This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The PCUSA did exist at the time of the founding of the OPC. The OPC did not split from the Southern church, but from the Northern. That body had the PCUSA name from its founding until 1958, when it merged with the United Presbyterian Church in North America, forming the United Presbyterian Church (USA). This same body merged with the Southern church (PCUS) in 1983, at which time the united church reclaimed its original and historic name, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone elaborate on the specific issues that caused the OPC to split off? The description here is vague (emphasis mine): "In 1929, the Board of the seminary reorganized along more liberal lines, and began hiring professors who were significantly more friendly towards modernism and some forms of liberalism... Machen and a group of other conservatives objected to these changes ... Then, objecting to theological positions that he believed compromised the distinctives of the Reformed tradition, if not the basic tenets of Christianity itself, Machen pled his case before the General Assembly of the PCUSA..." I only have my early-21st century knowledge of what these terms mean, which may or may not be helpful in the context of an early-20th-century debate within a specific denomination. Later there are more specifics given (e.g., alcohol) but I'd love more. -- Jfruh 02:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I grew up the OPC, and I've heard from several people that the final straw before the OPC split off was a PCUSA resolution to acknowledge that the virgin birth story might be allegorical/illiteral. But I have no source.
Can someone post how many current members and churches the OPC has in North America and throughout the world? I am unable to find this data to post, unfortunately. Scunning 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see this article expanded considerably in many ways I find it insufficent. However as I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I am reluctant to edit this article myself, as I have obvious biases. -- 24.213.155.165
It would be helpful if someone could summarise the theological issues raised in Paul Elliot's book, which has been described in various places online such as [1]. DFH 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
A large violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV has been inserted, and then re-inserted after being removed. It represents a lot of effort, but if there's any sourcing for the arguments, I fail to see it. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. This is not original research. The OPC calls itself a largely white and conservative denomination. It has published a report stating the former, and it seems that all of their political statements clearly support the latter statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.28.170 ( talk) 01:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
There seems to have been a lot of attention on the demographics section the last few days. This is a good thing, as the "racial" and "political" subsections now provide more citations than the rest of the sections in the article combine.
But there are still sections with absolutely no support whatsoever. I am not super familiar with this denomination. But maybe it is time for those who are to either delete or provide sources for the other sections.
As far as I can tell, the demographics, governance, and missions sections are pretty good. They can still be improved, but they are well supported.
The Ecumenical Relations Section needs considerable work. But it is better than the Notable Members (no support), doctrine (massive quote, possible plagiarism), schism & continuity (no support), Machen & The Departure from the PCUSA (no support), and Background (very little support) sections.
If you have knowledge of this denomination, I would suggest that the time has come to either delete these sections or source the material. Maybe we should agree to give it until Feb. 5th and then delete the material? 31.6.58.43 ( talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
“ | Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. citation needed | ” |
Except for certain kinds of claims about living people, which require immediate production of inline citations, there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct simply because no-one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided.
The When not to use this template section of {{ Citation needed}} guidance specifies:
While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as " drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all (hit-and-run). ... This template is intended for specific passages that need citation. For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{ Unreferenced}} or {{ Refimprove}}.
Users unable to edit the page while it is semi-protected may include the {{ edit semi-protected}} template in an edit request. Please be sure that consensus concerns are addressed first. Thank you.
The citation for the doctrine section is not correct. The link does not support the material. There is a big quote that needs to be paraphrased. But more importantly, it is unclear where the quote comes from (as the citation is not correct). Could someone who is more familiar with the OPC's doctrine fix it? Mg3942 ( talk) 10:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see that the spurious "American revisions" part User:Mg3942 was talking about was added with this edit right before the massive removal of excess {{ CN}}'s happened. We need to put the word "were" back in and strike those unsupported additions back out:
The OPC system of doctrine is the Reformed faith, also called Calvinism. Calvin's doctrines continued to evolve after his death, and
a particular evolution of them waswere set forth in the Westminster Standards (which include the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms), with accompanying biblical references). The OPC holds to the Westminster standardswith the American revisions of 1788.[1]
The OPC system of doctrine is the [[Reformed faith]], also called [[Calvinism]]. Calvin's doctrines continued to evolve after his death, and were set forth in the Westminster Standards (which include the [[Westminster Confession of Faith]] and the [[Westminster Larger Catechism|Larger]] and [[Westminster Shorter Catechism|Shorter Catechism]]<nowiki/>s), with accompanying biblical references). The OPC holds to the Westminster standards.<ref name="What is OPC"/>
The 2nd window is the corrected version ready for (triple-click) & copy/paste as new 1st paragraph in Doctrine section.
...
172.162.77.52 (
talk) 15:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's a perfect example of what is being criticized and (rightfully) removed:
This is a classic example of synthesis. Nothing at "historian.html" discusses any census regarding the composition of the denomination. The words "census", "racial", "political", and "economic" appear nowhere on that page; nowhere does that page make the assertion that such a census has not been made. The POV of the paragraph appears to be that some such survey should have been made; the synthesis is that the absence of mention of such a survey on that page indicates that no such survey has been made.
Again, noting the absence of something the editor thinks should have occurred ("has not been updated since 1974") is a violation of WP:NOR and an example of WP:SYNTH; if some third party reliable source had made the point of the absence of such a thing, it might be usable, but we can't point to the index and say "oh look so and so isn't there".
Removing the "synthesis" tag while a discussion is underway was completely inappropriate.
Says who? Pure violation of WP:NOR and more to the point WP:NPOV.
Who says it should?
As the edit summary said, this was removed appropriately under WP:BLPREMOVE.
It is 100% incumbent upon the editors adding stuff to articles to make sure the adhere to out policies of WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Find appropriate sources and then add the material; you can't add material and then hope someone eventually finds those sources. And WP:NPOV absolutely must be adhered to; your personal opinion of what this church should or shouldn't do has no relevance whatsoever. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I've requested full protection for this article. I'd protect it myself but I'm somewhat involved. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 21:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted this change - the DoE statement predates the OPC, and there is nothing in the source about "expressing opposition to the status of undocumented workers", whatever that means. St Anselm ( talk) 23:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Twice I've attempted to change this line:
to this line:
and my edit has been reverted both times with the comment that it was an "unnecessary edit".
This is not an "unnecessary edit" for these reasons:
-- Rhankins ( talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)-- Rhankins ( talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion over the inclusion of material on the demography and politics of the OPC which has been the cause of tendentious editing. In particular OR relating to an image from the OPC website. SPACKlick ( talk) 22:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Summary of the 5 edits being discussed;
NOTA BENE: I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOT CHANGE THE TEXT WHILE THE SURVEY IS IN PROCESS. THAT WAY EVERYONE CAN SEE WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON. ONCE A CONSENSUS EMERGES, THEN WE CAN MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. I DO NOT MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE BY THIS. I JUST THINK THE DELETIONS ARE GETTING WAY OUT OF HAND. LET'S FIND A CONSENSUS FIRST, AND THEN MAKE CHANGES. BUT WE CAN'T HIT A MOVING TARGET. I AM SORRY IF I INSERTED AN OLDER VERSION. BUT ST. ANSELM MADE SO MANY INTERMEDIATE EDITS THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RESTORE WHAT WE HAD A FEW DAYS AGO. Adamduker ( talk) 14:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Section currently Reads;
Nevertheless, decades after the report was released the OPC remains an overwhelmingly white denomination. The report's rationale that the denomination inherited the reconstruction racial dynamics of the PCUSA is no longer persuasive considering the fact that the OPC has now been a distinct denomination for over 80 years (and the American Civil War ended almost 150 years ago). There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies, which reflects the fact that there are very few non-whites in leadership positions in the denomination. [1] And in many (if not most) of the previous meetings of the General Assembly, only whites were present as delegates.
The Source does not support this in any way and I think it therefore violates WP:OR, I will remove it now and hope to see a discussion of its inclusion here before it is reverted. SPACKlick ( talk) 12:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
References
Reply:
Then feel free to challenge it. But you are not free to delete this whole cloth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Reply:
There are no violations in this. I have changed the wording to make it conform 100% to Wikipedia rules. One is allowed to make such statements on Wikipedia so long as they insert appropriate language (i.e. "suggests"). The photo that I linked clearly shows a denomination that is almost entirely white.
If you will to challenge or rewrite a section, please do so. But you are not free simply to continue to delete it whole cloth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 13:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Reply:
This simply isn't true. You are not "challenging" this information. You are deleting this. You can insert a link asking for additional citations. But for instance, you have deleted the first paragraph of the political section, despite the fact that it is just a lead in to the next paragraph, which is much larger and contains all of the support.
Again, feel free to rewrite or improve sections. But you are not free to delete this whole cloth. This is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 13:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Additional Reply:
The paragraph you quoted earlier has been rewritten. You could have rewritten it yourself instead of deleting it. Feel free to make similar changes to other paragraphs or sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 13:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
One (More) Additional Reply to SPACKlick:
You have been warned by Wikipedia before for doing this exact same thing. It seems that you have a history of wrongly deleting valid information and engaging in edit wars. For instance, earlier this month Wikipedia told you the following:
Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Marriage penalty. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
Please stop doing the same thing to this page. There are ways to edit and improve pages without vandalizing them. You have started an edit war. I am not an edit warrior. I am interested in working with anyone to find ways to improve this page. But deleting things just because you don't like them will not be tolerated. 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 13:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No one has never conducted a census to determine the racial, political, or economic compositions of the denomination. Nevertheless, there is much evidence that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is an overwhelmingly white and politically conservative denomination:
The racial composition of delegates to recent OPC General Assemblies suggests that the OPC remains an overwhelmingly white denomination decades after the official report was released. There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies, which reflects the fact that there are very few non-whites in leadership positions in the denomination. [5]
The report's rationale that the denomination inherited the reconstruction racial dynamics of the PCUSA has not been updated since the 1970s, even though the OPC has now been a distinct denomination for over 80 years and the American Civil War ended almost 150 years ago.
There is no evidence that any Orthodox Presbyterian minister or elder played any role whatsoever in advancing any liberal or progressive cause, such as the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s or equal pay legislation. Historically, the OPC has only made political statements that have coincided with right wing policies, such as opposition to homosexuals serving their country, women serving in combat roles, the status of undocumented workers, opposition to the Department of Education, and the anti-abortion movement.
So despite the fact that the OPC has never surveyed its members to determine political demographics, the vast majority of OPC members can be described as either conservative, Republican, libertarian, or even theonomic.
That wasn't the only instance in which people have complained that you are vandalizing their pages. If you want to ask for citations on the page itself, go for it. There is an easy function to do this. But you are subverting the normal editing process via your deletions. 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 14:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are free to ask for additional citations and change the wording of certain sentences. This is part of the normal edit process. I have already made some changes based on your comments above. But you are not engaging in the normal edit process. You are engaging in an edit war and vandalism.
It is remarkable that you have such problems with this section, but not with others in this article. You seem to have other motivations here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been asked several times to provide sources, both in edit comments and on this page. You have failed to do so, therefore you are adding material that violates policy to pages. I will be adding Citation needed tags to all the material and if it doesn't have sources soon will remove again. SPACKlick ( talk) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been warned several times. I have now reported you for vandalism and engaging in an edit war. You have violated the bold part of the BRD process. Wikipedia has already labelled this page a "start class." But it can't be improved unless you stop deleting things for no good reason. Feel free to change the language without deleting whole ideas, or to add a "citation needed" link when you think something needs to be better supported. But you should not feel free to continue to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There you go. Welcome to the world of responsible editing. Now, let's get down to brass tacts:
Re: the second paragraph of the race sectionL The first sentence is an introduction which leads into the second. You need to delete your objections there and focus them on the second sentence. The photo certainly shows that the overwhelming majority of OPC GA delegates are white. I cannot agree with your objection to this. The denomination has published a photo of leaders that contains less than 1% non-white people. The GA is a representative body, drawing ministers and elders from presbyteries all over the country. Therefore, this is not a controversial statement. But perhaps you can help me construct a sentence that can clarify this. I will wait 15 minutes for you to respond, and then I will move the link to the photo from the end of the sentence to right after the comma.
Sound good? 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 15:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As for your issue with citation #11, I cited the OPC webpage that lists all of their official reports. Clearly, the race report has not been updated since 1974. Again, I will give you 15 minutes to delete or clarify your objection, and then I will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 15:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As for your issue with the lead in paragraph, I provide the evidence in the next two sections. I will be deleting your "citation needed" objection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.
Perhaps you can show me how ANYONE could reasonably see a single black person in that photo. This is not a controversial or unsupported statement. There are only two faces in that entire photo that *might* be considered non-white.
The page lists OPC GA reports. This is a reasonable statement. If you can find a single OPC GA report not listed on the website, I will be happy to remove that sentence.
Have you read the rest of this article?!?!?! There are whole sentences, paragraphs, and even sections WITHOUT A SINGLE CITATION!!!! Plenty of naive sentences and claims. So why are you focussing such undue attention here? I am glad that you have taken the first step towards becoming a responsible editor, but you need to focus on removing the huge planks in this article before what may or may not be tiny splinters in this one section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. This is not original research. You have already been reported for vandalism and starting an edit war. You have violated BRD on several occasions. I have already made countless revisions to satisfy your objections. This is now the best written and documented section in the entire article.
I have invited you to make reasonable changes to the language itself. Your previous response clearly shows that you have a bias here. If you continue to behave this way, you will likely be banned from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 16:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This is blatant vandalism. You are demanding a link that the denomination has existed for over 80 years and that the Civil War ended almost 150 years ago. You are editing in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You did indeed demand that in a previous attempt. You are being ridiculously unreasonable. I have provided links to show that the OPC has not updated its race report since 1974. The report (which I linked to) concludes by saying the committee was dissolved. And I have provided proof of the GA as a body that represents OP leadership. You are not editing in good faith. I would like to spend time making this entire article better. There is zero support for entire paragraphs and sections. In contrast, the demographics sections I have added are very well supported. I have cooperated and made many changes, despite the fact that you were violating BRD. But you continue to seek to sabotage this section through new means. As a result, the main parts of this article continue to be in need of major help, while we waste time working through your bizarre objections. This is vandalism, and you need to stop.
In fact, your edits are even deleting one of the citations that I have added to satisfy your issue with the OPC being a representative body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
— Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy
{{
fact}}
template or 2. Find a citation to support it. Google's your friend here.This is ridiculous. You are deleting citations just so you can say a citation is needed!!! This is your last warning. If you continue to do this to this section, I will apply the exact same standard to the rest of the article, adding "citation need" throughout the entire thing. Is that really what you want, or do you want to be a bit more reasonable here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 17:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There is as much sourcing in this section than in all of the other sections of the article COMBINED. Do you really want to vandalize the only decently written and supported section in the entire article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 17:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Neither the OPC website and nor the website of the office of the OPC historian indicates that a census has ever been conducted to determine the racial, political, or economic composition of the denomination.
There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies. Since the General Assembly is a representative body drawn from ministers and elders throughout denomination, the fact that there are so few minorities present at the General Assembly suggests that there are few non-whites in leadership positions in the denomination.
The section is better documented than any other in this article. As@ Denisora: has already pointed out, this article is start class. Removing material or obstructing other's ability to add to it is vandalism. If you wish to bring in an impartial editor to mediate our disagreement, be my guest. Otherwise, please respect the BRD process and other people's hard work. You are free to ask for more citations, but you are not free to continue to selectively delete material in only certain sections that you would rather not be published.
By your own standard, the picture does not show people standing in front of a building. By your standard, it shows nothing. But several people disagree with your standard.
I would be happy to show you where you deleted others's links. I'll get to that tomorrow. I assume you will apologize to Wikipedia when confronted with this, right?
That is not the standard policy. The standard policy is BRD, which you have violated on several occasions by deleting first and asking questions later. At one point, you agreed to work things out on Talk. But then you went right back to deleting again. And you have claimed that a consensus exists when it in fact does not. Mg3942 ( talk) 21:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.
I was invited here by the feedback bot to find this discussion has been quiet for a week. Do you feel you are close to a consensus? -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 11:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. I thought so. I'll remove the RFC tag then, but keep the page on my watchlist. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
We do not add whole sections without support. These is a claim by a prominent OPC minister and another minister, posted on the front page of the OPC's website. They are identified as claims and do not purport to represent the entire denomination. It is relevant information. Please show what rule this is violating or stop deleting it. Lauraface32 ( talk) 18:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, would you please kindly do one thing at a time with the article? I think you added your unsourced section in the same edit as you deleted my sentences in a different section. This makes it difficult to focus on one thing at a time. I had to delete yours to restore mine. I would prefer not to have to do that. Thanks!!! Lauraface32 ( talk) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 19:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Lauraface32 ( talk) 19:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand that some people do not like this section and would prefer that this potentially embarrassing information not be broadcasted. But unless it breaks any specific rules, it should not be removed. I know that I am new here, but it seems to me that an encyclopedia should share as much information as possible (not just what is popular or promotes the entity in question). Please let me know what rules (if any) this breaks:
The OPC has published the view of a minister who believes that the majority of Orthodox Presbyterians are racially white and politically conservative. [p 1] Several of the most important founders of American reconstructionism (such as Rousas John Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen) were Orthodox Presbyterian ministers. Some important Orthodox Presbyterians, including Machen, [p 2] were and are libertarians (but not left-libertarians). There is some evidence that many members and leaders are Republicans, and that criticism of the GOP is unwelcome in some congregations. For instance, a prominent Orthodox Presbyterian minister recalls being immediately rebuked and warned that he was in a "Republican church" after criticizing the foreign policy of President George H.W. Bush. [p 3]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraface32 ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 February 2014
But it isn't an extrapolation. It just says that it is one minister's experience. And that "one guy" (as you call him) happens to be the editor in chief of the ministerial journal of the OPC. The article had been on the front page of the OP's website. There is no synthesis. It is clear that you don't like this information being shared. But they are well-sourced and limited in their claims. So what rule specifically do you believe is being violated? Lauraface32 ( talk) 21:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It is relevant because it describes what ministers in the OPC view as the racial and political composition of their denomination. It is also relevant because it has been posted on the front page of the OP website. There are links to these articles. This makes them verifiable. They are also neutral, in that they are what the OPC has published about itself. I just removed them. And I have just made a very clear argument for their inclusion. But if you can't show why they aren't neutral or verifiable, they will be reinserted.
Please do not add your history section until you source it and defend it. All sections must play by the same rules. Lauraface32 ( talk) 08:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
This simply isn't true. I do not believe your section sources even a majority of the claims it makes. If you add the sources, then I would have no problem. I do think we need to keep the sources tag if you are going to only cite from the OPC's own official history, as it relies on sources too closely connected with the subject. We should keep this removed until we work it out on Talk, just like with the other sections. You cannot continue to insert language that others find unsourced. As the 5 Pillars say, anyone can edit. You do not own this article, and must work it out in Talk before it is reinserted. Am I wrong about this, Hroðulf'?
"Some evidence" is not weasal wording. If it is, we can simply remove the word "some." That wouldn't be a problem. As for George HW vs George W Bush, we can fix that real easily. Gamble inserts into the article precisely because it reveals an ethos present in the OPC. He mentions it in the middle of a review of Trueman's book ("Republocrat") to show the problems that Trueman sees in confessionally reformed churches of reflexively identifying with the political right are indeed present in the OPC. Seriously, what is the problem with this?
As for your claim of cherrypicking, you are free to add more to the section. Nowhere do I claim that the OPC is only white or only conservative. But I still don't see what your objection is to this language. Lauraface32 ( talk) 09:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I told you that I had no problem with the writing. It just needs to meet the same standards that you expect of other sections. If we cannot assume that a picture of white people can be fairly called a picture of white people, then we cannot assume that Machen died in 1937 or that the OPC was founded by him. Wikipedia requires you to source even the simplest claims -- such as the sky is blue.
Seriously, I think you could have made the demographics section better instead of deleting and tagging it. I don't see what your issue with these three sentences are. Please cut it out. You have assumed that you are in charge of this page and formally warned me for things that Hroðulf said were fine. This is bullying. You need to accept that you are not the owner of this page. No one is. If a section conforms to WP's rules, it should stay. If it doesn't, let's try to fix it together. Lauraface32 ( talk) 09:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep discussion of the history section separate from that of the 3 4 proposed politics section sentences. Otherwise it is impossible for 3rd parties to understand. --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk) 10:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, StAnselm. Please stop making this personal. I just said that all sections need to be treated equally. I agree with you, Hroðulf Lauraface32 ( talk) 10:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that there was a consensus. But what would you say about just posting the picture, StAnselm? Not making any claims, but just showing it in a box in the demographics section and saying -- "a photo of OPC leadership at the 80th GA."
Please list and defend your objections (if you still have any) to reinserting the text with the modifications for which Bush it was. It seems that others do not hold to your previously stated view. Lauraface32 ( talk) 13:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I already addressed the extrapolation objection. It would be extrapolation and synthesis if I were to write that this proves the denomination were white or conservative. But I didn't write that. I wrote that OP ministers have made claims, and that their views have been published on the front page of the OPC's official website. The claims of OP ministers about political and racial demographics seem extremely relevant in a section on the OPC's racial and political demographics. Just as claims by OPC ministers (such as Hart) are relevant in a section on the OPC's history. Lauraface32 ( talk) 22:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
One of the citations is still on the front page of their website. The other was published in Ordained Servant, which appears exclusively on the front page of their website before it is archived. That should answer the relevancy question. Lauraface32 ( talk) 00:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess I understand the distinction you are making. But the OPC still published it and advertised it through a link that they advertised on their front page. We can easily change the language to reflect that. This seriously can't be an objection to keeping it off, right? If it were, we could challenge the relevancy of the doctrine and history sections by the same logic. The fact still remains -- the denomination has published these statements by OPC ministers in their ministerial journal and/or on their website, and advertised the documents in which they appear on the front page of their website. This should be more than sufficient to pass the relevancy threshold. Lauraface32 ( talk) 08:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I agree with you, Hroðulf. It seems that the sentences -- with the alterations suggested here -- fall within WP's rules. They are correctly sourced, relevant to the section, and do not extrapolate or synthesize. If your only remaining concern is that it might possibly tilt towards the ephemeral side of the scale, then I (very respectfully) don't see that as a reason for immediate removal (as this was not one of the original concerns raised towards taking it down). It certainly isn't offensive and I don't believe it violates any rules. I would, with all due deference, humbly suggest that this is something that could very well remain up while the temperature is taken. Lauraface32 ( talk) 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hroðulf, could you please define what reasons you still have against these fairly benign three sentences? I think she defended the charges of relevance and synthesis fairly well. Now it is up to you to counter the defense if you find it wanting. Is this not correct?
I am convinced these sentences are not ephemera. Of course we should work towards a consensus. But unless you can demonstrate that they are ephemera, then there is no reason not to allow it. This is about good faith. Adamduker ( talk) 13:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hroðulf. I hope you will allow me to respond:
Does this answer your concerns? And if not, what do you think is lacking? Lauraface32 ( talk) 14:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
What makes you think that SPACKlick objects to these three sentences? The only objections I see are from StAnselm. I think it is important to keep the issue confined to the texts, the rules, and the consensus. It is improper for anyone to project a consensus. Respectfully, how can you be impartial if you are already forecasting the results? If the goal is to get us to dialogue, then that goal has been accomplished. StAnselm raised some objections, but I have answered them. If there is still an issue, please bring it up. If not, then there is no reason to keep it off just because one person doesn't like it. As the Five Pillars states, no one owns a Wikipedia page. Thus far, it seems that more people disagree with StAnselm on these three sentences than agree with him.
Finally, no editor can predict how others might read a sentence. If the sentence is correct, then we should not infer that others might read it incorrectly. No one can predict reception. Lauraface32 ( talk) 16:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. I've red Wikipedia for years, but I have never contributed anything. I found out about this on the OPC's website. I have been in the OPC for years. So I don't think it would be fare for me to right anything in the article, as I love the OPC. I think the sentences are very fare. Anyone who has attended an OPC knows that it is a conservative church BOTH theologically and poltically. What those ministers wrote is true. I know some pastors say that the church shouldnt be poltical. But they also know tht the OPC has done a lot of poltical things and that the peple tende to be republicans. God bless you all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for welcming me! Prayers 4 you!!! I think the OPC's quetion and answr page and the quote in the article by pastor Gaffin (a very smart and Godly man) are good to put on the page. But I dont think I should write them, bc I am in the OPC!!! God bless you!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
StAnsem, if I read you correctly, it seems that your only remaining concern for synthesis is the "many republicans" part. Is this correct? And if so, does that mean that we have consensus on the other parts? Perhaps we can continue to dialogue about that while we reinsert the other parts. This is what that would look like:
Please don't get angry at me for changing this, Lauraface32. I am just trying to find consensus. I changed the order of the sentences just a bit to make it flow better. Again, I did not mean any offense by this.
StAnsem - I agree with you on some aspects of your concerns. But I think the language that Lauraface32 used regarding the Q&A already reflects the fact that the statement is the view of one minister. I don't see any need to change it further.
I think we are making progress. Let's all please try to continue the constructive dialogue so that the modified sentences can be reinserted without violating any rules and without upsetting people. Adamduker ( talk) 11:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Good morning and God bless all of you! I thnk it is importnt to remembr that the OPC ministers know better than we do! They work there and are very smart and GODLY men!!! Some of them even have doctors degrees in the OPC! So if they say something on this subjct let's Let's keep what they say!! God bless everyone!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, let's not fight! Anger doenst acheeve the righteouness of God!!! Let's all agree and be happy!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The language no longer suggests widespread republicanism. Do you have any specific objection to its relevance? If not, I don't see why you can still keep it out. I have taken your side on many aspects of this debate. But at this point, I think you either need to come up with a specific suggestion or objection, or accept the consensus that you are outvoted. Adamduker ( talk) 16:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of this opening sentence in the Political demographics section? "The denominational magazine has taken up the question of whether the Christian right is good for American conservativism (a topic that has nothing to do with Reformed Christianity)." How does this relate to the political demographics of the OPC? One could guess what the intended point is here, but it is not clear from the actual sentence. Maybe whoever contributed this can reword it to more clearly express their point here. Otherwise, I suggest it be removed. Rhankins ( talk) 23:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The sentence "The denomination has published the ideas of a minister who has asserted, against all historical and scientific evidence, that dinosaurs existed in England just five hundred years ago" needs to go. It is just the opinion of one minister, and the OPC published it with the disclaimer The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an "official" position of the Church. Furthermore, it's not a political issue. The link to training daughters should go for the same reason - we should wait for denominational declarations; surely the General Assembly has said something about it. St Anselm ( talk) 20:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The OPC has published these opinions. They aren't binding, but neither are the GA reports. Topics relating to evolution and creation science have clearly become very political. Feminism is also political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.95.153 ( talk) 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This is tendentious editing. First, blog posts are not invalid sources. Second, this isn't a blog post. While the views do not necessarily represent those of the entire denomination, neither do a GA report. And unlike GA reports, the OPC links their Q&As on the front page of their website and sometimes advertises them in their denomination magazine (New Horizons). The creation report states that ministers should be required to refute evolution. Regardless, StAnselm is doing two things at once. He is attacking a sentence on dinosaurs while also questioning whether the Q&A is a relevant source. This material has been up for over a month. To delete it just because you don't think it is entirely representative is tendentious. You can add the "relevance" tag if you want, and we can discuss it from there. As written, the language already makes it very clear that it is only the view of one minister. Lauraface32 ( talk) 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
These ministrs are smart and GODLY men. That is why they get to anser are questons on the OPC website! Lets respect our leaders! I think dinosars are polticl. I dont belve in Darwen. I only vote for Godly men who dont believe in Darwens theery. The Bible says humns and dinosars livved together. We should vote with this in mind,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.64.6.23 ( talk) 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with StAnselm: First, this Q&A feature on their web site is not the same as the denomination "publishing" this idea. This is what opc.org says about these Q&A answers: "The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an 'official' position of the Church, especially in areas where the Standards of the Church (the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms) are silent." [1] The topic of dinosaurs is not addressed in these Standards, and so clearly this is covered by this disclaimer that it is not an official position of the church. If the reference was to a GA study paper, I would have a lot less concern about its inclusion in the article. True, GA study papers are not constitutionally binding in the OPC either, but they are a lot more weighty than a simple Q&A web site post managed by one denomination committee with a big disclaimer notice. And so a Q&A post like this is not helpful to try to "prove" political views of the denomination. Second, I maintain that "dinosaurs" is not an appropriate topic for the political category. Even if the evolution/creation topic was an appropriate topic under Politics, this line about dinosaurs doesn't make a clear connection with that topic. It would seem that this kind of material would be better suited for a topic about the denomination's view on creation. Third, the line in question says that the Q&A article asserts "that dinosaurs existed in England just five hundred years ago". But the article does not even assert that. I could see how someone could read that into the article, but all the article actually asserts is that there were carvings of what look like dinosaurs on the edge of a tomb from about 500 hundred years ago in England. So, this isn't even an accurate citation of the Q&A article. Rhankins ( talk) 17:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
References
I have reverted this recent addition of an opinion piece from Ordained Servant. It seems to me that we should focus on official denominational positions, not editorials. St Anselm ( talk) 11:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I have removed a bit about how many ministers use the phrase "Cultural Marxism". It doesn't seem to come from a reliable source - the minister making the claim says people accuse him of it, but it just sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder. In any case, please discuss it here before adding it back in. St Anselm ( talk) 21:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I hope the editors add some treatment of LGBTQ issues by the OPC. I was raised in the church. It remains openly rejecting of gay members and the gay offspring of current members. It opposes same-sex marriage for everyone, even for people outside the church if I am not mistaken. 24.4.92.102 ( talk) 00:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The PCUSA did exist at the time of the founding of the OPC. The OPC did not split from the Southern church, but from the Northern. That body had the PCUSA name from its founding until 1958, when it merged with the United Presbyterian Church in North America, forming the United Presbyterian Church (USA). This same body merged with the Southern church (PCUS) in 1983, at which time the united church reclaimed its original and historic name, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone elaborate on the specific issues that caused the OPC to split off? The description here is vague (emphasis mine): "In 1929, the Board of the seminary reorganized along more liberal lines, and began hiring professors who were significantly more friendly towards modernism and some forms of liberalism... Machen and a group of other conservatives objected to these changes ... Then, objecting to theological positions that he believed compromised the distinctives of the Reformed tradition, if not the basic tenets of Christianity itself, Machen pled his case before the General Assembly of the PCUSA..." I only have my early-21st century knowledge of what these terms mean, which may or may not be helpful in the context of an early-20th-century debate within a specific denomination. Later there are more specifics given (e.g., alcohol) but I'd love more. -- Jfruh 02:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I grew up the OPC, and I've heard from several people that the final straw before the OPC split off was a PCUSA resolution to acknowledge that the virgin birth story might be allegorical/illiteral. But I have no source.
Can someone post how many current members and churches the OPC has in North America and throughout the world? I am unable to find this data to post, unfortunately. Scunning 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see this article expanded considerably in many ways I find it insufficent. However as I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I am reluctant to edit this article myself, as I have obvious biases. -- 24.213.155.165
It would be helpful if someone could summarise the theological issues raised in Paul Elliot's book, which has been described in various places online such as [1]. DFH 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
A large violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV has been inserted, and then re-inserted after being removed. It represents a lot of effort, but if there's any sourcing for the arguments, I fail to see it. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. This is not original research. The OPC calls itself a largely white and conservative denomination. It has published a report stating the former, and it seems that all of their political statements clearly support the latter statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.28.170 ( talk) 01:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
There seems to have been a lot of attention on the demographics section the last few days. This is a good thing, as the "racial" and "political" subsections now provide more citations than the rest of the sections in the article combine.
But there are still sections with absolutely no support whatsoever. I am not super familiar with this denomination. But maybe it is time for those who are to either delete or provide sources for the other sections.
As far as I can tell, the demographics, governance, and missions sections are pretty good. They can still be improved, but they are well supported.
The Ecumenical Relations Section needs considerable work. But it is better than the Notable Members (no support), doctrine (massive quote, possible plagiarism), schism & continuity (no support), Machen & The Departure from the PCUSA (no support), and Background (very little support) sections.
If you have knowledge of this denomination, I would suggest that the time has come to either delete these sections or source the material. Maybe we should agree to give it until Feb. 5th and then delete the material? 31.6.58.43 ( talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
“ | Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. citation needed | ” |
Except for certain kinds of claims about living people, which require immediate production of inline citations, there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct simply because no-one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided.
The When not to use this template section of {{ Citation needed}} guidance specifies:
While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as " drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all (hit-and-run). ... This template is intended for specific passages that need citation. For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{ Unreferenced}} or {{ Refimprove}}.
Users unable to edit the page while it is semi-protected may include the {{ edit semi-protected}} template in an edit request. Please be sure that consensus concerns are addressed first. Thank you.
The citation for the doctrine section is not correct. The link does not support the material. There is a big quote that needs to be paraphrased. But more importantly, it is unclear where the quote comes from (as the citation is not correct). Could someone who is more familiar with the OPC's doctrine fix it? Mg3942 ( talk) 10:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see that the spurious "American revisions" part User:Mg3942 was talking about was added with this edit right before the massive removal of excess {{ CN}}'s happened. We need to put the word "were" back in and strike those unsupported additions back out:
The OPC system of doctrine is the Reformed faith, also called Calvinism. Calvin's doctrines continued to evolve after his death, and
a particular evolution of them waswere set forth in the Westminster Standards (which include the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms), with accompanying biblical references). The OPC holds to the Westminster standardswith the American revisions of 1788.[1]
The OPC system of doctrine is the [[Reformed faith]], also called [[Calvinism]]. Calvin's doctrines continued to evolve after his death, and were set forth in the Westminster Standards (which include the [[Westminster Confession of Faith]] and the [[Westminster Larger Catechism|Larger]] and [[Westminster Shorter Catechism|Shorter Catechism]]<nowiki/>s), with accompanying biblical references). The OPC holds to the Westminster standards.<ref name="What is OPC"/>
The 2nd window is the corrected version ready for (triple-click) & copy/paste as new 1st paragraph in Doctrine section.
...
172.162.77.52 (
talk) 15:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's a perfect example of what is being criticized and (rightfully) removed:
This is a classic example of synthesis. Nothing at "historian.html" discusses any census regarding the composition of the denomination. The words "census", "racial", "political", and "economic" appear nowhere on that page; nowhere does that page make the assertion that such a census has not been made. The POV of the paragraph appears to be that some such survey should have been made; the synthesis is that the absence of mention of such a survey on that page indicates that no such survey has been made.
Again, noting the absence of something the editor thinks should have occurred ("has not been updated since 1974") is a violation of WP:NOR and an example of WP:SYNTH; if some third party reliable source had made the point of the absence of such a thing, it might be usable, but we can't point to the index and say "oh look so and so isn't there".
Removing the "synthesis" tag while a discussion is underway was completely inappropriate.
Says who? Pure violation of WP:NOR and more to the point WP:NPOV.
Who says it should?
As the edit summary said, this was removed appropriately under WP:BLPREMOVE.
It is 100% incumbent upon the editors adding stuff to articles to make sure the adhere to out policies of WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Find appropriate sources and then add the material; you can't add material and then hope someone eventually finds those sources. And WP:NPOV absolutely must be adhered to; your personal opinion of what this church should or shouldn't do has no relevance whatsoever. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I've requested full protection for this article. I'd protect it myself but I'm somewhat involved. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 21:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted this change - the DoE statement predates the OPC, and there is nothing in the source about "expressing opposition to the status of undocumented workers", whatever that means. St Anselm ( talk) 23:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Twice I've attempted to change this line:
to this line:
and my edit has been reverted both times with the comment that it was an "unnecessary edit".
This is not an "unnecessary edit" for these reasons:
-- Rhankins ( talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)-- Rhankins ( talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion over the inclusion of material on the demography and politics of the OPC which has been the cause of tendentious editing. In particular OR relating to an image from the OPC website. SPACKlick ( talk) 22:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Summary of the 5 edits being discussed;
NOTA BENE: I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOT CHANGE THE TEXT WHILE THE SURVEY IS IN PROCESS. THAT WAY EVERYONE CAN SEE WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON. ONCE A CONSENSUS EMERGES, THEN WE CAN MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. I DO NOT MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE BY THIS. I JUST THINK THE DELETIONS ARE GETTING WAY OUT OF HAND. LET'S FIND A CONSENSUS FIRST, AND THEN MAKE CHANGES. BUT WE CAN'T HIT A MOVING TARGET. I AM SORRY IF I INSERTED AN OLDER VERSION. BUT ST. ANSELM MADE SO MANY INTERMEDIATE EDITS THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RESTORE WHAT WE HAD A FEW DAYS AGO. Adamduker ( talk) 14:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Section currently Reads;
Nevertheless, decades after the report was released the OPC remains an overwhelmingly white denomination. The report's rationale that the denomination inherited the reconstruction racial dynamics of the PCUSA is no longer persuasive considering the fact that the OPC has now been a distinct denomination for over 80 years (and the American Civil War ended almost 150 years ago). There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies, which reflects the fact that there are very few non-whites in leadership positions in the denomination. [1] And in many (if not most) of the previous meetings of the General Assembly, only whites were present as delegates.
The Source does not support this in any way and I think it therefore violates WP:OR, I will remove it now and hope to see a discussion of its inclusion here before it is reverted. SPACKlick ( talk) 12:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
References
Reply:
Then feel free to challenge it. But you are not free to delete this whole cloth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Reply:
There are no violations in this. I have changed the wording to make it conform 100% to Wikipedia rules. One is allowed to make such statements on Wikipedia so long as they insert appropriate language (i.e. "suggests"). The photo that I linked clearly shows a denomination that is almost entirely white.
If you will to challenge or rewrite a section, please do so. But you are not free simply to continue to delete it whole cloth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 13:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Reply:
This simply isn't true. You are not "challenging" this information. You are deleting this. You can insert a link asking for additional citations. But for instance, you have deleted the first paragraph of the political section, despite the fact that it is just a lead in to the next paragraph, which is much larger and contains all of the support.
Again, feel free to rewrite or improve sections. But you are not free to delete this whole cloth. This is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 13:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Additional Reply:
The paragraph you quoted earlier has been rewritten. You could have rewritten it yourself instead of deleting it. Feel free to make similar changes to other paragraphs or sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 13:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
One (More) Additional Reply to SPACKlick:
You have been warned by Wikipedia before for doing this exact same thing. It seems that you have a history of wrongly deleting valid information and engaging in edit wars. For instance, earlier this month Wikipedia told you the following:
Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Marriage penalty. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
Please stop doing the same thing to this page. There are ways to edit and improve pages without vandalizing them. You have started an edit war. I am not an edit warrior. I am interested in working with anyone to find ways to improve this page. But deleting things just because you don't like them will not be tolerated. 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 13:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No one has never conducted a census to determine the racial, political, or economic compositions of the denomination. Nevertheless, there is much evidence that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is an overwhelmingly white and politically conservative denomination:
The racial composition of delegates to recent OPC General Assemblies suggests that the OPC remains an overwhelmingly white denomination decades after the official report was released. There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies, which reflects the fact that there are very few non-whites in leadership positions in the denomination. [5]
The report's rationale that the denomination inherited the reconstruction racial dynamics of the PCUSA has not been updated since the 1970s, even though the OPC has now been a distinct denomination for over 80 years and the American Civil War ended almost 150 years ago.
There is no evidence that any Orthodox Presbyterian minister or elder played any role whatsoever in advancing any liberal or progressive cause, such as the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s or equal pay legislation. Historically, the OPC has only made political statements that have coincided with right wing policies, such as opposition to homosexuals serving their country, women serving in combat roles, the status of undocumented workers, opposition to the Department of Education, and the anti-abortion movement.
So despite the fact that the OPC has never surveyed its members to determine political demographics, the vast majority of OPC members can be described as either conservative, Republican, libertarian, or even theonomic.
That wasn't the only instance in which people have complained that you are vandalizing their pages. If you want to ask for citations on the page itself, go for it. There is an easy function to do this. But you are subverting the normal editing process via your deletions. 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 14:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are free to ask for additional citations and change the wording of certain sentences. This is part of the normal edit process. I have already made some changes based on your comments above. But you are not engaging in the normal edit process. You are engaging in an edit war and vandalism.
It is remarkable that you have such problems with this section, but not with others in this article. You seem to have other motivations here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been asked several times to provide sources, both in edit comments and on this page. You have failed to do so, therefore you are adding material that violates policy to pages. I will be adding Citation needed tags to all the material and if it doesn't have sources soon will remove again. SPACKlick ( talk) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been warned several times. I have now reported you for vandalism and engaging in an edit war. You have violated the bold part of the BRD process. Wikipedia has already labelled this page a "start class." But it can't be improved unless you stop deleting things for no good reason. Feel free to change the language without deleting whole ideas, or to add a "citation needed" link when you think something needs to be better supported. But you should not feel free to continue to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There you go. Welcome to the world of responsible editing. Now, let's get down to brass tacts:
Re: the second paragraph of the race sectionL The first sentence is an introduction which leads into the second. You need to delete your objections there and focus them on the second sentence. The photo certainly shows that the overwhelming majority of OPC GA delegates are white. I cannot agree with your objection to this. The denomination has published a photo of leaders that contains less than 1% non-white people. The GA is a representative body, drawing ministers and elders from presbyteries all over the country. Therefore, this is not a controversial statement. But perhaps you can help me construct a sentence that can clarify this. I will wait 15 minutes for you to respond, and then I will move the link to the photo from the end of the sentence to right after the comma.
Sound good? 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 15:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As for your issue with citation #11, I cited the OPC webpage that lists all of their official reports. Clearly, the race report has not been updated since 1974. Again, I will give you 15 minutes to delete or clarify your objection, and then I will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 15:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As for your issue with the lead in paragraph, I provide the evidence in the next two sections. I will be deleting your "citation needed" objection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.
Perhaps you can show me how ANYONE could reasonably see a single black person in that photo. This is not a controversial or unsupported statement. There are only two faces in that entire photo that *might* be considered non-white.
The page lists OPC GA reports. This is a reasonable statement. If you can find a single OPC GA report not listed on the website, I will be happy to remove that sentence.
Have you read the rest of this article?!?!?! There are whole sentences, paragraphs, and even sections WITHOUT A SINGLE CITATION!!!! Plenty of naive sentences and claims. So why are you focussing such undue attention here? I am glad that you have taken the first step towards becoming a responsible editor, but you need to focus on removing the huge planks in this article before what may or may not be tiny splinters in this one section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. This is not original research. You have already been reported for vandalism and starting an edit war. You have violated BRD on several occasions. I have already made countless revisions to satisfy your objections. This is now the best written and documented section in the entire article.
I have invited you to make reasonable changes to the language itself. Your previous response clearly shows that you have a bias here. If you continue to behave this way, you will likely be banned from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 16:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This is blatant vandalism. You are demanding a link that the denomination has existed for over 80 years and that the Civil War ended almost 150 years ago. You are editing in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You did indeed demand that in a previous attempt. You are being ridiculously unreasonable. I have provided links to show that the OPC has not updated its race report since 1974. The report (which I linked to) concludes by saying the committee was dissolved. And I have provided proof of the GA as a body that represents OP leadership. You are not editing in good faith. I would like to spend time making this entire article better. There is zero support for entire paragraphs and sections. In contrast, the demographics sections I have added are very well supported. I have cooperated and made many changes, despite the fact that you were violating BRD. But you continue to seek to sabotage this section through new means. As a result, the main parts of this article continue to be in need of major help, while we waste time working through your bizarre objections. This is vandalism, and you need to stop.
In fact, your edits are even deleting one of the citations that I have added to satisfy your issue with the OPC being a representative body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
— Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy
{{
fact}}
template or 2. Find a citation to support it. Google's your friend here.This is ridiculous. You are deleting citations just so you can say a citation is needed!!! This is your last warning. If you continue to do this to this section, I will apply the exact same standard to the rest of the article, adding "citation need" throughout the entire thing. Is that really what you want, or do you want to be a bit more reasonable here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 17:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There is as much sourcing in this section than in all of the other sections of the article COMBINED. Do you really want to vandalize the only decently written and supported section in the entire article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 ( talk) 17:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Neither the OPC website and nor the website of the office of the OPC historian indicates that a census has ever been conducted to determine the racial, political, or economic composition of the denomination.
There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies. Since the General Assembly is a representative body drawn from ministers and elders throughout denomination, the fact that there are so few minorities present at the General Assembly suggests that there are few non-whites in leadership positions in the denomination.
The section is better documented than any other in this article. As@ Denisora: has already pointed out, this article is start class. Removing material or obstructing other's ability to add to it is vandalism. If you wish to bring in an impartial editor to mediate our disagreement, be my guest. Otherwise, please respect the BRD process and other people's hard work. You are free to ask for more citations, but you are not free to continue to selectively delete material in only certain sections that you would rather not be published.
By your own standard, the picture does not show people standing in front of a building. By your standard, it shows nothing. But several people disagree with your standard.
I would be happy to show you where you deleted others's links. I'll get to that tomorrow. I assume you will apologize to Wikipedia when confronted with this, right?
That is not the standard policy. The standard policy is BRD, which you have violated on several occasions by deleting first and asking questions later. At one point, you agreed to work things out on Talk. But then you went right back to deleting again. And you have claimed that a consensus exists when it in fact does not. Mg3942 ( talk) 21:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.
I was invited here by the feedback bot to find this discussion has been quiet for a week. Do you feel you are close to a consensus? -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 11:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. I thought so. I'll remove the RFC tag then, but keep the page on my watchlist. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
We do not add whole sections without support. These is a claim by a prominent OPC minister and another minister, posted on the front page of the OPC's website. They are identified as claims and do not purport to represent the entire denomination. It is relevant information. Please show what rule this is violating or stop deleting it. Lauraface32 ( talk) 18:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, would you please kindly do one thing at a time with the article? I think you added your unsourced section in the same edit as you deleted my sentences in a different section. This makes it difficult to focus on one thing at a time. I had to delete yours to restore mine. I would prefer not to have to do that. Thanks!!! Lauraface32 ( talk) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 19:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Lauraface32 ( talk) 19:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand that some people do not like this section and would prefer that this potentially embarrassing information not be broadcasted. But unless it breaks any specific rules, it should not be removed. I know that I am new here, but it seems to me that an encyclopedia should share as much information as possible (not just what is popular or promotes the entity in question). Please let me know what rules (if any) this breaks:
The OPC has published the view of a minister who believes that the majority of Orthodox Presbyterians are racially white and politically conservative. [p 1] Several of the most important founders of American reconstructionism (such as Rousas John Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen) were Orthodox Presbyterian ministers. Some important Orthodox Presbyterians, including Machen, [p 2] were and are libertarians (but not left-libertarians). There is some evidence that many members and leaders are Republicans, and that criticism of the GOP is unwelcome in some congregations. For instance, a prominent Orthodox Presbyterian minister recalls being immediately rebuked and warned that he was in a "Republican church" after criticizing the foreign policy of President George H.W. Bush. [p 3]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraface32 ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 February 2014
But it isn't an extrapolation. It just says that it is one minister's experience. And that "one guy" (as you call him) happens to be the editor in chief of the ministerial journal of the OPC. The article had been on the front page of the OP's website. There is no synthesis. It is clear that you don't like this information being shared. But they are well-sourced and limited in their claims. So what rule specifically do you believe is being violated? Lauraface32 ( talk) 21:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It is relevant because it describes what ministers in the OPC view as the racial and political composition of their denomination. It is also relevant because it has been posted on the front page of the OP website. There are links to these articles. This makes them verifiable. They are also neutral, in that they are what the OPC has published about itself. I just removed them. And I have just made a very clear argument for their inclusion. But if you can't show why they aren't neutral or verifiable, they will be reinserted.
Please do not add your history section until you source it and defend it. All sections must play by the same rules. Lauraface32 ( talk) 08:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
This simply isn't true. I do not believe your section sources even a majority of the claims it makes. If you add the sources, then I would have no problem. I do think we need to keep the sources tag if you are going to only cite from the OPC's own official history, as it relies on sources too closely connected with the subject. We should keep this removed until we work it out on Talk, just like with the other sections. You cannot continue to insert language that others find unsourced. As the 5 Pillars say, anyone can edit. You do not own this article, and must work it out in Talk before it is reinserted. Am I wrong about this, Hroðulf'?
"Some evidence" is not weasal wording. If it is, we can simply remove the word "some." That wouldn't be a problem. As for George HW vs George W Bush, we can fix that real easily. Gamble inserts into the article precisely because it reveals an ethos present in the OPC. He mentions it in the middle of a review of Trueman's book ("Republocrat") to show the problems that Trueman sees in confessionally reformed churches of reflexively identifying with the political right are indeed present in the OPC. Seriously, what is the problem with this?
As for your claim of cherrypicking, you are free to add more to the section. Nowhere do I claim that the OPC is only white or only conservative. But I still don't see what your objection is to this language. Lauraface32 ( talk) 09:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I told you that I had no problem with the writing. It just needs to meet the same standards that you expect of other sections. If we cannot assume that a picture of white people can be fairly called a picture of white people, then we cannot assume that Machen died in 1937 or that the OPC was founded by him. Wikipedia requires you to source even the simplest claims -- such as the sky is blue.
Seriously, I think you could have made the demographics section better instead of deleting and tagging it. I don't see what your issue with these three sentences are. Please cut it out. You have assumed that you are in charge of this page and formally warned me for things that Hroðulf said were fine. This is bullying. You need to accept that you are not the owner of this page. No one is. If a section conforms to WP's rules, it should stay. If it doesn't, let's try to fix it together. Lauraface32 ( talk) 09:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep discussion of the history section separate from that of the 3 4 proposed politics section sentences. Otherwise it is impossible for 3rd parties to understand. --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk) 10:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, StAnselm. Please stop making this personal. I just said that all sections need to be treated equally. I agree with you, Hroðulf Lauraface32 ( talk) 10:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that there was a consensus. But what would you say about just posting the picture, StAnselm? Not making any claims, but just showing it in a box in the demographics section and saying -- "a photo of OPC leadership at the 80th GA."
Please list and defend your objections (if you still have any) to reinserting the text with the modifications for which Bush it was. It seems that others do not hold to your previously stated view. Lauraface32 ( talk) 13:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I already addressed the extrapolation objection. It would be extrapolation and synthesis if I were to write that this proves the denomination were white or conservative. But I didn't write that. I wrote that OP ministers have made claims, and that their views have been published on the front page of the OPC's official website. The claims of OP ministers about political and racial demographics seem extremely relevant in a section on the OPC's racial and political demographics. Just as claims by OPC ministers (such as Hart) are relevant in a section on the OPC's history. Lauraface32 ( talk) 22:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
One of the citations is still on the front page of their website. The other was published in Ordained Servant, which appears exclusively on the front page of their website before it is archived. That should answer the relevancy question. Lauraface32 ( talk) 00:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess I understand the distinction you are making. But the OPC still published it and advertised it through a link that they advertised on their front page. We can easily change the language to reflect that. This seriously can't be an objection to keeping it off, right? If it were, we could challenge the relevancy of the doctrine and history sections by the same logic. The fact still remains -- the denomination has published these statements by OPC ministers in their ministerial journal and/or on their website, and advertised the documents in which they appear on the front page of their website. This should be more than sufficient to pass the relevancy threshold. Lauraface32 ( talk) 08:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I agree with you, Hroðulf. It seems that the sentences -- with the alterations suggested here -- fall within WP's rules. They are correctly sourced, relevant to the section, and do not extrapolate or synthesize. If your only remaining concern is that it might possibly tilt towards the ephemeral side of the scale, then I (very respectfully) don't see that as a reason for immediate removal (as this was not one of the original concerns raised towards taking it down). It certainly isn't offensive and I don't believe it violates any rules. I would, with all due deference, humbly suggest that this is something that could very well remain up while the temperature is taken. Lauraface32 ( talk) 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hroðulf, could you please define what reasons you still have against these fairly benign three sentences? I think she defended the charges of relevance and synthesis fairly well. Now it is up to you to counter the defense if you find it wanting. Is this not correct?
I am convinced these sentences are not ephemera. Of course we should work towards a consensus. But unless you can demonstrate that they are ephemera, then there is no reason not to allow it. This is about good faith. Adamduker ( talk) 13:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hroðulf. I hope you will allow me to respond:
Does this answer your concerns? And if not, what do you think is lacking? Lauraface32 ( talk) 14:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
What makes you think that SPACKlick objects to these three sentences? The only objections I see are from StAnselm. I think it is important to keep the issue confined to the texts, the rules, and the consensus. It is improper for anyone to project a consensus. Respectfully, how can you be impartial if you are already forecasting the results? If the goal is to get us to dialogue, then that goal has been accomplished. StAnselm raised some objections, but I have answered them. If there is still an issue, please bring it up. If not, then there is no reason to keep it off just because one person doesn't like it. As the Five Pillars states, no one owns a Wikipedia page. Thus far, it seems that more people disagree with StAnselm on these three sentences than agree with him.
Finally, no editor can predict how others might read a sentence. If the sentence is correct, then we should not infer that others might read it incorrectly. No one can predict reception. Lauraface32 ( talk) 16:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. I've red Wikipedia for years, but I have never contributed anything. I found out about this on the OPC's website. I have been in the OPC for years. So I don't think it would be fare for me to right anything in the article, as I love the OPC. I think the sentences are very fare. Anyone who has attended an OPC knows that it is a conservative church BOTH theologically and poltically. What those ministers wrote is true. I know some pastors say that the church shouldnt be poltical. But they also know tht the OPC has done a lot of poltical things and that the peple tende to be republicans. God bless you all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for welcming me! Prayers 4 you!!! I think the OPC's quetion and answr page and the quote in the article by pastor Gaffin (a very smart and Godly man) are good to put on the page. But I dont think I should write them, bc I am in the OPC!!! God bless you!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
StAnsem, if I read you correctly, it seems that your only remaining concern for synthesis is the "many republicans" part. Is this correct? And if so, does that mean that we have consensus on the other parts? Perhaps we can continue to dialogue about that while we reinsert the other parts. This is what that would look like:
Please don't get angry at me for changing this, Lauraface32. I am just trying to find consensus. I changed the order of the sentences just a bit to make it flow better. Again, I did not mean any offense by this.
StAnsem - I agree with you on some aspects of your concerns. But I think the language that Lauraface32 used regarding the Q&A already reflects the fact that the statement is the view of one minister. I don't see any need to change it further.
I think we are making progress. Let's all please try to continue the constructive dialogue so that the modified sentences can be reinserted without violating any rules and without upsetting people. Adamduker ( talk) 11:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Good morning and God bless all of you! I thnk it is importnt to remembr that the OPC ministers know better than we do! They work there and are very smart and GODLY men!!! Some of them even have doctors degrees in the OPC! So if they say something on this subjct let's Let's keep what they say!! God bless everyone!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, let's not fight! Anger doenst acheeve the righteouness of God!!! Let's all agree and be happy!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The language no longer suggests widespread republicanism. Do you have any specific objection to its relevance? If not, I don't see why you can still keep it out. I have taken your side on many aspects of this debate. But at this point, I think you either need to come up with a specific suggestion or objection, or accept the consensus that you are outvoted. Adamduker ( talk) 16:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of this opening sentence in the Political demographics section? "The denominational magazine has taken up the question of whether the Christian right is good for American conservativism (a topic that has nothing to do with Reformed Christianity)." How does this relate to the political demographics of the OPC? One could guess what the intended point is here, but it is not clear from the actual sentence. Maybe whoever contributed this can reword it to more clearly express their point here. Otherwise, I suggest it be removed. Rhankins ( talk) 23:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The sentence "The denomination has published the ideas of a minister who has asserted, against all historical and scientific evidence, that dinosaurs existed in England just five hundred years ago" needs to go. It is just the opinion of one minister, and the OPC published it with the disclaimer The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an "official" position of the Church. Furthermore, it's not a political issue. The link to training daughters should go for the same reason - we should wait for denominational declarations; surely the General Assembly has said something about it. St Anselm ( talk) 20:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The OPC has published these opinions. They aren't binding, but neither are the GA reports. Topics relating to evolution and creation science have clearly become very political. Feminism is also political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.95.153 ( talk) 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This is tendentious editing. First, blog posts are not invalid sources. Second, this isn't a blog post. While the views do not necessarily represent those of the entire denomination, neither do a GA report. And unlike GA reports, the OPC links their Q&As on the front page of their website and sometimes advertises them in their denomination magazine (New Horizons). The creation report states that ministers should be required to refute evolution. Regardless, StAnselm is doing two things at once. He is attacking a sentence on dinosaurs while also questioning whether the Q&A is a relevant source. This material has been up for over a month. To delete it just because you don't think it is entirely representative is tendentious. You can add the "relevance" tag if you want, and we can discuss it from there. As written, the language already makes it very clear that it is only the view of one minister. Lauraface32 ( talk) 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
These ministrs are smart and GODLY men. That is why they get to anser are questons on the OPC website! Lets respect our leaders! I think dinosars are polticl. I dont belve in Darwen. I only vote for Godly men who dont believe in Darwens theery. The Bible says humns and dinosars livved together. We should vote with this in mind,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.64.6.23 ( talk) 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with StAnselm: First, this Q&A feature on their web site is not the same as the denomination "publishing" this idea. This is what opc.org says about these Q&A answers: "The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an 'official' position of the Church, especially in areas where the Standards of the Church (the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms) are silent." [1] The topic of dinosaurs is not addressed in these Standards, and so clearly this is covered by this disclaimer that it is not an official position of the church. If the reference was to a GA study paper, I would have a lot less concern about its inclusion in the article. True, GA study papers are not constitutionally binding in the OPC either, but they are a lot more weighty than a simple Q&A web site post managed by one denomination committee with a big disclaimer notice. And so a Q&A post like this is not helpful to try to "prove" political views of the denomination. Second, I maintain that "dinosaurs" is not an appropriate topic for the political category. Even if the evolution/creation topic was an appropriate topic under Politics, this line about dinosaurs doesn't make a clear connection with that topic. It would seem that this kind of material would be better suited for a topic about the denomination's view on creation. Third, the line in question says that the Q&A article asserts "that dinosaurs existed in England just five hundred years ago". But the article does not even assert that. I could see how someone could read that into the article, but all the article actually asserts is that there were carvings of what look like dinosaurs on the edge of a tomb from about 500 hundred years ago in England. So, this isn't even an accurate citation of the Q&A article. Rhankins ( talk) 17:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
References
I have reverted this recent addition of an opinion piece from Ordained Servant. It seems to me that we should focus on official denominational positions, not editorials. St Anselm ( talk) 11:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I have removed a bit about how many ministers use the phrase "Cultural Marxism". It doesn't seem to come from a reliable source - the minister making the claim says people accuse him of it, but it just sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder. In any case, please discuss it here before adding it back in. St Anselm ( talk) 21:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I hope the editors add some treatment of LGBTQ issues by the OPC. I was raised in the church. It remains openly rejecting of gay members and the gay offspring of current members. It opposes same-sex marriage for everyone, even for people outside the church if I am not mistaken. 24.4.92.102 ( talk) 00:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)