Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

History Reword

I think "History" and "Background" can be combined into one heading and read as such. I deleted the footnotes so I could better read the text. I'm sure some of you can easily add that back in. I do not intend to delete the criticisms, but instead move them as we have discussed.

"Historical Background" In 1965, 20-year-old Jim McCotter (James Douglas McCotter) moved to Greeley, Colorado and enrolled at the University of Northern Colorado. There, he began sharing his faith and vision for church. McCotter believed that no existing Christian denomination was fully emulating the characteristics of the New Testament church, particularly in the areas of evangelism and imitation of Christ. McCotter stressed that Christians should be attempting to reach the world for Christ within their generation. By 1966 there were about 30 college students that joined McCotter.

In 1967 McCotter dropped out of college to focus on ministry full-time, but instead was drafted into the United States Army. During basic training McCotter met Dennis Clark and on McCotter's return from Vietnam in 1970 he met Herschel Martindale. Clark and Martindale would become two of the founders of the movement in the summer of 1970.

In 1970, under the principle leadership of McCotter, Clark, and Martindale, approximately 30 college-age Christians embarked on a summer-long evangelical outreach to college campuses in the Southwestern United States. Their effort came to be kown as "The Blitz" (named after the Blitzkrieg military offensives of World War II.) These 2-3 day campus events used singing, tract distribution, and sidewalk canvassing to draw crowds and spread the word. As the movement expanded, additional mission outreaches and training conferences took place. In the summer of 1973, nearly 1,000 people attended the movement's first national conference. By the end of 1973, about 15 "works" had been established on college campuses.

In 1983, Great Commission International (GCI) was formed to provide administrative services to the growing movement. That summer, GCI launched the first summer Leadership Training conference, attracting college students for a summer of intensive training in evangelism and discipleship. The LT program continues today under the leadership of Great Commission Ministries.

In 1985, GCI undertook a mass outreach and expansion effort called "Invasion '85." During this effort, teams were sent to 50 college campuses with a goal of starting new campus ministries. While many "works" were successfully established, most did not continue due to lack of training and financial support.

By 1986, GCC claimed approximately 5,000 members. Later that year, founder Jim McCotter announced his resignation from GCI, stating a desire to utilize his entrepreneurial abilities in an attempt to influence secular media for Christ. Two years later, McCotter moved to Florida. With the exception of attending the 2003 Faithwalkers conference, McCotter has had no involvement with the movement for the last 20 years.

In 1989, Great Commission Ministries (GCM), under the initial leadership of pastor Dave Bovenmyer, was formed. Its aim was to "mobilize people into campus ministry by training them to raise financial support and by equipping them for campus ministry." In 1996, the Internal Revenue Service selected GCM as a test case to eliminate the common practice known as "deputation," (allows non-profit mission organizations to raise funds for its activities, while allowing contributors to claim income tax deduction) "setting off alarm bells throughout the Christian parachurch community." The IRS reaffirmed GCM's non-profit status.

Today, there are approximately 60 Great Commission Churches in the United States, and approximately a dozen internationally in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Together, these churches claimed over 43,000 members in 2005. Approximately 6,900 college students are involved with Great Commission Ministries. GCC maintains an administrative support staff in Columbus, Ohio. GCC publishes the periodical "Daylights" and other doctrinal papers, written principally by pastors within the movement. Regional and national conferences are attended by both leaders and members of churches in the movement. Conferences include Faithwalkers, High School Leadership Training (HSLT), and National Pastor's Conferences.Mr. Pharoah Man 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be wikified quite a bit, and have the proper references all inserted/re-inserted, and might need some copyediting, but I'd generally be willing to Support the change to the above piece of text. Thanks for pulling that together, Mr. Pharoah Man. Nswinton\^talk 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Support As with below, a couple of minor edits and wikification aside. (GCM claims to have missionaries in 28 countries; deputation definition should read "individual missionaries" instead of "its activities") Gatorgalen 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I would like to see the mention about McCotter and Faithwalkers '03 in there and other than that I Support your revision. Mfpantst 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like there's consensus here too. I'll try and wikify this in the next day or so, and get it inserted. If you have any objections, please let me know immediately. Nswinton\^talk 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Xanthius, please look over this section soon, and determine if you have any comments and/or concerns with it. I see that you still haven't commented after over a week, but that was clearly a bad indicator of your opinion on the issues before. Nswinton\^talk 21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Replies

Thanks for waiting. I've been super busy but I want to participate in this.

Right now I Oppose this reword, but I have suggestions. I've done a good amount editing on this section in the past, which required a large amount of work of my part, specifically reading and researching the movement's early literature, newspaper articles, and books about it. I think that some of the edits you've suggested do not clearly represent the body of work available documenting this movement's history, but this is probably due to a lack of fully understanding this particular movement's past, rather than out of a purposeful desire to truncate/modify history. This generally only applies to the earliest information, and not the latter. I offer the following comments:

In 1965, 20-year-old Jim McCotter (James Douglas McCotter) moved to Greeley, Colorado and enrolled at the University of Northern Colorado. There, he began sharing his faith and vision for church. McCotter believed that no existing Christian denomination was fully emulating the characteristics of the New Testament church, particularly in the areas of evangelism and imitation of Christ. McCotter stressed that Christians should be attempting to reach the world for Christ within their generation. By 1966 there were about 30 college students that joined McCotter.

This paragraph seems to me to be a 'watered down' rewrite of the first paragraph, which deemphasizes McCotter's belief that he was recreating the lost New Testament church. This belief is documented in early newspaper articles on the movement, Reject The Wicked Man, and Marching To Zion. So to change the wording moved to Greeley, Colorado in an attempt to recreate the New Testament Church, a church model he believed no existing Christian denomination was emulating fully. to McCotter believed that no existing Christian denomination was fully emulating the characteristics of the New Testament church, particularly in the areas of evangelism and imitation of Christ removes the meaning from what McCotter thought he was doing: actually recreating the early church, and not just a church with a lot of its qualities. Also, the phrasing McCotter stressed that Christians should be attempting to reach the world for Christ within their generation. again waters down what actually happened. McCotter believed he was going to reach the world for Christ in one generation. This was known as the "Heavenly Vision" or "strategy," and its importance is covered in various sources currently in this section of the article. This was one of the most important reasons the early movement existed. It's also one of the reason discipleship was so important to that early movement. The plan was to mathematically turn the world to Christ in a generation, by having all serious members of the group focus on Evangelism and discipling other members, until the Earth was converted, in a timeframe that McCotter believed was within his lifetime. This strategy also relied heavily on church planting and very fast multiplication.

In 1967 McCotter dropped out of college to focus on ministry full-time, but instead was drafted into the United States Army. During basic training McCotter met Dennis Clark and on McCotter's return from Vietnam in 1970 he met Herschel Martindale. Clark and Martindale would become two of the founders of the movement in the summer of 1970.

Firstly, I notice that the information about McCotter's roots with the Plymouth Brethren was removed. I disagree with this. It is mentioned in Marching To Zion and early news sources on the group's history. Also, again information about the "heavenly vision" and "strategy" are removed, despite their importance to the founding of the movement.

I am fine with how the information on Dennis and Herschel was truncuated however.

In 1970, under the principle leadership of McCotter, Clark, and Martindale, approximately 30 college-age Christians embarked on a summer-long evangelical outreach to college campuses in the Southwestern United States. Their effort came to be kown as "The Blitz" (named after the Blitzkrieg military offensives of World War II.) These 2-3 day campus events used singing, tract distribution, and sidewalk canvassing to draw crowds and spread the word. As the movement expanded, additional mission outreaches and training conferences took place. In the summer of 1973, nearly 1,000 people attended the movement's first national conference. By the end of 1973, about 15 "works" had been established on college campuses.

I am fine with this paragraph, however I think the short quip about criticism should be included here, along with the link to the criticism section. It's important to the timeline of history of the movement that people know at what point generally the problems began between the press and the movement, because according to newspaper articles on the movement at this time, bad publicity pretty much followed the movement wherever it went during this time. For reference, the text I am referring to used to read: In the late 1970s, selected newspapers, former members, and select watchdog groups began to publicly criticize the movement's practices. This continued into the 1980s and early 1990s. (See the Criticism section for more information.)

Moving on..

In 1983, Great Commission International (GCI) was formed to provide administrative services to the growing movement. That summer, GCI launched the first summer Leadership Training conference, attracting college students for a summer of intensive training in evangelism and discipleship. The LT program continues today under the leadership of Great Commission Ministries.

Oppose the removal of Jim McCotter and Dennis Clark as the ones who formed it, as this is documented in GC's current history documents. It's important information because it is the first time the "unnamed" movement officially adopted a "nametag," and at the time Jim and Dennis were the two most notable leaders. The importance of this event also talked about in the Reject The Wicked Man research paper, which talks of the two leaders who "spearheaded" this time period of the movement.

In 1985, GCI undertook a mass outreach and expansion effort called Invasion '85. During this effort, teams were sent to 50 college campuses with a goal of starting new campus ministries. While many "works" were successfully established during Invasion '85, most of them did not continue. According to GCAC, "team members were not properly trained nor were they given adequate support."[15]

Fine.

I do oppose the removal of, what previously read, GCI continued to be scrutinized in some newspapers and by former members of the movement, and in 1985 several conferences were held with the purpose of helping former members of churches that were part of GCI "recover from the emotional and psychological damage they'd experienced" while in the movement.[20] Shortly thereafter, Wellspring Retreat and Recovery Center, the world's first accredited cult and abusive religion recovery center, was formed by several ex-members of the movement.[20] Specifically, I think it could be important to note in the history section, or at least in the criticism section, that recovery conferences for former members were being held. I believe the current section leaves this out.

By 1986, GCC claimed approximately 5,000 members. Later that year, founder Jim McCotter announced his resignation from GCI, stating a desire to utilize his entrepreneurial abilities in an attempt to influence secular media for Christ. Two years later, McCotter moved to Florida. With the exception of attending the 2003 Faithwalkers conference, McCotter has had no involvement with the movement for the last 20 years.

Fine.

In 1989, Great Commission Ministries (GCM), under the initial leadership of pastor Dave Bovenmyer, was formed. Its aim was to "mobilize people into campus ministry by training them to raise financial support and by equipping them for campus ministry." In 1996, the Internal Revenue Service selected GCM as a test case to eliminate the common practice known as "deputation," (allows non-profit mission organizations to raise funds for its activities, while allowing contributors to claim income tax deduction) "setting off alarm bells throughout the Christian parachurch community." The IRS reaffirmed GCM's non-profit status.

Fine.

Today, there are approximately 60 Great Commission Churches in the United States, and approximately a dozen internationally in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Together, these churches claimed over 43,000 members in 2005. Approximately 6,900 college students are involved with Great Commission Ministries. GCC maintains an administrative support staff in Columbus, Ohio. GCC publishes the periodical "Daylights" and other doctrinal papers, written principally by pastors within the movement. Regional and national conferences are attended by both leaders and members of churches in the movement. Conferences include Faithwalkers, High School Leadership Training (HSLT), and National Pastor's Conferences.

Fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthius (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. Jim McCotter has his own wiki page, and almost all of what Xan wants to reintroduce can go on the McCotter page. In fact, since Xan and Nate are the primary editors of that page, its already there. The GC article links to McCotter's, so people can readily access that info. I disapprove of moving the two general comments abot criticism back into the history section. The criticism is spelled out quite completely in its own section. I think the article reads better having this info separated. Xan is the only one who votes oppose. Are we to be hogtied by one person (and his "roomate")?Mr. Pharoah Man 12:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. And "consensus" counts when 3 of the 4 editors doing it are members/staffers of GCA. I'm glad we're back to making cheap shots again. Xanthius 04:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Reword

“ First Reports of Criticism
In 1978, the first public criticism of the movement and its practices was reported by the Des Moines Register, involving the campus ministry at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. Other reports followed in the Ames Daily Tribune. Throughout the 1980's, similar criticisms were published by newspapers in Ohio, Kansas, South Carolina, Maryland, and other locations, particularly those near college campuses where the movement was active. Some accounts quoted former members and cult researchers who accused the movement's leaders of "brainwashing" and "mind-control" techniques. In 1989, the GC's campus ministry was banned from the University of Guelph, located in Ontario, Canada.

Between 1976 and 1986, an estimated 500 individuals were excommunicated, or "shunned," by churches within the movement. Several former members of the movement have stated that they were only able to leave the movement after family members intervened and hired a professional "deprogrammer." In 1985, Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center, the world's first accredited cult and abusive religion recovery center, was formed by several ex-members of the movement.
Maryland Political Controversy
In 1986, 12 members of a Great Commission church ran for state office in Maryland, prompting speculation from Maryland political leaders that it was a concerted effort by the movement to enter the political arena. None of those running for office were thought to have had prior political aspirations, yet many filed election papers on the same day, June 30. In a Washington Post article, movement leaders denied formal involvement, stating that each person's decision to run was made independently. To the contrary, former and current members were quoted in the article as saying that movement leaders took an active interest in politics, were heavily involved in member's personal decisions, and had instructed members to distribute campaign literature for church-member candidates, with canvassers being advised to "cover religious bumper stickers on their vehicles with political ones." State of Maryland Republican Chairman Albert Bullock accused the movement of practicing "deceptive campaign tactics," and said, "If this (campaign) isn't orchestrated, then this is an incredible coincidence." On September 11, 1986, The Montgomery County Sentinel reported that none of the candidates won election.
Cult and "Aberrant" labels
In 1988, the movement was classified as a cult by the American Family Foundation (AFF), the (pre-Scientology) Cult Awareness Network, and the Council on Mind Abuse. The Council on Mind Abuse ceased its existence in 1992, while the CAN was taken over by Scientologists in 1996 after years of legal issues.) The movement was classified as an "aberrant Christian group" by Martin J. Butz in his 1991 research paper and by Paul Martin, a former leader of the movement, in 1993.

Two research papers critical of the movement were published between 1988 and 1995, as were four books that included the movement in its lists of "abusive Christian groups." In a 1992 Group Magazine article by Ronald Enroth, one ex-member described the movement as fostering a "learned helplessness" in members.

In 2002, ex-member Larry Pile said he would not refer to the movement as a cult, but instead as a "Totalist Aberrant Christian Organization". Pile believed the movement was "Christian because they hold orthodox beliefs," and yet "aberrant on secondary issues."

”

Like I said above, this suggestion will need a lot of wikification, but I would Support the re-write. Nswinton\^talk 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's really good. So, Support with edits and wikification. "To the contrary" is not actually linguistically appropriate as that which follows that phrase does not contradict the members' claiming it was an individual decision, so that should be returned to "however". We can work on minor edits like that afterwards. Gatorgalen 01:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's definately getting there on the size and conciseness issue. I Support that. I Oppose it as well because you left out completely the Guelph part, I think that deserves a mention. Being that one of the focuses of this organization is campus ministry, I find its inclusion relevant and appropriate. The other is you add "but estimated at 500 or less" to your re-write. Our article does not state what you state, it estimates the number at 500. Those two statements have different meanings. Other than that I like it, but I do want our new outside opinion on your rewrite compared to the original. I want to know how POV he feels the original is in the first place. Mfpantst 13:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made these changes. I kept Guelph brief because a) I don't think its as relevent as other parts of the criticism, and b) its too inflammatory. Claiming people were "suicidal" is to claim people were committing suicide. Yet, death by suicide caused by GC has never been documented, as far as I know.Mr. Pharoah Man 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I Support this once its been wiki'd... Mfpantst 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It will take me some time to totally wikify the history and criticism sections. I will have some time tonight to work on them, but if anyone else wants to contribute - especially with the sources - that'd be great. Nswinton\^talk 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, take a look at that and lemme know what you think. I put in every single source that I could find. I'm sure I missed something, though. Nswinton\^talk 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on that section header, Mr Pharoah. I couldn't think what to call it. I'm ready to put it in, if there's no problems anyone sees. Nswinton\^talk 13:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's been several days and no one has objected. I've replaced the old Criticism section with the new one above. If there are any objections, please discuss them here. Nswinton\^talk 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Xanthius' Response

I haven't had a chance to check out the latest article discussion until today, and I have to say that I think your reword leaves out some very important information, and chops out several sources which should not have been chopped out and summarized so briefly. First, one of the reasons the Maryland political controversy received media attention was because of the "shouting match" that erupted at a press conference after the CAN representative referred to GC as a cult. This is supported by the sources, used to be included, but now seems to have been completely removed in the latest edit. Secondly, why were so many sources removed? It seems as though the various articles critical of the movement have been summarized as "near college campuses," and the articles that weren't from college campuses seem to have been discluded from the list to support this conclusion. I will have to dig up some sources to re-include in this list. Last, I don't think enough time was given to reach consensus on such a major change (you basically chopped and reworked the most controversial section of this article) and am concerned that after only a few days such a massive change was made on the basis on "no objections" rather than full approval and consensus. I would have preferred to work on the copyedit and offer my suggestions before the change was actually made. Xanthius 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we wait for ClaudeReigns also? Now we know that you would have preferred to work on the copyedit - for the last week it seemed as if you were indifferent. Is "shouting match" necessary wording, honestly? Please convince me that that insistence is NPOV ;) No sources were "removed", Xanthius. It was a re-write of a section. I did the "wikification", and tried to source everything as best as I could. Since I don't have a hard-copy of anything from the criticism section, I had a hard time, but as you can see, I included 31 of the sources (and didn't leave a single statement unsourced). I had no intention of leaving anything out at all. Please insert any sources that were missed directly into the article, and please submit all your copyedit suggestions for everyone to look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nswinton (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Shouting match" is the phrase used in the article, "Parties Warn of 'Fringe Candidates': Montgomery News Conference Breaks Into a Shouting Match" (The Washington Post, August 30th, 1986.) Xanthius 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the sources that were removed, for the time being, be added here:

Throughout the 1980's, similar criticisms were published by newspapers in Ohio,[61] Kansas,[62] South Carolina,[63] Maryland,[64][65] and other locations, at the end of "other locations." We can then further break them out into further detail if need be. I am fairly baffled as to why only those sources and locations were chosen out of the many to choose from. Again, where is the mention of the national publications? What about Christianity Today and The Washington Post? What about the Canadian papers? Xanthius 19:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add all of those sources. I'm not sure how I missed them. Nswinton\^talk 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, why did you remove the wikilinks to the four books critical of the movement? All but one of them has its own wikipedia article. Xanthius 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The four footnotes immediately after that section link down to the four books. That's what footnotes are for - so that you don't have to put all the information directly in the sentence :) Nswinton\^talk 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

..........Aaannd- First Reports of Criticism says the "first public criticism" of the group was in 1978. What about the religious solicitation controversy in 1973? Also, even if you were to label 1978 as the starting date for 'public criticism,' you would have to list "Bible Study plays role in mental breakdown" by The Iowa State Daily (March 28th, 1978) as the first paper highly critical of the movement, not The Des Moines Register article which came out in (November 26th, 1978)...... Xanthius 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets see a suggestion on how you'd like to include that. I have no problem that information being inserted as long as it's done NPOV. Nswinton\^talk 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

P wrote above: I kept Guelph brief because a) I don't think its as relevent as other parts of the criticism, and b) its too inflammatory. Claiming people were "suicidal" is to claim people were committing suicide. Yet, death by suicide caused by GC has never been documented, as far as I know.

I absolutely disagree with this removal of very important information. The movement was /banned/ from a college campus, and this was the first ban in that campus' 25 year history. That is a huge deal. Thus explaining the reasons the campus gave for the ban is very important to that section of the article. Xanthius 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharoah to Xan Response

When I rewrote the three large sections of the article I took all sourcing out so I could try to read the article free of clutter. Nate did a great job adding stuff back in. There is no attempt here to get rid of any footnotes.

I removed the "shouting match" language because it is imflammatory, and newspaper headlines, such as this one from the W.P., are designed to attract attention. Note that although I wrote earlier that I thought this Maryland thing should be cut completely, I did not do so in order to work out of concensus. However, that doesn't mean we need to keep every worf the same as it was before.

I did not intentionally exclude the Iowa State Daily article as "the first public criticism." Rather, I tried to read all the footnotes and figure out which one came first chronologically. Sorry is missed the order of things by six months.

As for Guelph, I guess we just disagree. A small campus Bible study was kicked off the campus of a Canadian university almost 30 years ago. It is (apparently) the only documented source of such action. It may be reflective of the movement 30 years ago. If it is, I think we have documented quite a lot of criticism that paints the picture you're after, Xan. I don't think it represents the movement now, and I wouldn't want people to assume that GC is being kicked off of college campuses today.

Xan, I think this article still accomplishes what it did before -- it tells people of a movement that started in the 70s, grew fast, then was criticised for the very things that probably led to the growth. Twenty years after the movement started, GC took a look at itself and made admissions of guilt. For the last 15 years, GC has become more mainstream as conservative evangelical bodies go. Those are the facts as I see them. People can decide for themselves what to do with that info as it relates to a current decision to visit the GC church in their. I'd like the article to read more positive than it does, but as you have said many times, these are documented facts. I think all but you are on board. Let's go ...Mr. Pharoah Man 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The ban from Guelph is important. It's mentioned in Marching To Zion, The KANE Report, and newspaper articles. There aren't very many Christian organizations that can get themselves banned from a college campus based upon their reputation on other campuses. It very, very rarely happens. Xanthius 04:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreement on Rewrites

Looks like we have buy-in from all parties except Xan. Nate, could you Wiki the parts I've re-written to get them ready for the article? This represents about 3/4 of the total article text. The next section to tackle (IMO) is beliefs, which needs to be discussed first. Thx all.Mr. Pharoah Man 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets give xan until monday before putting this into the main article, but if by midday monday he hasn't come back then I feel we could go ahead. I'm a little hesitant on this only because he's also a strong voice in this article and I don't think he should be totally exclude, though I can see how Gator might feel like that about some of our edits as he missed out on some of the discussion too... Mfpantst 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Project CARE

A while ago I tagged.. During the late 1980s and early 1990s a concerted effort was made to reach out to people who felt that they had been hurt by GCI and it's churches. At the initial urging of Tom Short, the GCI leaders and pastors published a paper as part of a plan to follow the Biblical standard of humility and reconciliation in relationships. This effort towards reconciliation, formally called Project CARE, was led by Dave Bovenmyer and was instrumental in building unity with Christians within and outside of Great Commission.

..with a fact tag and explained that this statement needed more than a self-published GC website (its only source) as its primary source. Specifically, it is not that GC released a statement of church error that is in question, we have other sources for that, but the information about Project CARE (whatever that is) has never appeared in any reliable source, including books on the movement and newspaper articles. A self-published source should thus not be used as a primary source as it is in this case, and this paragraph should in my opinion be reduced to the line below it which reads:

In 1991, GCAC released a public statement acknowledging church error and weakness. That and an explanation of what was in the letter is all we really have reliable primary sources for at this point. If reliable sources didn't consider "Project CARE" notable but did consider the error statement noteable, we should follow their lead in this article. This article is not here to re-print pr statements from a religious organization's website, which is what we are in essence doing by granting their websites the same authority as primary sources. Xanthius 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to try and copyedit it and incorporate this as a second source. It's a quote from Churches that Abuse - citation #76 on the current version of the article. I don't feel it's necessary to name project Care, but only to get the gist across. Nswinton\^talk 22:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I looked over that image earlier, didn't open it. That would definitely be a good part to add in, regarding Enroth's view. Gatorgalen 01:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should definately include that. I also bring this in with the mention of McCotter talking at faithwalkers '03. I get the beginning of this section to mean that positive change came with the disassociation with McCotter. If that's so, then its also important to mention that he has participated in a GC event recently. Mfpantst 13:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Enroth's response

That's fine if you want to try to incorporate that, but you should also incorporate Enroth's less than optimistic followup to that statement, which was printed in his sequel to that book, Recovering From Churches That Abuse:

---

The network known as Great Commission Association of Churches (GCAC) claims that it has taken significant steps in the direction of reform and reconciliation with disaffected ex-members. They have published and circulated a "Statement of Errors and Weaknesses" and have discussed the issues raised in that statement in several elders' conferences. The leadership believes they have made sincere attempts to seek reconciliation with disaffected former members. The group has taken steps to encourage accountability to others and has sought advice from several ministry consultants, including leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals and leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ, concerning the errors and problems of the past. They have also encouraged their staff and pastors to pursue additional seminary training, and they have instituted a Council of Reference, individuals to whom the GCAC leadership can go for counsel.

Dr. Paul Martin, director of Wellspring and a former member of Great Commission International (as the group was formerly called), concurs with the opinions of many other former members:

Some encouraging reforms have occurred in recent years after the founder, Jim McCotter, left the movement in the late 1980s. However, the current leadership has not yet revoked the excommunication of its earlier critics. The admissions of error so far have been mainly confined to a position paper, the circulation of which has been questioned by many ex-members. Furthermore, Great Commission leaders have not yet contacted a number of former members who feel wronged and who have personally sought reconciliation. There has been some positive movement in that direction, but most ex-members that I have talked to are not fully satisfied with the reforms or apologies and feel that the issues of deep personal hurt and offense have not been adequately addressed.

GCAC leader David Bovenmyer indicated in a letter that "we have not been able to achieve reconciliation with all, yet our sense is that some of our most severe critics will not be pleased with us unless we fully vindicate them and join in their denunciations of Jim McCotter, something we cannot in good conscience do."

A former member sees in such an attitude a pattern that "protects unequivocally the prophet-leader, keeping him in holy light, irregardless [sic] of the realities of distortion and problems seen from those not under the spell. The implication is, then, that they, even though having made significant moves, are still under 'the spell.'"

---

Xanthius 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, neither of those books mention "Project CARE," which is what we need to find a source for. Again, I think it needs to be removed. I have a huge collection of reliable sources on the movement's history, and I don't think any of them have ever mentioned such a project. Xanthius 17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Misc note

The info in the paragraph about GCAC being part of the ECFA since 2002 is technically correct, but GCM has been a part of it since like 1992, so.... that should probably be altered in keeping with the whole movement theme. Gatorgalen 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Support :) Nswinton\^talk 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Support as well Mfpantst 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Their faith

I've succeeded to get the following information from the movement's pages:

1. movement organized to expand,
2. the movement is to model the believers' way of living,
3. the model to be adhered to is from somewhere in the Bible,
4. literalists,

Missing:

1. christology and theology,
2. "Sinology" (such as f.ex. the East-West schism around Augustine of Hippo about the state of human sin and the conditions for and character of salvation),
3. their "literal" interpretation of the Bible as opposed to other "fundamentalists'" interpretations,
4. how they serve the "outsider part of humankind" (except that one about Katrina)

Said: Rursus ☻ 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Link collection

1. Larry Pile's Statement about... – says the movement was non-catholic/non-commonist (like Calvinism, but unlike Lutherans, Anglicans, Rome-C.:s and Greek-C.:s) elitist, apt to classify any criticism as factionalism,
2. the church'es own standpoint

GCM literalisms

1. LT seems to be a central aim of GCMers:

Taking a look at Western Christianity, most people who claim to be Christians are not making a significant impact on the people around them. Instead of influencing the world for God through their lives as Christ says believers will in Matthew 5:13-16, the majority have assimilated to the culture to the point that their lives are undistinguishable from anyone else’s.

1. ministrywatch.com "MAN" says:

God created man in His own image, and man, as he was originally created, was innocent before God. But man chose to sin by disobeying God, and therefore was alienated from his Creator and came under divine condemnation. Thus all human beings are born with a corrupted nature and without spiritual life, and are totally incapable of pleasing God in and of themselves.

[Giggle: "All your base are belong to GOD!!"] Said: Rursus ☻ 20:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And: like Calvinism. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Major change to criticism section not "consensus"

I ducked out of the article for a few days, and when I came back, the most controversial section of this entire article (the Criticism section), a section which has been worked on by both "sides" for almost a year, and has been reviewed and edited and approved by third party editors on a number of occasions (see discussion archive) -- in essence, something which has been shaped and formed over a long period of time -- had been completely rewritten and truncated by a group of only 4 editors, 3 of whom are closely associated with the movement the article is about. One is an admitted staff member, one is a paid missionary, and the last is an admitted current member. The fourth editor, Mfpanst, while I believe he meant no harm and has indeed done a lot of good in mediating this article in the past, doesn't seem to have any knowledge about the movement or the sources he is summarizing, so may not have recognized what exactly was he was voicing his approval for. In the past there has been another "side" present when making edit decision: those with knowledge of the movement's past who aren't members of the movement. There were none of these present during this major decision.

To get to the point, I believe that true consensus was not reached when [1] this edit was made, despite the claim, and I believe we need to immediately revert it, and begin a true discussion of the changes proposed, perhaps with more third parties present, and others outside of the movement.

Another major edit is apparently in the works along the same reasoning, in the history section. Here, I have voiced my objection to the removal of information which is well sourced and important to the history of the movement, but the only response I currently received was "Are we to be hogtied by one person?" -- this suggests to me that 3 employees/members of the movement have 'taken over' this article, and under the banner of consensus, and intend to continue to truncate and change important sections of information without the input or consensus of those with knowledge of the movement who aren't members. I hope this isn't the case, and I thank NSwinton for inviting me personally to give feedback, but it certainly is alarming to me that months of work has been undone by the "consensus" of those with such an obvious conflict of interest.

I believe we need to undo the criticism edit and discuss the changes in it in much more detail, and with a broader "point of view" than what happened. And the same needs to occur before any major changes to the history section are done. Xanthius 05:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone not on the dole from Great Commission please raise your hand. *raises hand* I know you're all eager to regale stories and reminisce now that I'm back. Save it. I'm pissed. Please return the appropriate detail to criticisms and we'll talk later. ClaudeReigns 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back Claude. The article needs people on both sides of the fence in order for it to reach true consensus and paint an accurate view of the movement.

To give an example of why allowing one side of an issue to reach consensus without the other side's involvement, look at the Jim McCotter edits proposed. They completely go against the sources that are currently cited, are inaccurate, but they do make Great Commission look better. Leaders of Great Commission have long sought to distance themselves from their early founder, because he was so controversial, by pretending he wasn't actually the founder, but rather just one of many early leaders. However, you don't have to look very far to find reliable sources that point to him as the founder and by far the most influential early member of the movement, and these sources in detail describe the effect of his ideas and beliefs on what the movement was and became.

What has been going on needs to stop. You wouldn't allow a group of Creationists to totally rewrite the Evolution article and expect it to be NPOV. Nor would you allow a group of Scientologists to wait for a slow few days on their article, reach consensus amongst themselves, and then drastically rewrite months of work.

Xanthius 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nswinton's Response

Xanthius, about the revert, I've already responded to that above. The change has been made to the article, but as this is Wikipedia, and not the Brittanica, no edits are set in stone. I'm 100% willing to work with everyone here. The change was made with consensus as far as I was aware. There is no conspiracy here. It is true that Gatorgalen and I work with GCM, and I'd like to add some clarity there. I'm currently a part-time missionary with GCM, and I'm raising my support right now, so I'm not even really working for them - I'm working for my salary. I'm not paid by GCM, in fact, a majority of the support I've raised was raised outside of GCM churches. My wife and I just had our first child three weeks ago, and I've taken some time off. I've been editing wiki between naps and diaper changes. Galen is also raising his support right now, and is with a church in Florida - half way across the country from me. We both met through wikipedia. I've never met Mr Pharoah man outside of wikipedia, and you can see 99% of our total interactions here on this talk page - the other 1% being a greeting on his userpage. Talking about being an "admitted" staff-member is silly. Neither Galen or I have ever been quiet about that fact.

I would be 100% open to the idea of you and ClaudeReigns, MfPantist, Pharoah, Galen, GRBerry, Rursus, Osama Bin Ladin - anyone - suggesting changes, making compromises, making good edits, and honestly improving this article. The fact that the last change happened without you, Xanthius, was incidental, not strong-arming or conspiracy by any means.

I'm willing to wait on the History section. Lets get the Criticism section cleaned up. Lets do it in a civil, organized and NPOV way. Lets also be prompt, and not make all the other editors wait weeks at a time for our responses.

Claude, you've made a lot of good edits on WP, and even on this article in the past. You and I have worked together on several articles together. I can see that you're upset, but please be civil. Your last edit on this talk page was on May 15, here. Please don't act like we left you out here, that's just dishonest.

I know that both of you have an agenda for this article, and frankly everyone does. Let's try not to be self-righteous and act like everyone is trying to be biased but ourselves. What this article needs is not "people on both sides of the fence" like Xanthius said. This article needs people that are able to swallow their personal issues, and be willing to objectively improve the article. I say this to everyone - and I've rebuked the pro-gcm'ers here as much as anyone else - lets all try to assume good faith and be civil in our work. I've asked GRBerry and Rursus to come back recently, and I'm hoping that all of us will be able to be civil with one-another from here on out. Nswinton\^talk 16:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm really pissed. Refrain from characterizations like "Please don't act like we left you out here". I made no such accusation (thanks for putting words in my mouth) and thus the accusation of dishonesty is quite unwarranted, however aptly it may describe your current rhetoric, and far more uncivil than my declaration of disgust with what has happened in my absence. I did also ask you kindly to stow the reminiscinces. If I'm forced to recall the past, I might also recall inconvenient yet deliciously verifiable information which I was willing to overlook in the name of compromise and cooperation. That was then and this is now. If you can swallow that, then we are ready to get around to the business of making this hopelessly bad article at least as informative and accurate as it has been in the past. See what you did? It's all coming back to me now. God I love Wikipedia. 72.19.140.173 06:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have verifiable information, Claude, please bring it forward. I have not in any way accused you of dishonesty. I'm just saying that we all bring our biases to the table, and that's why I've asked others to come contribute to the discussion as well. You're certainly free (and encouraged) to invite any third parties you'd like as well. Nswinton\^talk 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Xan's Response

My point is not that you guys are part of a conspiracy together. However, you knew as much as Galen the edit history of this article. You knew how hotly contested the criticism section has been in the past. Whether you like it or not, there are two sides of the fence. There have been for quite some time in this article. There are people here who don't want a criticism section at all, despite there being at least 20 reliable sources referring to the group as a cult and so on. It is not a coincidence that all of these people have been current GCC members with an in-built conflict of interest. Why would people like this want a criticism section? Employees, part-time missionaries, or just current members of this religious denomination -- should NOT be making drastic changes to the criticism section without consensus from the "other side." Period.

I also don't appreciate the assertion about my agenda. My "agenda" is that this organization's history be accurately represented here. That's all. I have never tried to remove information positive to the movement as long as it is sourced. I've added it in myself. I found and added Tom Short's response to the criticism, because I felt the article needed a more balanced response to that section. Much of the history section was my work, and almost all of that is in no way negative to the movement, but is very positive. If you knew me, or reviewed my edit history, you would know that my interest on wikipedia is primarily in groups such as this. I feel the same way about many other controversial religious groups that I have edited, including The Potter's House, Maranatha Campus Ministries, Jesus People USA, Community Chapel and Bible Training Center, etc. It is a pattern in articles about such groups that current members show up, get offended when reading criticism about the group they attend and have so much of their life vested into, and regardless of sources or facts, attempt to remove or dull down criticism of the group, often in complete disregard to wikipedia policies. That is what I am seeing here, and I am (a) asking you to stop and (b) alerting other editors to what I am seeing, thus Claude's return.

If you are all willing to work together, great. Let's do that. We can make this a great article. But what Mr Pharoah man said about not being "hogtied" by my opinion, in response to my history section comments, was definitely not along those lines. It wouldn't matter if 35 editors showed up and reached consensus to remove the entire criticism section, if they were all members of the movement. They have a predisposition to want that criticism section gone. We need varying perspectives here if this article is going to be accurate and NPOV.

Clearly it was a mistake for me to insert that section without waiting a bit longer. I wish that I would have waited longer, because if I would have, this would just be a continued discussion, and not an argument. You don't appreciate the assertion about an agenda, I don't appreciate an assertion of collaboration between myself and anyone else here. I had no intention of leaving anyone out, and I honestly thought the paragraph was pretty... clean (for lack of a better word), but I've been counting on you to fill in there. On certain points, I agree and disagree with everyone here.

Also, I've never asserted that the criticism section should be removed, and I can't remember any major editor making any comments along those lines. I always get a kick out of others accusing me of being in the GC party line - I was amazed when I was even allowed to go on staff with this group. I'm about as pro-GC as Ron Paul is mainline Republican. As far as criticisms against the movement, honestly you and Claude barely know the half of it. Did you know that one church actively planned to have a political takeover of the entire state of Delaware around the time of the Maryland incident? Dave Bovenmyer talked them out of it, and nothing ever really happened but planning. Crazy $*** happened for a while there. Some still happens. I've never been a proponent of that kind of thinking or behavior - it's naive, immature and irresponsible.

The balance that needs to be found is between what's "accurate" and what's "appropriate" - after that, we have to be sure it's actually well-written. I totally think it's appropriate to have a mention of the U o' G and M-land incidents (and anything else). I don't think it's appropriate to have paragraphs dedicated to them. I think it's appropriate to mention Katrina and V-tech, but not dedicate paragraphs to them. I think that all wording needs to be fair and accurate. Talk of "shouting matches" isn't any more helpful than quotes from main line denom. leaders talking nice about GC. Weasel and Peacock words are both unwelcome in articles that I work on.

I edit Boldly on all the articles that I work on. I've been working with the Cleanup Department for a while, starting articles, getting them deleted, and getting them cleaned up. I don't have to be an emotionally-involved "admitted staffer" to see that this article is imbalanced on some points. Nswinton\^talk 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on Xan, don't even try that. Your agenda has been well documented - unlike with those other groups, you're an ex-member who actively opposes the organization, as is Claude. That's what I'd call an agenda.

Now, all I really have to say about the recent comments is this - you've got to come to terms with the fact that this is an encyclopedia. It is not a forum with the purpose of warning people about GC. It's not an article with the purpose of 'warning" people about GC. It's also not a book on everything GC's ever done or been in the news for. It's not Marching to Zion 2. This is an encylcopedia article - please regard it as such and treat is as such, and stop all the grandstanding. Thank you. Gatorgalen 16:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

Let's do what you say NSwinton, and start to reevaluate the copyedit. I don't know how busy Claude is, but it would be good to get him back here, and I will be able to drop in every day or two. Hopefully we can have something worked out over the next week or two (or three), and then we can move on to discuss the History changes. Please remember everyone, this article is the result of months and months of edits, in depth discussions between both sides, third party reviews, and so on. We must not be so hasty in wanting to totally rewrite everything. None of the third parties we brought in have ever said, "Wow, this is a horrible article!", instead they have complimented its quality -- I can't say the same about many other controversial religious' group's articles, which are so overrun with edit wars and POV pushing that their quality never improves beyond 'poor'. Let's not ruin that now.

Xanthius 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have anything polite to say. Just wanted everyone to know I acknowledge the comments of the weekend. I can see that my efforts aren't desired here. If the phrase "hogtied" is viewed as contentious and offends people, I'm at a loss for more appropriate phrases that I can use to describe what goes on at this site.Mr. Pharoah Man 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Starting with.. Maryland Political Controversy

NSwinton, since you mentioned this let's go ahead and start with it.

Here is how this portion of the article used to read:
Maryland political controversy

In 1986, 12 members of a GCI church ran for state office in Maryland, prompting attention from the national media, and speculation from Maryland political leaders that it was a concerted effort by GCI to enter the political arena. None of the GCI church members running for office were thought to have had prior political aspirations, yet many filed papers to run on the same day, June 30. In a Washington Post article, GCI leaders denied formal involvement, stating that each person's decision to run was made independent of GCI leadership. Former and current members were quoted in the article as saying that GCI took an active interest in politics, was heavily involved in member's personal decisions, and had instructed members of GCI churches during a two-month training seminar to distribute campaign literature for church member candidates, with canvassers being advised to "cover religious bumper stickers on their vehicles with political ones." On August 30, at a news conference held by Republican and Democratic Party leaders, a "shouting match" broke out as the GCI candidates rebuked Democratic and Republican leaders for "raising religion as an issue in the election and labeling their beliefs as 'cults.'" Republican Chairman Albert Bullock accused GCI candidates of practicing "deceptive campaign tactics," and said: "If this (campaign) isn't orchestrated, then this is an incredible coincidence."[21] On September 11, 1986, The Montgomery County Sentinel reported that none of the candidates won election.[21][22][23][24][25][26]

I agree with you that it was too long, perhaps, but I question why when deciding what to trim the "shouting match" and all of the information about the CAN showing up and labeling the movement cultic at the press release was trimmed, rather than some of the lesser important details. This seems to be removing an important part of why this made the news. The term "shouting match" is the exact phrasing the Washington Post article used to describe what happened, and because it is in quotes we are not making a value judgment with that term, but simply relaying what the reliable sources say happened. Aside from the subtitle of the headline, "Montgomery News Conference Breaks into a Shouting Match," the opening paragraph also describes it that way:

A bipartisan Montgomery County news conference held yesterday to discuss “fringe candidates” in the Sept. 9 primary erupted into a shouting match when a handful of candidates rebuked the Democratic and Republican leaders for raising religion as an issue in the election and labeling their beliefs as “cults.”

If you are aware of the way newspaper articles are written, they place the most general information in the first paragraph or two, summarizing what the rest of the article is about, expanding on details in the later paragraphs. The Washington Post, a very well respected reliable source, obviously felt "shouting match" was an appropriate term to describe what happened, and also that the CAN labeling the group a "cult" at the meeting was a significant factor of the story. If anything, removing the information completely does not seem appropriate. Xanthius 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the old version hasn't even been removed yet. There are redundant sections currently in the article. I'm going to quote the new version that MR P, GG, MfP and myself approved (which we now know was near, but not complete, consensus):

“ Maryland Political Controversy

In 1986, 12 members of a Great Commission church ran for state office in Maryland, prompting speculation from Maryland political leaders that it was a concerted effort by the movement to enter the political arena. None of those running for office were thought to have had prior political aspirations, yet many filed election papers on the same day, June 30. In a Washington Post article, movement leaders denied formal involvement, stating that each person's decision to run was made independently. To the contrary, former and current members were quoted in the article as saying that movement leaders took an active interest in politics, were heavily involved in member's personal decisions, and had instructed members to distribute campaign literature for church-member candidates, with canvassers being advised to "cover religious bumper stickers on their vehicles with political ones." State of Maryland Republican Chairman Albert Bullock accused the movement of practicing "deceptive campaign tactics," and said, "If this (campaign) isn't orchestrated, then this is an incredible coincidence." On September 11, 1986, The Montgomery County Sentinel reported that none of the candidates won election.

”

So it looks like the main "rub" is the term "shouting match". Also, the new version is in the "criticism" section. Would those be the two main points of contention? I guess I don't care that much about the "shouting match" thing. I'd be willing to let that go if that's the only issue. Nswinton\^talk 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've slept on it, and I don't really have a problem with the old version anymore. I've had a conversation with someone that was actually there when it happened, and apparently the original paragraph was accurate. On a personal level, I'm disappointed, because I really thought that the story was an exaggeration (and now I know that it really isn't). On an editor's level, I need to swallow my pride and admit that my hesitations and resistance in this case were wrong. I'm sorry, Claude and Xan. Nswinton\^talk 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I offer no comment on paragraph location in the article; that probably remains subject to evolution as the article evolves. As to the difference between the two paragraphs, reviewing the two versions I think the open question is the shouting match sentence. The remainder of the differences are stylistic copyedits that I believe improve the writing style and don't significantly affect the meaning or tone of the paragraph, so I think leaving them in the final version is a good idea. Would restoring the shouting match sentence be an acceptable compromise?

And, before we decide, do any reliable sources more recent than 1986 cover this incident? We should check such sources to gain perspective on how much emphasis to give this incident and whether any significant viewpoints are being omitted or misrepresented. If we don't know the answer right off, use some form of the paragraph with the knowledge that a review of later sources might determine that revisions are needed. GRBerry 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no source newer than 1986. That's the problem with this section and with the whole article. It's all "old news," most of it 25 years old. The most recent sources for any "critical" info is more than 10 years old. And yet, if you are a casual Wiki reader of this article, you would probably come to the conclusion that this Great Commission group of people are horrible. The Wiki approach to the problem is this: "Source newer info that highlights the pro side to counter the citations that highlight the negative, in order to create a NPOV article." But with church movements, that's a flawed notion. If a church is behaving itself, it doesn't make much, if any, news. "News" is when a church has a scandal. Mr. Pharoah Man 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No sources after 1986?

Actually, here is a source from August 10, 1990, published by The Kane Associates, and republished by researcher of the movement Larry Pile in his book. The report is titled, "Factual Analysis of the Operations and Activities of Great Commission Inc. and James Douglas McCotter." In evaluating the Maryland political controversy and GCI's relationship with politics in general, it says (in part, the actual report is pretty long):

GCI activities have been a mixture of religious, political, and business undertakings, often without clear distinctions among these categories. GCI has been designated as a non-profit organization with church status. To an objective observer, however, the activities of its founders and members may often seem oriented more toward the pursuit of money or political power than toward spiritual growth. . . From the beginning, GCI/McCotter has mixed religion with politics, directing members to engage in activities on behalf of a number of conservative causes . . . Also in 1986, GCI made what appears to have been a calculated foray into Maryland politics. No fewer than twelve GCI members decided, almost simultaneously, to run for election to the Maryland Republican and Democratic Central Committees. . . It also appears that GCI members who were not candidates moved into Montgomery County shortly before the election. Published reports at the time quoted former members as saying that church elders told GCI members where to live and whom to live with. GCI leaders denied this and said that the 1986 moves into and within jurisdiction were coincidental rather than a concerted attempt to swell the vote for GCI candidates. . . Publicity about GCI in the Montgomery County Sentinel and Washington Post may have been instrumental in the defeats of all GCI candidates in 1986. After that and the apparent disappearance of Americans for Biblical Government, politicking by GCI has been less overt but has continued.

There's more detail in the actual report but I don't want to type it all up right now. But there you go. Also, regarding Mr. Pharoah Man's comments: 15 years is not a very long time for a movement of churches that has only been around 40 years or so. Plus, I believe Larry Pile reissued his book in 2001, along with updating his statement about GC in 2006. Paul Martin reissued the first chapter of his book Cult Proofing Your Kids in the late nineties as well.

Also keep in mind that many of the anti-cult groups such as the Cult Awareness Network, that used to put GC (and other cultic groups) into the news were driven into bankruptcy by Scientology around the time the critical newspaper articles stopped (in the nineties).

I will try to get back here soon for more comments regarding other edits.

Xanthius 02:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin/Enroth/Pile "research" that is republished over and over again doesn't count in my book as a new or more recent source. Mr. Pharoah Man 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to concur. Who are "the Kane Associates" anyway? But I'd like to add that I think it's high time we stopped pretending that Martin and Pile constitute a non-biased source, or even a reliable source. These guys have obvious agendas, are ex-members, and started their careers based on a negative opinion of GC. The 2006 statement by Pile, in particular, was not published by a fact-checking source. But to treat the other stuff as "trustworthy and authoritative in regards to the subject at hand (GC)" is to pick a side, which isn't our job as editors. There is an evident conflict of interest here with these guys being ex-members; they may be able to speak authoritatively on other movements, but their personal experience makes it understandably impossible for them to be objective here. We'd never allow a member or ex-member to just publish their thoughts on here, but they get a pass? So, let's get real. BTW, as I look at WP:RS, we should think about whether our article is neutral in terms of "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." Gatorgalen 14:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Martin and Larry Pile are experts in the area of this movement, whether you like it or not. Paul R. Martin's wiki article speaks for itself. The man is internationally respected for his work researching cults, including GC. As for Larry and his book, he is considered an expert on this topic and his "unpublished" (it was actually published through Wellspring Retreat) book has been quoted in various newspaper articles on the movement, making it reliable and sourced able. Self-published works are acceptable as long as the writer is an established expert, and his work is further validated by being quoted in reliable sources such as newspaper articles. He is one of the few researchers to thoroughly research and document the movement's history.

As far as fairly representing majority/minority views, are you suggesting the criticism which spans several dozen newspaper articles over several decades, 4 books, and 3 university research papers (including a Master's Thesis) is a minority view? I don't think so. Newspaper articles have introduced the movement as "no stranger to controversy" for a reason -- this group became famous because of the criticism and controversy that have followed it.

Xanthius 00:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so since we've resolved the conflict regarding the "shouting match" phrasing and its origins, we need to figure out which section or sections it is going to remain in. Some have argued it belongs in the history section, some say criticism. I think that a good compromise would be a small mention of it (a quick overview) in the history section, and perhaps then details of the shouting match and so on in the criticism section. Another option would be a brief overview in history, linking to a sub-article. I think the Maryland section is one of the few sections that might actually fit well in a sub-article. I'm more in favor of the second option. Xanthius 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This could be so much worse

We could be this article: International Churches of Christ. Compared to that, and the POV, edit wars, RfCs and bad-mouthing that goes on here, I want to congratulate everyone here for being so civil and relatively unbiased. It could all be worse :) Nswinton\^talk 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For full Disclosure

I was the ip 129 etc. which added to the responses to criticism section with the book citation and also the info from the fellow from a Church called Evergreen; the info is pertinent...and it's good to make sure it's available and not hidden. The info from the Evergreen fellow was put there to represent multiples sides of the dissatisfied voices though since it is a citation, no such thing is required; it was just good to find fair and loving evaluation from people that share the same concerns that are even expressed in that book rather than people trying to attack one another.Infinitelink 01:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia policies on weasel words, primary sources, and reliable sources. My reverts were not in any way controversial (also it's not new to anyone that I'm involved with the org - let's be fair and let it be known that you run the only website devoted to opposing the org involved). I understand that you're new to wikipedia, so I'll give you some grace. Please read the policies I've asked you to, and you should realize that your edits are inappropriate for wikipedia. If you do not remove them by this evening, I will do so. Gatorgalen 04:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on bro I don't run with GCMwarning or any other of those sites: I was aware of them and in fact remember the pastors bringing it up. I'm friends with many GCMers and have considered the them a blessing, and it's not inappropriate to list the pertinent information from the sequel to another one of the article's sources. We're to walk in the light: not snuff-out criticism, and if you do this (walk rightly) it says that it will commend you to men's conscience: you won't appease every critic, and some are not applause-worthy definitely: but other times they may be right and we should examine ourselves by the word. And the Evergreen thing, too, is to balance-out the end-criticism that comes from the Recovering... book. So please don't asuume I'm some hurt Tom out to get you or the Church. If I wanted to I would do so with much worse: however if there were a problem I'd rather take the words and stuff involved, put them aside scripture which shows the problem, then show the sheep and pastors.

Further the number of people who have noted problems within GCM is now far greater than a few hundread back during McCotter's years: and there are more orgs that oppose it, including cult-awareness groups (one of which was shut-down by a take-over by the "Church" of Scientology)...so maybe you could look-up some info because it'd be good for us to know the ways we may be offending people: if it's for preaching the law (which convicts of sin) and the gospel (which destroys man's pride) then fine, but if for our errors (or even neutral actions) we're told NOT to do what would make a brother stumble: you should know this. One of the orgs is called C.U.R.E. which actually worked with GCM for a while and which published articles which were really edifying, though I'm unaware if it's still operational.

And for more disclosure: I am aquainted with people who were improperly handled and maligned with GCM-and this isn't unexpected (people are human) however it is not to be treated lightly or allowed unobstructed within the Church: and I'm aware of numerous people falsely labelled "divisive" or "slanderous" etc. for criticism: even the story about GCMwarning is supposedly one hurt student was very hurtful to the people that actually set it up, some current members, because it wasn't one they knew about: it was many--and we were told that we wouldn't be given the address so that we wouldn't be reading slander...too bad I read it and learned from the setter-uppers it wasn't slanderous; this really disheartened me. : ( A christian isn't the goo-lovy feel-good modernists want them to be, but they're definately loving and they DON'T act like that toward people crying "you hurt me"; unfortunately the forums related now seem to be taken-over--and even some of the people there think the same. That site was handed-over for someone else to care for so that it's fine, but the forum often is not anymore. So if you mean to defend the GCM you better find-out and go-after sheep and hear their voice before defendinig those they're saying have betrayed them: you'll even find they have a lot of respect for the very people that hurt them-and no suprise. And please drop me a link to the policies you want me to read. Thanks. : )Infinitelink 00:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We can talk about those things via email; this page is not the place for discussion as to whether GCM is good or bad. I've read gcmwarning and the forums there. I will point out that it's quite a falsehood that there are more people and/or orgs with a problem with GC now than there were then - in fact the truth is the exact opposite. You can see evidence of this in the fact that there are no new reliable sources like there were 20 years ago. You should check where you are getting your info - an individual like mr. Dagan who has issues with GCM and writes it on his blog is fine for gcmwarning, but it is not acceptable for an encylopedia. A "GCM is evil and abusive" view is the view of a very small minority. Policies for you to read are WP:RS, WP:NPOV WP:V, WP:NOR (has discussion of primary sources), and WP:AWW (about weasel words). In Weasel Words I was referring not to the book, but to the positing of things not mentioned in sources in vague ways, such as "Responses to this statement and the steps taken by GCAC was very positive among some groups however the people it was apologizing to often saw things differently". Often in this context is a weasel word. How often, how many people, who saw it differently? Really, Larry Pile. This is what we have the criticism section for - this article has been honed by consensus to be balanced, and the type of edits you are making are not helpful. Oh, and the reason I said you were involved with GCMWarning is because you said in an edit summary earlier, "Removed my own link (see IP). The site itself is pretty neutral, but the forums it links to have been taken-over." That seems to say that you are in some way affiliated with or at least highly supportive of the site and the thirty or so people represented in it and its forums. If that's not true I apologize. Gatorgalen 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. : ) I understand the need-to-be-in-criticism part...but just haven't figured-out exactly how to fit it yet. The citation is pertinent and that's why I want to include it. Meanwhile Dagan I cited to balance-out that the current criticism isn't the spectacularly and awefully negative which sooo many are coming-across as. Also, I didn't know much other way to put the current persisting criticism (that is, introduce the citation pertaining to it) and I even considered, for instance, the word "some": since the weakness statement is one of apology its audience, we must infer, is those who were hurt: and among them MANY don't accept it as enough (not to be discussed here: agree). If the audience were outsides orgs MANY applauded it. Therefore "some". Umm...what else? I think I may be able to re-word a bit and re-arrange...which I'll proceed with. I'll read the links you provided as soon as I can too (though at the moment I'm off to finish some work). Also, the whole balance thing is hotly contested...in the meantime I'd like to keep things up-to-date. Thanks for input too. Also I agree not the place to discuss some issues, and so I give you permission to wipe-out my entries here on the talk page once you read it and I'll keep things in mind...just keep the links up. ; )129.82.90.102 03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Recovering From Churches That Abuse citation is definitely relevant and from a reliable source. Don't think we can use the blog though. Xanthius 13:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I put the book back...again; and the "Current Criticisms" isn't incorrect...I could add more information, but I hoped to only put the book, and maybe that blog since it was prettey amiable and wasn't charged or anything. : ( I'll have to think-up a way to represent that portion of GCMers well so as to help flesh-out the article. Besides that: book back...it's relevant and reputable so please don't keep reverting my edits, instead change things if you think there is a gaff (like "current" if you think that's correct). Of course don't change citations, and other than that...I leave the article to the next editor for the moment. infinitelink —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.90.102 (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I understand that you're new and you have your own obvious personal agenda (in all honesty most wikipedia editors do). The key is not to allow your agenda to dictate your edits. As you just made clear, you're trying to represent the modern criticisms you see personally. Unfortunately, there are no RS's that represent those. For good or ill, the test on wikipedia is not accuracy but verfiability; we can't just put what we think is true, but have to represent what RS's say. This holds both of us back, in that we can't put our opinions. For example, I know GCM is widely accepted now and that there are extremely few critics, but until an RS reports that I can't write that. At the same time we have to be responsible editors. It's a tough thing. As to the current issue, the heading was a small problem. The real issue is that the block quote is very large, that it is the entire section regarding GCM in that book. That might be appropriate if we were writing a book or a research paper; however, this is an encylopedia. We are told to rely on quotes as little as possible in this way. If we can't summarize it to a couple sentences, it shouldn't be included. I believe we have already done that; if people want to read each source (some of which are very long), we provide links for them. This policy also helps keep us from endorsing any source as true by giving it too much emphasis. Gatorgalen 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the book's response to the error statement belongs in the article, but I agree that including the entire quote could be a bit much. Paul Martin's quote seems to be the most powerful, perhaps a shortened version that included his quote and alluded to the author gauging the response of other former members. See my latest edit. Thanks. Xanthius 14:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GCC Logo.png

Image:GCC Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I propose that the boilerplate be removed. If you oppose the proposal, please include specific passages which may be corrected so as to resolve the dispute.

• Comment: There has been no discussion nor much edit conflict for months, thus I am assuming that the issues have been resolved. If consensus seems uncertain, we could replace with a POV check boilerplate instead to invite other editors to observe, edit, or comment. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: the assumption that issues have been resolved would be incorrect. Unfortunately, I think people have resigned to the fact that people are unwilling to compromise - what we have now is clearly an imbalanced, non-neutral article. It is not written in the way that similar articles are, but still reads as an article with a purpose and not an informative enclcylopedia article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorgalen (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• "please include specific passages which may be corrected so as to resolve the dispute" and please cite similar articles so as to resolve the dispute. Inline cleanup tags may also be helpful in resolving the dispute. Let's focus on content. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On that note...the "The Weakness Statement was taken very positively by many" statement was their to be nice. However upon consideration I don't actually know how it could be kept per wikipedia guidelines...especially since I haven't actually seen or heard of anyone who actually did; even those that helped draft it, now cult-experts etc. (or normal lives too), are still weary and dissatisified much of the time with GC...and for the GC-initiated editors, except where you know otherwise, please don't attack me on that: I REALLY don't feel like putting the sources/etc. for that here unless you really really want more garbage to come out into the open. The statement isn't untrue, however, as I know the statement was taken very positively amongst some of the pastors...although some of the leadership didn't take it well at all. So, in conclusion, as the contributor, and one who's personally familiar with the situation, but someone without a source for this as per wikipedia guidelines: feel free to remove it. When the GC editors come across an allowable source then I'm all for it. The protest involved, however, might be in the way it's worded; for now I'm considering a re-word with less assertion implied.

tooMuchData

23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

Done. Any other suggestions? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: As far as I can tell, all controversial subject matter, every sentence, is based upon one or more reliable sources. The edit wars, as frustrating as they might have been at the time, resulted in this kind of attention to detail. This article is far more thoroughly sourced than most controversial religious group's wikipedia entries. (Maranatha, Potter's House, etc.) The article has also survived several neutral-third-parties looking it over, and now we have yet another voicing approval. If providing an abundance of sources and subjecting the controversial sections to neutral editors time and time again isn't enough, what will be? If it comes down to somebody simply not liking the content of the available sources, myself and the other editors can't do anything that wouldn't violate OR policies to correct that. Xanthius (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

• From RfC: I don't see any obvious NPOV issues, so I agree with ClaudeReigns above that, whatever the problem is, it needs to be specifically addressed. NPOV tags are supposed to be temporary while hashing out a dispute. If specific answers as to what's wrong aren't brought up so that they can be addressed, the tag should be removed. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about edits related to NPOV dispute not otherwise addressed by RfC

• Undid the edit by Gator: That quote was the result of a discussion about a much longer quote from a book earlier; it's also one of the few pieces of information which address the error statement and claimed efforts by the group. I'm also concerned that Gator's edit appeared to be a try at watering-down the information contained, greatly reducing the strength (and completely removing all specifics) of the researcher's (Enroth) conclusion about the movement in his book. And this is all after an outside reviewer came and reviewed the article and said there are no NPOV issues. When you have an NPOV complaint and then try to remove the most pertinent and recent published research on a group that may be unfavourable to its interests that's highly questionable. If anyone knows how to keep the specifics etc. so the article is given its greatest research and informative potential to any outside reader then please let's discuss it. And let's also discuss that edit.

  tooMuchData

  07:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

If you'd go back to that discussion, or go look at the actual source, you'd see that this is the same quote being discussed earlier at the same length; it is the entire section of that book dealing with problems with the reforms. And let's be perfectly clear - one or two people from outside not iniitally seeing the very POV nature of the article does not mean it is either NPOV or beyond improvement. This article must stop being used as a tool. This is not the place for this battle. Gatorgalen (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression there was a much lengthier commentary therein. Again it's up to you as the one who initiated the dispute to point out exactly what content changes will be necessary to resolve it. Somehow I could scarcely believe if all the content change you desire is the summarization of a comment from a single source. We have a few other tools besides a request for comment available to us, though perhaps less graceful. Finding people from outside to examine our work is part of the peer review process. Let's be patient and see what other outsiders have to offer before dismissing their guidance or turning to the next steps in dispute resolution. The tag has been there for months--certainly we are in no hurry.

I think I'll give this another week, but I think generally one of the suggestions for articles with criticism sections and neutrality issues is to integrate the criticism section into the body of the article. (There's a boilerplate for that, too) I don't understand why you would find that any more amenable, but I thought I'd put it on the table. I sense a problem in the passive voice you've used to describe the article. If the article is "used as a tool," then it is up to you to rewrite the article in a non-utilitarian fashion. Or at least give a better description of the defects in which the misuse you describe manifests, so that I may assist you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Understand that there are two entirely separate issues here. The quote is something we should all agree on - that was a basic edit, I didn't take anything out or try to "clean it up". It was a response to the talk page, a good comment by Xanthius, and the fact that that large of a quote simply shouldn't be there. It's out of place. If people want to see the whole quote, we provide the link. This article just tells them the essence of what they'll find there. I didn't edit the quote to prove any point or make any commentary; it was totally separate from the overall issues with the page.

For the record, I did not initiate the dispute by any means. I didn't put the NPOV tag, nor do I know who did (I suppose I could dig through the history and find out). I would love to rewrite the article, but as is proven by my recent edit it would be reverted without consideration. I am not trying to start an edit war, but the honest truth is that there is a serious misconception of the purpose of this article among editors here. There is an appropriate place and time for everything. There is a forum for listing every criticism of any GC church. You could write a book, and I would support you doing so. The bottom line is that the article currently attempts to include every detail that can be found. That would be very appropriate for a book, but not for an encylopedia article. There are several things that could be summarized in a sentence or two but are not. I know that the editors here feel very strongly about the topic, and want to use the article as a warning. I empathize with that. I personally took a few months off of editing the article, and coming back I am just shocked at how slanted it is in the presentation. I have much more to say on this topic and will elaborate later, but I honestly just ask each of you to step back, read the article a couple times, and examine your own motives. Gatorgalen (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My philosphy of editing continues to be that all details, if noted by reliable sources, add knowledge. No apology for that.

My current motive on the Project is to learn how to resolve disputes. Have resolved at Wendy Yoshimura, gained some ground at Criticism of Mormonism, stopped an edit war recently at Raul Castro. Figure to apply conflict resolution here, and have come to understand some frustrations about asserting the affirmative position at Naveen Jain, a topic I got into thinking "sweet, here's a topic where I can escape from controversy for a while" by creating article Intelius. That was rather naive of me! Where it applies here is, with Naveen Jain, I got to the point where I realized that although I wished to portray him in the most positive light possible, I was only going to be able to nail a single "positive" down and at great cost. If there was one most important positive thing about GC that this article doesn't expose, what would it be? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested we summarize the entire quote. What happened was an editor included a much larger quote from the book Recovering From Churches That Abuse. There was discussion about it, and I finally edited it to only include the very first part of the quote, because I felt that part of the quote summarized the entire thing. When I made the edit I made it clear that it was an attempt to compromise between you and InfiniLink's suggestions on the talk page. Further summarizing the already truncated quote is is unnecessary at best, and original research at worst. We have Enroth's summarization, which is notable, we do not need to replace it with our own. Xanthius (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Two quick things - one, that is the entire Paul Martin quote, which is the majority of the "negative" part of that very short section of the epilogue. It is not truncated at all if you'll look at the source again. More importantly, it is not OR to summarize sources. We are not "quoters", we are editors. We pull out of sources the relevant information and put it into digest form. That is what an encylopedia is. Gatorgalen (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Below is the entire quote in full:

The network known as Great Commission Association of Churches (GCAC) claims that it has taken significant steps in the direction of reform and reconciliation with disaffected ex-members. They have published and circulated a "Statement of Errors and Weaknesses" and have discussed the issues raised in that statement in several elders' conferences. The leadership believes they have made sincere attempts to seek reconciliation with disaffected former members. The group has taken steps to encourage accountability to others and has sought advice from several ministry consultants, including leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals and leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ, concerning the errors and problems of the past. They have also encouraged their staff and pastors to pursue additional seminary training, and they have instituted a Council of Reference, individuals to whom the GCAC leadership can go for counsel.

Dr. Paul Martin, director of Wellspring and a former member of Great Commission International (as the group was formerly called), concurs with the opinions of many other former members:

Some encouraging reforms have occurred in recent years after the founder, Jim McCotter, left the movement in the late 1980s. However, the current leadership has not yet revoked the excommunication of its earlier critics. The admissions of error so far have been mainly confined to a position paper, the circulation of which has been questioned by many ex-members. Furthermore, Great Commission leaders have not yet contacted a number of former members who feel wronged and who have personally sought reconciliation. There has been some positive movement in that direction, but most ex-members that I have talked to are not fully satisfied with the reforms or apologies and feel that the issues of deep personal hurt and offense have not been adequately addressed.1

GCAC leader David Bovenmyer indicated in a letter that "we have not been able to achieve reconciliation with all, yet our sense is that some of our most severe critics will not be pleased with us unless we fully vindicate them and join in their denunciations of Jim McCotter, something we cannot in good conscience do."2 A former member sees in such an attitude a pattern that "protects unequivocally the prophet-leader, keeping him in holy light, irregardless [sic] of the realities of distortion and problems seen from those not under the spell. The implication is, then, that they, even though having made significant moves, are still under 'the spell.'"3

What was removed was the implication that many people were pleased with GCAC's reforms. The closest we get here is "Great Commission Association of Churches (GCAC) claims that it has taken significant steps in the direction of reform and reconciliation" and Paul Martin saying "Some encouraging reforms have occurred in recent years after.. a b c.. However, x y z" However, Paul Martin goes on to criticize the reforms, and later Enroth quotes an unsatisfied ex-member. If we're going to summarize, we cannot summarize that many people were truly satisfied with the movement's reforms because that is not what the book says. Or any source that I am aware of. Xanthius (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're talking about two things. If you'll please go look at the summary I wrote, it doesn't claim that anybody was satisfied with the reforms, nor is it implied. I agree with you that it shouldn't, and the summary I wrote reflects that. That's why I really sincerely don't understand your objection, or anyone's for that matter. The summary I wrote was in no way prettier in its reflection of GC. Gatorgalen (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

little thing

Does this belong in the article itself?

"Their statement in its entirety is available here."

Or should we link to it in another way? Maybe down below, or maybe some other way? Let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs) 07:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

From the edit exchange between Gatorgalen and Xanthius yesterday (which I believe should be discussed on talk during an NPOV dispute resolution process) and from your point here, I think we should get back to some backing understandings about quote content as applies to policy WP:NPOV and the essay WP:QUOTE. There is nothing in policy to suggest that the quote can't be included, but to avoid any policy problems with WP:UNDUE, we should ensure some fairness in quoting from one side to another in the debate between the organization and its disaffiliates. WP:OR may also cover some of the analysis of the Weakness Statement. My gut as an editor having worked on other religious criticism articles tells me that the lack of names in the WS may lack notability and may have been simply an observation of the including editor. Since the WS is a central document to the notable criticisms of GC, of course it should be linked, and noting the existence of an external link is important since some members and disaffiliates are unaware of its existence and online availablility. WP:EL is a style guideline, and under normal circumstances it says that external links should not be included in the body of an article. It is just as serviceable for the interested reader to be advised "(See External links below)" as for the reader to have a link provided for the notable document in question. WP:EL recognizes editorial oversight in such situations as is dictated by consensus. In any case, the document is certainly notable enough to let Bovenmyer speak for himself for a few sentences if Martin can too. Tagging notes about Weakness Statement for cleanup. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with the notableness about the doc; I was just wondering if it should be in the article or in the external links. I don't know guidelines etc. as thoroughly as you guys.

tooMuchData

08:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

It just means there's a little more leeway for external links; the rules about such are not hard and fast. I have edited as per your suggestion, providing the link below in "External links" rather than leaving the link within the article, so as to conform to the suggestions of the WP:EL guideline. If consensus in the future dictates that the EL can be returned to the article body, it isn't "out of bounds." But since you noted it, and I'm not aware of any clear consensus, I put this in line with the guideline. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was better to have the error statement linked to directly from that portion of the article, however I can live with it how it is now as well. Xanthius (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)