Talk:Good News Club

WP:NPOV

This content appears to have been largely written by one author intended primarily as a critique, rather than an encyclopedic article. It certainly fails in light of WP:UNDUE. There may be a WP:COI issue as well. I would propose that this content be trimmed down, cleaned up, merged with the related Child Evangelism Fellowship article, and remain as a redirect. HokieRNB 19:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Author's response: the Good News Club has an extensive history and a wide reach, has been the subject of scores of lawsuits and published books, and is the subject of genuine controversy and public interest from parents curious to know the Club's aims and teachings. Merging the subject matter into an article on Child Evangelism Fellowship would tend to bury the content. It would be helpful if you clearly and exactly explained which parts of the article does not seem to have a NPOV, and why, and suggest edits or additional content (as opposed to deletions) to balance the article. Intrinsicdignity 7:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

When you say "scores of lawsuits and published books", are you speaking primarily of the recently published book by Katherine Stewart? Other than that, I can't find any other books that would qualify as a reliable source due to restrictions on WP:SPS. So all your references are either Katherine Stewart (making it suspect under WP:ONESOURCE), publications of the organization itself (which fail WP:PRIMARY), or your own website (which fails WP:ORIGINAL). I don't think much addition is necessary, but yes, much content should be deleted. HokieRNB 14:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Stewart's book isn't particularly good, primarily because she couldn't keep her book tightly focused on GNC and CEF. She tried for an "expose," and she has failed horribly.--sn 10 March 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.52.85 (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Author's response: Besides the books that have been published by or about J. Irvin Overholtzer, by his wife Ruth Overholtzer, and by Katherine Stewart, the Good News Club has been mentioned in numerous other published books and, more significantly, been the subject of scores of lawsuits, one of which reached the Supreme Court. In fact, Good News Club cases dominate bible club equal cases. All of this points to the wide reach and influence of the Good News Club. It is notable that you, a self-proclaimed "Calvinist Wikipedian," deleted practically all of the factual information on the dark-heart/sin-focused message of the Good News Club -- information quoted and cited directly from CEF's website. It is also notable that your primary concern with preserving the integrity of other theological articles is preventing them from being suddenly "merged" into another; yet that is what you proposed here. Hokie, you're giving the Good News Club article a Calvinist white-wash. You should disclose any COI that you have with Child Evangelism Fellowship. (I have none). I propose that we forward this to a neutral, third-party arbiter?Intrinsicdignity 5:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.180.109.229 (talk)

We already have a page for Wordless Book. If there is referenced content that should be added regarding that, it should go on that page. Unless you can find WP:RELIABLE Sources discussing the use of the Wordless Book in the context of Good News Clubs, there shouldn't be any further analysis on this page, otherwise you are straying into WP:ORIGINAL Research. There is absolutely nothing Calvinist about my edits. I have no relation to CEF, but you have already disclosed the COI that exists by identifying yourself as "Intrinsic Dignity". I would welcome other editors to weigh in on this page, and particularly on the appropriateness of what I perceive is WP:UNDUE Weight in the "criticism" category. I think a short paragraph on the lawsuits, and particularly on the one Supreme Court case, using secondary sources (not the texts of the lawsuits themselves, which would be primary) that discuss the impact of those cases on Good News Clubs, is all that needs be said about that. Also, you have cited your own self-published website for some of the statistics on growth. Could you provide more complete references instead? (I have already made note of those in the article.) I don't feel strongly one way or the other about merging this with the CEF article, but I do think some of the early history should be included in that article, either instead of here, or in addition to here. HokieRNB 22:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Author's response: Hi Hokie, I plan to come back to this later when I get the time, and provide a long list of secondary resources. A few quick notes: I appreciate some of your edits. My original contribution needed improvements. Recognizing flaws in some of some of the content you deleted, I am not inclined to "revert" them. Rather, I plan to give some of that content another fresh effort (when I get the time). I can provide the newspaper references you requested regarding the Good News Club's historical influence. The flipside of "UNDUE weight" is "DUE weight." The Good News Club has had unparalleled reach and influence, as well as widely published controversy, including controversy that extends beyond church-state separation, much of which controversy is uniquely applicable to the Good News Club rather than to CEF as a whole. I believe that the "curriculum" section needs expansion to give it due weight. Not all versions of the "Wordless Book" are the same or even that close. Some versions just use blank colored pages and discuss sin as a general condition of humanity; CEF's version of the "Wordless Book" narrative is quite personal and uses a "dark heart" symbol. One path to achieving "balance" is to present some of CEF's explanations for its approach. I can work on providing some of those perspectives too, or if you are familiar with CEF's arguments, we can work cooperatively on it. While it may be appropriate to add some of early history to the CEF article, the history here focuses on the Home Bible Class Movement, the program that is most similar to, and the direct precursor of, today's Good News Club. Finally, as far as COIs go, I used the handle "Intrinsic Dignity" from the beginning, in accordance with I considered to be best practices. In connection with the website www.goodnewsclubs.info, I'm not paid or employed and my interests are neither business related or self-promotional. Intrinsicdignity 1:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Other than this website: Moore, Waylon B. (2008). "Mentoring: A method for witnessing to children"., the overwhelming majority of web references connecting "dark heart" and the "wordless book" are from your own work. I just don't see any other WP:RELIABLE Sources that could be used to insert additional commentary regarding this. I do think it would be helpful to clarify whether an editor who runs a website specifically aimed at criticism of a specific organization should be considered to have a WP:COI when editing the article for that organization. I will ask that question in the appropriate forum, if I can find it. HokieRNB 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Author's response: A simple web search isn't necessarily a reliable basis for determining weight, particularly when searching for visual content or discussing the history of a decades-long program that precedes the Internet. But I appreciate your skepticism. In due course, I'll provide links from various CEF related websites and other sources that depict the "dark heart" symbol.Intrinsicdignity 8:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Author's follow-up: Please note smallbone's reversion of a couple of deletions. In response to smallbone's request, I added several requested citations. I also followed up one of smallbone's reversions with a summary of, and references to, CEF's POV. In due course, I can provide even more support from third party sources for the "due weight" the article deserves and links to various newspaper articles, including the WSJ and NYT, demonstrating the existence of substantial church-state and pedagogical controversy. In due course, I can also contribute a summary of published post-Milford caselaw (and it is substantial) involving the Good News Club. Finally, in defense of this relative quality of this article, I note that, by comparison, the opening 5 paragraphs of the "Child Evangelism Fellowship" article lack any citations despite its long history of edits and its lifting of promotional language (e.g., two references to "effectively" and multiple references to "evangelizing" with comparatively little elaboration on the specific content of the message) from CEF's own marketing materials. Reiterating what I said earlier, it is more appropriate to balance an article about a noteworthy topic with additional citations and sources to noteworthy sources than it is to excessively prune it, on a pretense of advancing "neutrality," to an uninformative stub.Intrinsicdignity 9:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied thus far with the response. I still doubt that too many people see a need for much comment (if any) about the "dark heart" theme that you seem intent on focusing on. Jesus talks more in the Bible about hell than any other subject, so it's not out of line with a traditional teaching of the Bible to impart a right understanding of sin and judgment. In fact, that's just the exact areas where Jesus indicated the Spirit would begin his work when he came - convicting with respect to sin, judgment and the righteousness of God. However, I think it would remain out of balance if this article never actually tried to explain what the Good News Clubs actually believe the "Good News" is. My primary concern is that we don't replace what should be an informative encyclopedic article with a clone of your "exposé" site. That amounts to WP:ORIGINAL Research. HokieRNB 13:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hokie, thanks. I wouldn't want this article to become a clone of my website. I find your comments about traditional teaching fascinating and would very much enjoy a private conversation with you about them. But I'm not sure where we could have that conversation. If you contact me through other channels, rest assured I will keep it private and of course not violate your anonymity. Again, I would welcome that dialogue and would benefit from understanding your perspective better, particularly given your apparent familiarity with the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrinsicdignity (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

'Author' of this article

Just a friendly reminder that, notwithstanding the comments in the section above, there is not just one "author" of this page. The people responsible for the article are usually referred to as "editors." Thanks, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Good News Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.firstfreedom.gov/ff_education.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Good News Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004233643/http://www.gncnc.org/index_files/GoodNewsClub.htm to http://www.gncnc.org/index_files/GoodNewsClub.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cefkids.com/CEFLiteratureCycle.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cefbritain.org/articles/versus.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)