Talk:International Churches of Christ

Proposed revisions to "Beliefs and practices of the ICOC" section

Based upon the findings of the recent RfC on About Self sourcing and the challenge of finding relevant, independent sourcing since 2010 as reported by @Nowa elsewhere on the Talk page, I propose that the following introduction and Statement of Shared Beliefs (Abridged) from the ICOC's "Plan for United Cooperation" be added to the Beliefs and practices of the ICOC section of the ICOC article on the basis of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BESTSOURCES and that redundant paragraphs in the section be deleted:

On or about March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches around the world who collectively identified as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. On August 5, 2009, the “Cooperation Plan” was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches.  https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. The Plan for United Cooperation contained a Statement of Shared Beliefs by churches participating in the International Churches of Christ that is presented below in abridged form.

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (Abridged)

“May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” John 17:23 NIV

The following longstanding biblical doctrines and cooperative ideals have already guided us well on our journey thus far. These statements begin with the highest historical Christian essentials and move toward our common aspirations to be well-connected in Christ.

GOD: Father, Son and Holy Spirit We believe in and we surrender our lives to the one God who made the heavens and earth and who breathed life into humanity. We worship and praise the Father who spoke the world into existence. We worship and praise Jesus, the Son, who died upon the cross to redeem us from sin. We worship and praise the Holy Spirit who is the seal of our salvation.

1. Our eternal purpose is to know God and to glorify him as God, and let our life shine so others will see God.

2. The cornerstone of our faith is our belief in Jesus Christ.

3. The Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is sharp, powerful, effective, challenging, exposing, and encouraging when it is revered, studied, preached, taught, and obeyed because it is from our Creator and therefore relevant for all generations.

GOSPEL: the work of God The culminating event of the Christian faith occurred between the time of the Passover and Pentecost at the end of the Gospels through early Acts. The death, burial and resurrection of the perfect Lamb of God are the substance of our faith. What the first twenty chapters of Exodus are to the Jews (as God rescued and brought them to Sinai to hear the law) is very much what the events in Jerusalem were for disciples. Many were eyewitnesses to events of the atonement, the risen Jesus as “both Lord and Christ”, and heard the promise that was for everyone, even “those who are far off”.

4. Our salvation totally depends on the work of God, prompted by his own mercy and grace, not our good deeds. That work redeems those who hear, believe and obey the Gospel message through baptism into Christ through their faith in God’s power and continue to remain faithful unto death.

5. Our earthly mission involves every member’s participation in the Great Commission to “Seek and save what was lost,” in bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to all parts of the world.

6. Our motivation to love God, love each other and love the lost is prompted by God’s love for us, demonstrated in its greatest form by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on a cross for our behalf.

The INDIVIDUAL Response: the surrender of God’s children. As disciples of Jesus, we surrender our lives to his Lordship. We rejoice in our adoption as God’s children, and each accepts the call to be holy and follow the example of Jesus.

7. Our conversion begins with belief in Jesus as God’s Son, and in his death and resurrection from the dead.

8. Our personal discipleship to Christ begins with our total commitment to the Father, who is over all and through all and in all.

9. Our holiness in daily living is a command from God.

THE CHURCH COMMUNITY: sharing in fellowship and strengthening  As members of the body, we are bonded by our immersion in water that united us with Christ’s death and brought with it the promise of absolute forgiveness, the Holy Spirit and a new life; our hope of heaven and the gift of eternal life; the church body and our devotion to being members of the family of God—a community that helps its members grow to be like Jesus.

10. Our membership in each congregation constitutes baptized disciples, men and women who have pledged to live their lives as saints of God in the holiness he requires.

11. Our community worship includes our devotion to God’s Word, prayer, fellowship, and the Lord’s Supper as a weekly sharing in the presence of Christ as a sacred event—breaking the bread and drinking the fruit of the vine together.

12. We believe in the church supporting women as they serve a vital ministry role in evangelizing, baptizing, teaching, counseling, and training other women. In addition, we recognize the value and significant influence that all sisters can have in the lives of the brothers.

13. The decision-making responsibilities of established congregations belong to the individual congregation.

14. Our communication within the church and outside of our brotherhood should always be genuine, respectful and never deliberately antagonistic.

15. Mature conflict resolution is a priority to our churches and may sometimes require help from outside our own congregation. We agree to obey the scriptures that insist on godly conflict resolution, renouncing gossip and slander. Meta Voyager (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This is far too detailed and too large an amount of text from a non-independent source to include in the article. Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise what reliable sources say about a topic, not reproduce large chunks of content from those sources (and especially not from non-independent sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have similar concerns as User:Cordless_Larry about this draft beliefs section:

• I agree that it's too long.
• To me, it reads like WP:Promotion.
• It's written in the first person (e.g., "We believe...") Wikipedia should be written in the third person (e.g., "Member churches of the ICOC believe....")

Regarding where to find additional RS, I see from the ICOC web site that they have an international network of regional communications directors. Are these communications directors getting any local coverage for the ICOC? If so, that might be a source of RS on notable beliefs. Nowa (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

~80% of that is the "Motherhood and apple pie" stuff that is in common with all "primacy of the bible" religions/belief sects. (I hope that the "Motherhood..." euphemism is de-codable outside of the US :-) ) So making 80% of it "motherhood and apple pie" stuff is sort of self-promotional and also not very informative, which is what we're here to do. To be informative, we need shorten that part and cover the items that are unique or somewhat unique to this group. The current section has some of that in it. One way to think of it: "How are their beliefs different than a common "Bible Church". North8000 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the proposed text and posting these messages with helpful comments. The proposed text is lifted word-for-word from a longer version from the source document and was offered in an abridged format in recognition of the need for something briefer. No WP:Promotion was intended. I find that North8000's 80% Motherhood comment offers another approach to presenting the information and I will turn to editing down the information for further consideration. I believe the RS comments offered by Cordless Larry and Nowa are at the core of this editing challenge as the current beliefs and practices of the churches that identify as ICOC do not now attract the same degree of external coverage as was the case during a prior, more controversial era of the church. Most of the citations relied upon in the article as RS are reporting on events that predate the 2010 reorganization that is reflected in Nowa's research and the Plan for United Cooperation, so, in my view, some tolerance for About Self sourcing will be needed to update current beliefs and practices. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The Churches of Christ article has a comprehensive Beliefs section as well as a section describing the separation of the International Churches of Christ. At the time of separation, a distinguishing belief of the ICOC was that they taught that they were the One true church and only baptisms by the ICOC were legitimate. With the departure of McKean and the ICOC reorganization in 2003, however, they modified this belief to acknowledge that baptisms outside of the ICOC could be legitimate. Are there now any other distinguishing beliefs of the ICOC relative to the COC? Are these distinguishing beliefs pointed out in any references (RS or primary)? Can we somehow capture these in the article without straying into OR or SYNTH? Nowa (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We're in danger of confusing different types of source in all of this discussion. Primary sources and non-independent sources aren't necessarily the same thing, and likewise, sources can be primary and reliable! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. By "primary" I meant "non-independent". Nowa (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Based upon the statements in the independent closing of the RfC on About Self sourcing, the challenge of finding relevant, independent sourcing since 2010 on the ICOC’s beliefs and taking into account comments from other editors on my prior proposed edit, here is another, much briefer proposal for including in the Beliefs and practices of the ICOC section of the ICOC article a summary of the Statement of Shared Beliefs from the ICOC's Plan for United Cooperation published in 2006. The proposal attempts to be in compliance with comments from the RfC on WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BESTSOURCES.

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (2006)

On or about March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches around the world who collectively identified as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. The purpose of the Plan was “to affirm and enhance the unity of the family of churches known, since 1992, as the International Churches of Christ.” On August 5, 2009, the Plan for United Cooperation was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. The Plan for United Cooperation contained a Statement of Shared Beliefs by churches participating in the International Churches of Christ that is summarized below.

The doctrines of the ICOC as reflected in the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006) are similar in many respects to those of conservative Christian churches and include a recognition of the identity of God as the Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit and recognize the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. A belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the message of the Gospel and the responsibility of each Christian to share the Gospel and God’s love to a lost world are key tenets of the church. The church’s beliefs focus on the church community through sharing in fellowship, community worship and weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. Individual responses by church members include the conversion experience through immersion in water baptism, personal discipleship to Jesus Chris and living by a standard of holiness according to the Bible.

Some distinctive beliefs of the ICOC expressed in the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006) as compared to other denominational groups or prior beliefs adopted earlier in the ICOC’s history are that decision-making responsibilities of established congregations reside within the individual congregation rather than through an over-arching governance structure, recognition of the vital role of women in church ministry, the importance of communications within and outside the ICOC being genuine and respectful and the recognition of mature conflict resolution as a priority among congregations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meta Voyager (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There are statements of fact being made, particularly in regards to other organisations/groups, in the proposed second and third paragraph which are lacking sourcing. That would be a huge red flag for me. I'd suggest looking for some secondary sourcing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. The comparisons to other organizations/groups was suggested by another editor earlier in this Talk thread. The comparison language can be removed and the remaining content of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph combined into a single paragraph.. Meta Voyager (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with comparisons with other orgs per se, just not with ABOUTSELF sources. Comparisons would be of encyclopaedic value, but as I wrote you'd need secondary sourcing in order for readers to verify the claims. TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request (STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (2006))

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (2006)

On March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches who collectively identified worldwide as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. The purpose of the Plan as stated was “to affirm and enhance the unity of the family of churches known, since 1992, as the International Churches of Christ.” On August 5, 2009, the Plan for United Cooperation was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. The Plan for United Cooperation contains a Statement of Shared Beliefs https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol18/iss2/4 by churches participating in the International Churches of Christ that is summarized below:

The doctrines of the ICOC as reflected in the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006) include a recognition of the identity of God as the Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit and recognize the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. A belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the message of the Gospel and the responsibility of each Christian to share the Gospel and God’s love to a lost world are key tenets of the church. The church’s beliefs focus on the church community through sharing in fellowship, community worship and weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. Individual responses by church members include the conversion experience through immersion in water baptism, personal discipleship to Jesus Chris and living by a standard of holiness according to the Bible. Other stated beliefs are that decision-making responsibilities of established congregations reside within the individual congregation rather than through an over-arching governance structure, a recognition of the vital role of women in church ministry, the importance of communications within and outside the ICOC being genuine and respectful and the recognition of mature conflict resolution as a priority among congregations. Meta Voyager (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you propose that https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/ is used as support for all of the statements in the second paragraph? TarnishedPath^talk 13:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the support for the statements in the second paragraph is found in the Statement of Shared Beliefs section of the document entitled, "A Plan for United Cooperation" that was introduced in 2006 and can be found at https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. The reference to the "Plan For United Cooperation Summary" from 2009 and related link at https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/ contains a link to the Plan for United Cooperation and is to document its subsequent adoption by congregations who self-identified as participating ICOC churches. The second paragraph is an attempt to briefly and factually summarize the Statement of Shared Beliefs as published by the ICOC. Meta Voyager (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

So no secondary sources, then? This prompts the question, of all of the documents that the ICOC has produced, why are we highlighting this one? A secondary source would help establish why this is worthy of inclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. This secondary sourced article was published on March 1, 2023 in the Christian Standard and references observed strengths of the ICOC that corroborate in many respects the description of the summarized ICOC beliefs from the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006). The sourced article reflects NPOV by also describing historical and present weaknesses of the ICOC. The source describes many of the historical challenges faced by the church under the leadership of Kip McKean and subsequent efforts of reform beginning in 2001. https://christianstandard.com/2023/03/who-are-the-international-churches-of-christ/. All of this information has factual relevance to the ICOC article and is not presented for the purpose of self-promotion. The author is not a member of the ICOC and the Christian Standard, founded in 1866, is not an ICOC publication. @TarnishedPath @Seraphimblade Meta Voyager (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That source doesn't mention the Statement of Shared Beliefs. Am I missing something? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the Statement of Shared Beliefs is not mentioned and my comment was that the list of strengths "corroborates in many respects the description of the summarized ICOC beliefs. . ." Sourcing for the ICOC article is challenging, in part, because it is identified by Wikipedia as a topic of "Low importance" in the categories of "Christianity" and "Religion: New religious movements" and the church by most accounts has a relatively small worldwide membership of less than 125,000 members. Yet, the article has so far been determined to satisfy WP:Notability and, in my view, editorial flexibility should be considered in order to assure that accurate, balanced and current information about the ICOC is included. The discussion in the now-closed RfC on about-self sourcing on the beliefs of a religious organization provides some guidance on how to do so and this proposed addition to the Beliefs section is an attempt to comply. Meta Voyager (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles aren't "About Us" pages. They should be primarily based upon what people unaffiliated with a subject have to say about it. If the answer is "not a great deal", then what the article says will also be "not a great deal". That's true for many subjects that just barely scrape by notability. But we don't fill the article with fluffy stuff they write about themself just for the purpose of filling space. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Meta Voyager, then why not propose something based primarily on that secondary source if you think it is good? TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a large amount of text for there not to be any secondary sources. TarnishedPath^talk 03:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Why does this start "On or about March 11, 2006"? Is there uncertainty about the precise date? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Good question. The posted publication date stated on the webpage for the multiple translations of the Plan for United Cooperation is March 10, 2006. See, https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. I was trying to accommodate the time zone variation of a worldwide release of this document in multiple languages. I agree that March 10, 2006 is a better date to use in citing this document. Meta Voyager (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Kind of "mission" style fluff. Without any secondary sources showing this to be significant, I think this is way too much of their own marketing to include. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that the 2006 document is important in many respects. An apparent reaction to recent problems, defining both beliefs and organizations stuff and an attempt at their overall organizational plan and to at least partially unify/connect churches. Also it appears that it was a major internal process to come up with this. IMO it's not a PR piece, although about 1/2 of it is statements of things held by all of the "primacy of the bible" churches. It would be good to cover it somehow, but being a very lengthy self written document, it would be really good to find a secondary source which summarized it. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It feels important, but we need secondary sources to establish that properly. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I might disagree but in the end we both came up with the same conclusion. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In the above proposed Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006) section and two paragraphs that followed, fellow editors have questioned the "On or about" date reference for the document entitled "A Plan for United Cooperation" and requested that secondary sourcing be identified for the Statement of Shared Beliefs. The date reference in question has been edited to specify "On March 11, 2006" for the document entitled "A Plan for United Cooperation" and the following secondary reference has been inserted in support of the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006): https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol18/iss2/4. With these corrections, I resubmit my edit request that the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006) as revised be added to the Beliefs subsection of the Beliefs and practices of the ICOC section of the ICOC article. Meta Voyager (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not a secondary source - it's the statement of beliefs published word-for-word in a journal. A journal article about the statement of beliefs would be a secondary source, but that's not what we have here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion that the reprinted Statement of Shared Beliefs does not qualify as a secondary source. The independent editor of the Pepperdine Beacon digital publication made the editorial judgment that it was appropriate to include the Statement word-for-word as a separate article about the International Churches of Christ. The footer to the article reads: “This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons.” Nonetheless, in a good faith effort to make progress on this edit request, I have deleted the prior sourcing for the Statement of Shared Beliefs from my proposed edit in the Beliefs section and replaced it with a sourced statement by the editor from the Pepperdine Beacon about the Plan for United Cooperation (that includes within it the Statement of Shared Beliefs). Please consider this change in further evaluating my edit request. Meta Voyager (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

a verbatim reprint of a primary source, is a primary source. TarnishedPath^talk 22:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Meta Voyager: Edit requests need to be specific. Exactly what text would go in where etc. Yours is not which means that only a few people who have spent a lot of time here know even generally what you are asking and nobody knows exactly what your proposal is. My suggestion is to make an exact proposal here. Maybe we could work something out. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be put in clear 'please change x to y' language. TarnishedPath^talk 13:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@North8000 @TarnishedPath Thank you for the helpful suggestions on how to present proposed edits using the COI edit request template. Please consider the following specific request: Please insert the following title and paragraph immediately following the initial 3 paragraphs at the beginning of the Beliefs subsection of the “Beliefs and practices of the ICOC” section of the ICOC article and immediately prior to the 3 paragraphs entitled “One True Church (OTC) doctrine”:

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (2006)

On March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” that included a Statement of Shared Beliefs (the “Plan”) was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches who collectively identified worldwide as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. The Plan drafted by ICOC leaders was part of an effort to clarify the nature and mission of the ICOC and to develop new ways for participating churches to work together. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=leaven page 4. On August 5, 2009, the Plan was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. A brief summary of the Plan’s Statement of Shared Beliefs includes a recognition of the identity of God as the Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit and recognize the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. A belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the message of the Gospel and the responsibility of each Christian to share the Gospel and God’s love to a lost world are key tenets of the church. The church’s beliefs focus on the church community through sharing in fellowship, community worship and weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. Individual responses by church members include the conversion experience through immersion in water baptism, personal discipleship to Jesus Christ and living by a standard of holiness according to the Bible. Other stated beliefs are that decision-making responsibilities of established congregations reside within the individual congregation rather than through an over-arching governance structure, a recognition of the vital role of women in church ministry, the importance of communications within and outside the ICOC being genuine and respectful and the recognition of mature conflict resolution as a priority among congregations. Meta Voyager (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO it would be good to put in a Wikified summary of that in. I think that the context of it would also be useful .....was it to try to solve some problems/issues? North8000 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The problems/issues that prompted the Plan for United Cooperation are described in the history section of the ICOC article under the heading "The ICOC: 2000s". The issues included a leadership change at the highest levels of ICOC governance and a corresponding recognition of a need for changes to longstanding cultural practices within the church. BTW: what is a "Wikified summary"? Meta Voyager (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant that summarized in an enclyclopedic manner that is informative for the reader. For example, try to use common words to explain things instead of relying on knowledge jargon. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm reviewing old edit requests and this one seems to be in limbo after a lot of back and forth. I'm closing it. If @User:Meta Voyager wants to continue addressing the concerns raised by other editors with their suggested edits they should feel free to do so and either ping those editors directly or open another edit request, but this not implementable as it stands. Rusalkii (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

COI editing

@JamieBrown2011, given that you have an establish actual conflect of interest in regards to the article, can you please cease making furhter WP:COI edits like you did at Special:Diff/1222994242 and Special:Diff/1222994487. If you wish to request an edit to the article can you please utilise the {{edit COI}} template in a talk thread. Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 06:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, you may want to read the policies in full

- Making uncontroversial edits

Shortcuts

WP:COIADVICE

WP:COIU

Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits (but see WP:FINANCIALCOI). They may:

remove spam and unambiguous vandalism,

remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living personspolicy,

fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors,

repair broken links,

remove their own COI edits, and

add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.

If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. If an article has few uninvolved editors, ask at the talk page of a related WikiProject or at the COI noticeboard. See also WP:COITALK.

Supplying photographs and media files

Editors with a COI are encouraged to upload high-quality media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject. For more information, follow the instructions at Commons. In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is controversial.

The use of non-free contents are restricted. Generally, using press photos or images provided by client who wish to feature them in the article but unwilling to irrevocably release the copyright under Creative Commons is unacceptable. Editors may not upload images provided by client for "Wikipedia article purpose only" and falsely claim they're licensed under CC BY-SA, as such photos are fundamentally incompatible with free content principles. Only the copyright owner or their authorized representatives may grant permission to use a work under a Creative Commons license, not the photographed subject or their public relations agent. If the same image is found copyrighted elsewhere prior to the upload date, it may be removed as a copyright violation. If you are the copyright owner and want to release content to Creative Commons for use on Wikipedia, see Commons:Volunteer Response Team § Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Since you've quoted it the pertinent bits are "although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add" and "If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit". I object to any edit made by an COI editor, therefore any edit you make to this article is not an uncontroversial edit, to quote policy. So please use the {{edit COI}} template in talk in future. Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 10:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath this seems like a childish response. You are going to preemptively object to all future @JamieBrown2011 edits in a wikilawyering way of blocking all of his edits? He has disclosed a COI, and has stuck to making non-controversial edits. If he happens to make a controversial edit, it will be seen and undone. For this instance, he has even offered for someone to revert his edit if they think it is out of line. However, lets be realistic, all he did was remove a section that was unsourced. XZealous (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@XZealous No, I'm not objected to all future edits. That should be completely clear. I'm objecting to them conducting them directly and advising that I have a preference for them making edit requests here using the {{edit COI}}. They did more than remove a section that was unsourced. I provided two diffs. They also introduced unsourced information which another editor then put a citation needed template on. No as per your personal attack, I advise you to retract it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Three comments by sock removed.

I think we should also keep in mind "COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content." XZealous (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

comment by sock removed.

Can I ask where you got "Since 2010" from? It doesn't appear in the (non-independent) source cited at the end of the paragraph. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally good with declared COI folks making gnome edits. But IMO the first edit at that first diff crosses that line. Not sure about the second. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that humans, almost universally, lack complete objectivity when it comes to themselves and whether what they're doing is uncontroversial or whether others might object to what they're doing and what the reasons for those objections might be. This is a perfect example where Jamie has made at least one edit that is not uncontroversial and they think it is. I think it's best if they just don't edit the article given they have a COI and use the edit COI template if/when they want to make any suggestions for updates/corrections. TarnishedPath^talk 13:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your opinion on these matters.

- Firstly, to respond to some earlier questions, the "2010" date that I added to the article is found here

- Secondly, I removed unsourced WP:OR, it was even tagged as having no citation. In my 15 years or so of editing wikipedia I have never once heard that kind of edit described as anything else but "unambiguously uncontroversial." If the statement had a reliable source, or any source at all, of course that would be a completely different matter. (If someone wants to add that sentence back in with a RS, that is perfectly fine)

- Thirdly, whether the polarised editors on this page, who have made it clear they are anything but neutral or unbiased in their view of the church acknowledge it or not, you actually need editors like myself who actually know something about the ICOC. For example, CordlessLarry didn't even know that McKean had been disfellowshipped from the church almost 20 years ago or that the Singapore church (mentioned in the Court Cases section) was even an ICOC church. There are many other examples like that. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking me arguing that we need a source to verify something with me not realising something was the case, at least as far as your Singapore example goes. Here's how I put it above: "I believe that the church is part of the ICOC. That doesn't mean we don't need a reliable source for the purposes of WP:VERIFY". I'm not sure which of my comments your reference to McKean concerns, but please don't misrepresent my arguments when I've already clarified them. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see how that source supports the statement that the Ministry Training Academy was established in 2010. It doesn't mention the Ministry Training Academy by name but seems to be about planning for such a body, ahead of it actually being established. It could have been established in 2011, 2012, etc. as far as the source tells us. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Three comments by sock removed.

One side note, I think that the COI connection here is a very weak one.North8000 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That they're member of the church is a weak COI? TarnishedPath^talk 14:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Plus, the majority of their edits are in relation to this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't claim any knowledge of this particular situation which would be more relevant. But answering your question, I'd call just being a member 1/100th the strength of paid editing COI. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the strength of bonds that religious affiliations can provide, combined with the controversial nature of this particular church, I'd judge this to be a similar strength of COI to paid editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I was writing generically about just being a member, because some comments seemed based on just being a member. The particulars are more important, and you folks know those better than me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. That this is an actual conflict of interest rather than a perceived or potential conflict of interest is the only distinction I would draw between it and other types of conflicts of interest. TarnishedPath^talk 04:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that JamieBrown2011 is being paid by the International Churches of Christ to edit this Wikipedia page? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Being paid by the organization that is the topic of this page to edit this page would certainly be a conflict of interest? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest don't occur only when there are payments involved. TarnishedPath^talk 04:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 did once mention that he/she is a member of the International Churches of Christ. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we've already established that. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It said, "This topic could not be found. It might have been deleted or moved."  ?? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:1D37:6886:D747:4B9B (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion in that thread about the use of the word cult. Do a simple Google search and dozens of results will come up that call the International Churches of Christ a cult. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:30EC:579C:10DB:A7AE (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If hundreds of organizations call the International Churches of Christ a cult how is it not a cult? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:30EC:579C:10DB:A7AE (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @North8000. Merely belonging to a larger organization is not necessarily a COI. We let scouts edit Boy Scouts of America. We let university students edit articles about the schools they attend. We let Catholics edit Catholic Church. If you have a specific role in the organization (especially if you're in any type of publicity department), then that could be a significant COI, but merely being 0.0009% of the ordinary members is not really a COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Is JamieBrown2011 a leader in this organization? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:30EC:579C:10DB:A7AE (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

There has been no statement to that effect. That question should not be asked or expected to be answered. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The Boy Scouts of America are not a religious cult. Universities are not a religious cult. The Catholic Church is considered a real church and not a Jim Jones type religious cult. Do a simple Google search and dozens of websites come up that call the International Churches of Christ a religious cult. 162.205.180.187 (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Three comments by sock removed.

• Although I haven't ever edited this article, I have a theory that all these ANON posts above are still this [perma-banned] user. I couldn't help but notice all [ 1 , 2 , 3, & 4 ] users were in the same region. Either this user is who I suspect, OR they have a similar trolling motif unhelpful to the page. Perhaps an admin can run a CheckUser and look for a match between the 2 to see if this COI page has a confounding variable. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• :@Coachbricewilliams28 Why are you trying to give away someone's location and information? Isn't that against Wikipedia rules? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:29CD:9764:81A0:2718 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Coachbricewilliams28 You basically posted where that person lives and some other private information about that person. Does Wikipedia allow this kind of thing? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:29CD:9764:81A0:2718 (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal information being posted. The linked IPs are all WP:SPAs on this subject and Coachbricewilliams28 suspects they are socks of an editor blocked for edits in this area. Note that all of these IPs, and yours, were covered by a previous 6 month range block by user:Bbb23 on 2600:1700:4260:35D0:0:0:0:0/64 for socking by the user in question. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qewr4231. Meters (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Meters,

It is confirmed via Qewr4231's own social media accounts on alt platforms.

This indeed is (once again) formerly banned userUser:Qewr4231 still lurking here to spread his agenda.

Could you handle any SPA/SP paperwork as I am rusty on protocol. Thank you. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Done before I saw this. Meters (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

user:2600:1700:4260:35d0::/64 has been blocked again, for one year this time. That's every IPV6 editor who has commented in this thread. Meters (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sock's posts have been removed, or stuck where replied to. Meters (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent RFC raises reliable sourcing question in the lead and court cases section

In his independent summary to RFC: Ongoing court cases involving low-profile individuals, Chedsford states that, “I believe the consensus is it is appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached provided those cases [ongoing] have significant coverage in reliable sources (emphasis added) and the names of low-profile individuals are not mentioned in that section.” Conceding that a description of ongoing court cases may be included in the ICOC article, Chedsford’s summary highlights that those cases should be “ongoing” and have “significant coverage in reliable sources.” In the description of accusations of covering up sexual abuse of children and multiple court cases found in the second paragraph of the lead and the paragraph entitled, “Lawsuits related to alleged cover up of sexual abuse” in the ICOC article, the cases and sourcing that are used are about dismissed federal cases that are no longer “ongoing” and the coverage is no longer “significant” or supported by “reliable sources.” Accordingly, the statements in the second paragraph of the lead about accusations of covering up sexual abuse of children and some US branches of the church being the subject of multiple lawsuits and the paragraph entitled, "Lawsuits related to alleged cover up of sexual abuse” should be deleted from the article in their entirety unless significant coverage in reliable sourcing of ongoing cases can be identified. Meta Voyager (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford wrote:

"I believe the consensus is it is appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached provided those cases have significant coverage in reliable sources and the names of low-profile individuals are not mentioned in that section" (empasis theirs). They did not insert the word Ongiong between cases and have like you have done in an attempt to chagne the meaning. Do not attempt to delete the material witout explicit consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 23:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it is you who is trying to change the meaning of that sentence. The "those cases" Chetsford is referring to could only mean the "ongoing court cases" he refers to in the first half of that same sentence. What other cases could he possibly be referring to? Please dial back the personal attacks on a reasonable good faith discussion. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Tone it down, there are no personal attacks. TarnishedPath^talk 09:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Your post is an inaccurate reflection of mine and ignores its substantive point that the RFC specifically addresses the treatment of "ongoing" legal cases. It is common practice to bracket language within a quote to highlight that the language has been added. In my case, not for the purpose of changing the meaning, but to disclose to the reader that the language is a clarifying addition. Similarly, the use of (emphasis added) is to disclose to the reader that a section of a quote is being emphasized. The only possible meaning of "those cases" in the context of Chetsford's summary is those cases that are "ongoing," hence the bracketed language. Meta Voyager (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The adding of the bracket didn't clarify anything. It changed the meaning and as Larry noted below the summary didn't suggest that a court case had to be ongoing in order to be covered. That would be a really strange requirement and if we generalised that idea it would change many, many articles. @Chetsford didn't intend that meaning and if you think they did you should clarify with them. TarnishedPath^talk 13:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What a strange argument. The summary isn't suggesting that the cases need to be ongoing in order to be covered. There's significant coverage whether the cases are ongoing or not, and therefore the article should cover them, based on that significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a extremely odd misinterpretation to claim that close stated that cases have to be ongoing to be covered. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

My argument makes a clear and persuasive point about the significance of ongoing cases and is not “strange” or an “extremely odd misinterpretation” of the RFC summary”. Did you not read the title of the RFC upon which the summary was written - RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals? By the title of the RFC itself as well as the arguments that were made by editors within the RFC, the subject matter of the summary can only be about ongoing cases. The difference in encyclopedic value between decided and ongoing cases is obvious to even the lay reader. Both need sourcing in order to be included in the ICOC article and Chetsford’s summary appropriately reflects the importance of ongoing cases being reliably sourced. The federal cases that are currently referenced and sourced in the ICOC article are neither decided or ongoing – they are dismissed. These cases have no encyclopedic value and only serve to perpetuate allegations that the plaintiffs themselves no longer feel comfortable pursuing in federal court. If there are other ongoing cases that contain these allegations, they must also be reliably sourced before appearing in the ICOC article. However, what I find curious, is that these specious counter arguments are being offered by @Cordless Larry, an administrator, who has authored 13.4% of the ICOC article within the last 11 months and @Tarnished Path, a veteran editor, who has authored 9.3% within the last 4 months according to today’s Wiki page statistics. Questions of intent and an inherent conflict of interest arise when two who have authored such significant portions of the ICOC article are also active in attempting to shut down the proposed edits of other editors with whom they disagree. Meta Voyager (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Go to the RFC closer and ask for clarification if you think they meant something other than what's in the black and white lettering. TarnishedPath^talk 13:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

According to Wiki policy, closers are to be independent and not involved in the debate within the RFC. Although we may disagree on the application of this closing summary, it was written in clear language after Chetsford considered comments from you and other editors. To try to involve Chetsford now to bolster either your position or mine would be inappropriate in my view. . Meta Voyager (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the underlying issue, but IMO the RFC was about a particular subset of cases (ongoing, about low level people) .....to emphasize, that having both of those attributes was central to defining the question and the items in question. And so IMO the close needs to be taken in that context.....that it is talking (only) about that particular subset of cases and that one should not derive other things from that wording such as statements about cases that are not in that subset. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

What this article needs

I read the article a couple times. Most of the history is there, albeit piecemeal and hard to follow. But the main question is "what is the nature of this organization today?" Given that that they've made significant changes in the recent decades, I took a look at the references to see if there is a credible independent overview type source of this organization. It looks like the newest one is 15 years old. For anything newer than that we have self-description type material or piecemeal selected items. I searched a bit elsewhere and couldn't find one. I did find some rather thorough "why I left" stories that seem to describe / allege somewhat cultish behavior without alleging that it is a cult so there are some questions regarding this. If somebody were able to find such a source(s), that would be a good thing to build coverage of the current organization from. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @North8000, Here is a much more recent article that describes "what is the nature of this organisation today" JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is an article in the USC Newspaper where they apologise for "unfairly targeting the LA ICOC church" and that the students have been "a very positive influence in the lives of students" I am not sure how to access the archives of USC directly or to assess how much of a WP:RS this is, but that is for more experienced editors to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBrown2011 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, last one for today, an assessment of the ICOC, both strengths and weaknesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBrown2011 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Here was a critical Rolling Stone article https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/icoc-members-alleged-abuse-cult-behavior-1234798928/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Another source: https://www.marketfaith.org/2021/04/whatever-happened-to-the-international-churches-of-christ-part-1-history-and-controversy-tal-davis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

And another source: JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Summarizing Singapore Paragraph

I was going through the article recently and making a few minor changes. The Singapore court case paragraph seems too long to me. In proportion to the content of the article and the ICOC as an organization, I do not think it needs such a long paragraph (WP:WEIGHT). Although it is a part of the ICOC history, it seems to be an isolated case from one Church. This paragraph could be summarized better.

Please look at the edit I made and add your thoughts. XZealous (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

After a quick look the change looks like a mixed bag to me. Looks like you tightened up the wording, but took out than names of the publications that were involved in the lawsuit. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There are 192 words dedicated to a lawsuit from 1991 in one church in Singapore. This probably doesn't deserve more than a two sentence summary. The amount of money awarded to each party is completely irrelevant. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is my suggested summary of the paragraph:

On November 23, 1991, two Singapore newspapers labeled the Singapore Central Christian Church a "cult," leading the church to sue for defamation. While an initial ruling favored the papers, an appeals court later found that they had presented the label as fact rather than opinion. The papers were ordered to pay damages and legal fees to the church and its founder, John Philip Louis. However, a Christian magazine's similar article was deemed fair, and the church was ordered to cover its legal fees. XZealous (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to not put much stock in the details of civil lawsuits. It's one person or organization alleging something, and usually describing/claiming the worst in every detail. Plus in the US the money motivation weighs heavily. This one might have more relevance because it was over the use of the word "cult". North8000 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you here. That is why I think a shorter summary is more appropriate. XZealous (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the legal issue section is fine. I don't see any WP:WEIGHT issues. Per the policy "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views".

As this has been discussed previously, perhaps you should ping editors form previous related discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 05:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the policy you posted above. I do see this case as a "minority aspect." That is why I am suggesting we clean up the paragraph. XZealous (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Minority view in context of the wording doesn't mean there isn't a tonne of sourcing, it means a view that diverges from majority views. There are absolutely no WEIGHT issues with the current prose in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 06:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the ICOC as an organization, this one case in 1991 is a "minority aspect." I am not advocating for it to be removed, I think it should just be simplified and summarized. XZealous (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT relates to viewpoints though, not the reporting of basic facts. Of course, a relatively minor aspect of an organisation's history shouldn't make up a large proportion of the article text, but it doesn't at present. Slimming it down a bit more is fine by me though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The legal sectoin is all of two paragraphs. One Paragraph for the Singapore subsection and one paragraph for the LA subsection. Further they are tucked away at the end of the article. I really don't see an argument for trim. TarnishedPath^talk 23:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for you input. I do see the need for it to be tidied up. If you do not want that, do you have a reason why you want to keep it the way it is? In my summary I aim to keep all the relevant information about the case by presenting it in a more concise manner.

It is not only for this paragraph, but I think other paragraphs could also be cleaned up as well, which I have been working on recently. XZealous (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that two paragraphs, one on each of the case/s in separate jurisdictions is verbose and in need of trim. TarnishedPath^talk 13:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I am suggesting a trim to the Singapore paragraph, not the other legal case paragraph. See my proposed summary above XZealous (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Revert of my edit

Moved from User_talk:TarnishedPath#Revert_of_my_edit

Hey @TarnishedPath. I am more than happy to take this to the talk page of the ICOC article a well, but figured I would message you here first. I am unsure why you undid my latest edit on the page. I was going through the sources mentioned in the article and rewriting as to better represent what those sources say. Some information attributed to a sources are not found in that source, hence why I have changed those sentences to accurately represent the source.

In my latest edit I pulled almost word for word from this source (Jenkins 2005, p. 2) which is used to support this sentence "Former members of the church have alleged that it is a cult."

This is how the paragraph goes in Jenkins 2005, p. 2: Imagine now, this very same healing community that most members describe as an awesome family portrayed as a “dangerous cult.” Who makes such claims about this healing group? Ex-members...

My edit is not "superflourus peacock wording", it is what the source itself says.

Could you further explain your issue with that specific edit? Again, I am happy to take this to the talk page if advised.

Thanks! XZealous (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @XZealous, no offence but as this is a content discussion, it is better off had in the article's talk where others can participate if they so wish. Now as regarding your statement that the source says it, just because a source says something/anything it doesn't mean we have to repeat everything. WP:ONUS covers that it's always up to consensus to determine which parts of what sources say that is covered and what parts aren't. TarnishedPath^talk 07:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading the source referenced I was surprised that half of the sentence was not even used. It seems like an unfair representation of the source. I made an edit to represent what the source was saying.

Do you have an issue with that part being included? If so, I am open to hearing why.

Otherwise, I see no issue with adding in fully what Jenkins was saying in those references sentences. XZealous (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I took issue with the framing. The usage of lanugage. Particularly the "awesome familiy" bit.

For the reference of other editors XZealous made an edit at Special:Diff/1241706643 which intserted "Most members describe the ICOC as an "awesome family", while" before "Former members of the church have alleged that it is a cult and have accused it, along with the International Christian Church, of covering up sexual abuse of children". I made a revert to that specific edit. TarnishedPath^talk 07:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If your issue is with the wording, then your issue is with the source (Jenkins 2005, p. 2) itself. I did not create a specific wording or framing, I only added in what the source itself is stating. I am not sure why you don't want a fair representation of the source. XZealous (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

For reference, this is the sentence Jenkins writes "This is how the paragraph goes in Jenkins 2005, p. 2: Imagine now, this very same healing community that most members describe as an awesome family portrayed as a “dangerous cult.” Who makes such claims about this healing group? Ex-members..." XZealous (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, we need not cover all material from a source or use the precise wording. We are allowed to paraphrase and convey the bits we want and omit the bits we don't. That is exactly what WP:ONUS says. TarnishedPath^talk 08:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand that we cannot include all the information a source provides, and get to decide what fits the article best. However, it is concerning that you want to only include the information that represents one side. WP:NPOV, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides."

"Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."

The source mentioned is showing two views that people have of the ICOC, however the current paragraph only represents one of those viewpoints - leaving out the other. The edit I made is perfectly acceptable as it aims to both represent the sourced material and achieve a more neutral tone. XZealous (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to propose alternative wording that doesn't include the bit "awesome family" I'm willing to listen. I'm sorry but that phrasing seemed like marketing to me and I don't think that should be in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 13:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That wording is not mine, it is taken from the source. I am happy to suggest another wording, but I would be careful with not being willing to use the words of the source itself. XZealous (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)