" - so an editor's first question would be "although this MAYBE true, it's obvious too whom" and he'd kill it? However in a similar vein, newsprint authors who convict Calvary Chapel of being a cult or into "group think" rarely have any evidence beyond their probably biased opinions, but these references are considered legitmate CC criticsm to be considered for inclusion. Huh?!?!
Probably a broad-brushed comments and not necessarily properly sourced, but there it is. Obviously this isn't the place for a global discussion on how "the world" treats Christianity so maybe I'm just venting, but I think the original observation is legitimate so take it for what it's worth (which is probably very little). Ckruschke ( talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke
Cool. I also pointed out that his arguments were valid - just that his original pretence was "interesting". If I want to have my insertions kept and read and be valuable, I need to learn to differ to others when in the heat of the moment I can allow opinion to sway. Thanks for the listen. Ckruschke ( talk) 04:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
I'd like to suggest that the talk be archived. I'd do it but I don't know how and as an IP editor I suspect I don't have the privilege. 71.23.13.152 ( talk) 01:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)