This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The footnote for "Highlands Study Center Squiblog" ( http://www.highlandsministriesonline.org/journals/hsc/2004_08_01_archive.html) is "404" page not found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.122.246 ( talk) 04:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
For discussions of neutrality and how we settled on the present text, see the talk archives. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 18:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The current interpretation of Wikipedia policy is that links to original documents are not allowed if they are hosted on an "attack site". See discussion and history for John L. Brownlee. Given that Hushmoney.org is clearly an attack site hosted by an interested party, Peter Kershaw - the fellow who brought these accusations to the RPCGA and boasted on Hushmoney.org that he brought down R.C. Sproul Jr., I suggest that linking to the docs hosted there is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. If the RPCGA doesn't care to post their own documents on the their own website, www.rpcga.org, why should Kershaw's site be a trusted repository? He isn't even a member. Cadwallader ( talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Some good reasons for this interpretation of the policy is that attack sites are able to use Wikipedia reference links to "put themselves on the map" in terms of Google Search Rankings. So simply obtain some original docs, post them on your attack site, and now you're entitled to free link juice from Wikipedia - the most powerful and highly ranked site on the Internet? No. This subverts Wikipedia to support the agenda of the attack site. Cadwallader ( talk) 03:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Hushmoney.org is a self published source that published a purported copy of the RPCGA declaratory judgment in order to further the site owner's campaign against R. C. Sproul Jr. Cadwallader ( talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The "Declaratory Judgment" acknowledges in point 1 that due process was not followed in producing the judgment:
Therefore the phrase "without due process" is justified in qualifying the defrocking, because the defrocking document itself acknowledges that full process was not given to the accused. Cadwallader ( talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The letter of apology cited only apologizes for teaching and practicing paedocommunion. The current paragraph on the defrocking implies they apologized for all of the ridiculous accusations in the declaratory judgment, which is not the case. Cadwallader ( talk) 03:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Note the piped link is to Presbyterian polity. patsw ( talk) 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of Sproul's AM confession - it was purely a primary source. I see it had been picked up in a couple of outlets, and had thought about adding it. But there's an issue of undue weight, as well as fairly describing the confession. For example, USA Today talks about Sproul's " prospective thought about maybe sinning". St Anselm ( talk) 09:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I realize the cry of "fake news" is an old meme, battle-cry, and practically a fallacy in it's own right. But Christian News does not represent a delivery of facts from a narrative. I could understand citing court documents from the court website, or even a semi-legit news source but Christian News is a joke and shouldn't be trusted as anything other than a tabloid. Vulgarly sensational is an accurate description of ChristianNews.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.173.136 ( talk) 16:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
If I am reading the Wikipedia Manual of Style section "Currencies and monetary values" ( WP:CURRENCY) correctly, there is no need, or even warrant, to append .00 (as was done at the end of "Career and family" before I truncated the numbers to whole amounts) when citing monetary quantities (presumably exact), especially as large as those here, well over $100,000. Am laying no accusation of deliberate bias at the feet of any contributor to this article, and my perception may be completely mistaken. But the extra digits, if indeed unnecessary, could look a bit like an attempt to magnify the numbers and thereby to magnify any misdeeds or lapses in judgment on the part of Sproul Jr. or those associated with him. Indeed some sensitive readers might, by reasonable extension, construe the artificially long-format salary and severance values as an attempt to cast aspersions on the religious beliefs with which he inseparably identifies and is identified. -- 2603:6081:8002:AE78:C572:B691:B196:C08 ( talk) 06:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The footnote for "Highlands Study Center Squiblog" ( http://www.highlandsministriesonline.org/journals/hsc/2004_08_01_archive.html) is "404" page not found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.122.246 ( talk) 04:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
For discussions of neutrality and how we settled on the present text, see the talk archives. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 18:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The current interpretation of Wikipedia policy is that links to original documents are not allowed if they are hosted on an "attack site". See discussion and history for John L. Brownlee. Given that Hushmoney.org is clearly an attack site hosted by an interested party, Peter Kershaw - the fellow who brought these accusations to the RPCGA and boasted on Hushmoney.org that he brought down R.C. Sproul Jr., I suggest that linking to the docs hosted there is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. If the RPCGA doesn't care to post their own documents on the their own website, www.rpcga.org, why should Kershaw's site be a trusted repository? He isn't even a member. Cadwallader ( talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Some good reasons for this interpretation of the policy is that attack sites are able to use Wikipedia reference links to "put themselves on the map" in terms of Google Search Rankings. So simply obtain some original docs, post them on your attack site, and now you're entitled to free link juice from Wikipedia - the most powerful and highly ranked site on the Internet? No. This subverts Wikipedia to support the agenda of the attack site. Cadwallader ( talk) 03:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Hushmoney.org is a self published source that published a purported copy of the RPCGA declaratory judgment in order to further the site owner's campaign against R. C. Sproul Jr. Cadwallader ( talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The "Declaratory Judgment" acknowledges in point 1 that due process was not followed in producing the judgment:
Therefore the phrase "without due process" is justified in qualifying the defrocking, because the defrocking document itself acknowledges that full process was not given to the accused. Cadwallader ( talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The letter of apology cited only apologizes for teaching and practicing paedocommunion. The current paragraph on the defrocking implies they apologized for all of the ridiculous accusations in the declaratory judgment, which is not the case. Cadwallader ( talk) 03:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Note the piped link is to Presbyterian polity. patsw ( talk) 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of Sproul's AM confession - it was purely a primary source. I see it had been picked up in a couple of outlets, and had thought about adding it. But there's an issue of undue weight, as well as fairly describing the confession. For example, USA Today talks about Sproul's " prospective thought about maybe sinning". St Anselm ( talk) 09:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I realize the cry of "fake news" is an old meme, battle-cry, and practically a fallacy in it's own right. But Christian News does not represent a delivery of facts from a narrative. I could understand citing court documents from the court website, or even a semi-legit news source but Christian News is a joke and shouldn't be trusted as anything other than a tabloid. Vulgarly sensational is an accurate description of ChristianNews.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.173.136 ( talk) 16:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
If I am reading the Wikipedia Manual of Style section "Currencies and monetary values" ( WP:CURRENCY) correctly, there is no need, or even warrant, to append .00 (as was done at the end of "Career and family" before I truncated the numbers to whole amounts) when citing monetary quantities (presumably exact), especially as large as those here, well over $100,000. Am laying no accusation of deliberate bias at the feet of any contributor to this article, and my perception may be completely mistaken. But the extra digits, if indeed unnecessary, could look a bit like an attempt to magnify the numbers and thereby to magnify any misdeeds or lapses in judgment on the part of Sproul Jr. or those associated with him. Indeed some sensitive readers might, by reasonable extension, construe the artificially long-format salary and severance values as an attempt to cast aspersions on the religious beliefs with which he inseparably identifies and is identified. -- 2603:6081:8002:AE78:C572:B691:B196:C08 ( talk) 06:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)