Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

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

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

@Chetsford wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm clearly not trying to involve Chetsford to bolster my position. I'm clearly stating that if you are in doubt about what they meant with their close you should clarify it with them directly. Please don't assign to me motives that I don't have. You've got three editors in this discussion stating that what you are putting forward as your interpretation isn't correct. Continuing to argue the point, without obtaining advice from Chetsford that your interpretation of their meaning is correct, is coming across as you deliberately not listening. TarnishedPath^talk 11:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Other editors should be aware that Cordless Larry has elevated one of my earlier comments in this thread on this Talk Page to the Administrators Noticeboard on the basis of “tendentious editing” and that Tarnished Path is also commenting on that Noticeboard. Please note that I have made no substantive edits, tendentious or otherwise, to the ICOC article due to being assigned by Cordless Larry the status of having a conflict of interest – a status that I dispute but have chosen to respect by limiting my comments to the Talk Page. Nonetheless, due to the ongoing process on the Administrators Noticeboard, I offer this comment only to further clarify the basis for my position as I believe this topic is worthy of further discussion and resolution. My understanding of the legal effect of a case being voluntarily dismissed by a plaintiff is that the plaintiff is stepping away from their allegations of harm in the jurisdiction where they filed the case. At the time of dismissal, their allegations no longer have any probative value for the plaintiffs or defendants. Similarly, any statements from a reliable source about the allegations in a case prior to the case’s dismissal may be true when written, but have little factual value after dismissal except, possibly, to serve as a historical marker of the case’s existence. What has added confusion to the current situation but is known by most active editors who contribute to the ICOC Talk Page, is that some of the plaintiffs who voluntarily withdrew their federal cases have filed new pleadings with similar allegations in a local state court in Los Angeles, California. Of note, these state cases have been filed in reliance on different laws, in a different jurisdiction using different rules of civil procedure. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no reporting from reliable sources on the state cases. To honor Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, it is my position that editors to the ICOC article who want to sustain the current language about lawsuits should, at a minimum, update the language to reflect the material fact that the federal cases have been dismissed. In my view, an editorial response that most closely aligns with Wikipedia policies on reliable sourcing would be to drop the current language that relies on the dismissed federal cases and the dated articles that were written about them and, if appropriate, develop new language after identifying reliable sourcing for the new state cases and their allegations.  Also, since Tarnished Path raised the issue of me “deliberately not listening,” I listen to all comments on this thread, including so far comments by Tarnished Path, JamieBrown2011, Cordless Larry and North8000 and also Isaidnoway who addresses this topic on the Administrators Noticeboard, not here.  There is not uniform agreement among all these editors as you suggest.   Meta Voyager (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to any speculation for the reasons of discontinuing any federal cases. At present the article merely conveys what is covered in reliable secondary sources. If you've got a reliable secondary source stating that the federal case/s have been dismissed then we can certainly talk about refracturing the current material to include that. TarnishedPath^talk 02:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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

My post was narrow and abstract but I think that it somewhat supports Meta Voyager's position. The crux of my post is that the RFC and close did not discuss or cover dropped/withdrawn cases. So one should not try to interpret the RFC as having said anything about them. So that leave them as a NEW question. IMO the case for including them is much weaker than that of any type and would recommend leaving them out. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Revert of my edit

Moved from User_talk:TarnishedPath#Revert_of_my_edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am willing to find a rewording, however I am trying not to create content for the article, rather to convey what the sources are saying. The source used is Awesome Families: The Promise of Healing Relationships in the International Churches of Christ,

With WP:NPOV in mind "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", I would prefer to keep the wording that sticks close to the source.

Please let me know your thoughts, thanks! XZealous (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require that we closely phrase wording form a source. Per MOS:PEACOCK we should avoid words like awesome unless there is significant usage of such terms in reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand that "peacock" terms should be avoided because they sound promotional. However look at the example the page gave of Bob Dylan. The "peacock wording" is in quotations and then properly sources. The phrase "awesome family" is not my own wording to promote the ICOC. I also put it in quotations with the source at the end. It is the wording written by the source, and that source has both positive and critical things to say about the ICOC.

Also, MOS:PEACOCK encourages the avoidance of words such as "cult" unless found used in reliable sources. I went through the entire Jenkins book, and she actually uses "awesome families" more than the word "cult." Although "cult" is both attested to and criticized against in sources about the ICOC, so it is fine to use it appropriately here as well.

Again, I am only trying to represent the source used. Jenkins is used quite widely in this article both for seemingly positive and critical uses. To only have a critical statement of hers and not a positive one in the lead is clearly wrong, especially when I am trying to add in what she said just one sentence before what is being referenced. XZealous (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Want to touch base with this again. The sentence in discussion is in clear violation of WP:NPOV, and should "explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." I'm not sure that can even be up for discussion as it is clear that the lead has taken a side without representing other viewpoints, especially when other viewpoints are expressed in the sources already used.

"Members have shared stories of reuniting families, having a racially diverse community, healing from past abuses giving credit to the Church's Christian counseling structure. However, former members have alleged that the Church is a cult."

I think this is a fair representation of different viewpoints as described in Jenkin's book pages 1-2. I would suggest reading the source before making comments. Would be great to come up with a fair and balanced representation using the sources we have. XZealous (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It's important to note that Jenkin's book only discusses what members of ICOC wanted her to show her and that her attitude towards ex-members was often dismissive. Janja Lalich discusses this in her review of Jenkin's book. So while we have one book by Jenkin's talking up what members described to her as being positive aspects of the church, we have multiple sources describing the ICOC as a cult.

If you were looking to balance that bit you shouldn't spend twice as much prose on what then current members had shared with Jenkin as you do talking about former member's experiences. You would also take into account other sources and reviews of Jenkin's book. TarnishedPath^talk 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. I have to admit, however, that I'm starting to become concerned with your apparent desire to not see positive aspects written in this article.

The lead is two paragraphs, one of which is exclusively about cult accusations and lawsuits (that are now dismissed btw, which is nowhere noted in the article.) I don't think trying to add half a sentence about member's positive experiences is in anyway extreme. If anything, it would still be underbalanced. If my original edit stood, it would be 9 out of 82 words in that paragraph. Hardly a contentious edit.

I will hold out good faith in your suggestions. However, it is getting harder to maintain as it seems you are against most edits including anything remotely positivity about this organization.

Thank you for Janja's review of Jenkin's book. Sadly I cannot access it as it is behind a paywall. XZealous (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There's the Wikipedia Library, which grants access to multiple journal databases and newspaper archives. You wouldn't be eligible to access now, but once your account is older than 6 months and you've made more than 50 edits you will be.

Also, do you have any secondary reliable sources which state that the lawsuits have been dismissed? TarnishedPath^talk 05:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the Library link! In this thread I am not interested in arguing about the cases being dismissed or not, only the lead being balanced per my original edit. XZealous (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the "awesome families" bit is inappropriate and should remain out. It certainly would not belong in the lead in any case; maybe in the body with some contextualization of how that conclusion was arrived at. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I at least think there should be a balancing aspect to the sentence currently in the lead. XZealous (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a few vague comments. The lead should be a summary of the article, not a place to select the items to give the highest visibility to. Regarding the sexual lawsuits, I think it would be interesting to see if they alleged anything about them being particularly bad in this area. Every large organizations has had members commit some of those things, and at lawsuit time, the lawyers pick whoever has the $$ / insurance and find something that they didn't do to prevent it. It would be interesting to find coverage if something beyond that was alleged. The "cult" question is a big one. They apparently went through a big transition. It would be good to find coverage of any cult-like attributes or accusations, but clearly cover "past" and "recent" as such. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This article covers past and recent quite well What do you think? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

XZealous stated that the sexual assault lawsuits had been dismissed, if that was the case I would think about the suitablity for its place in the lead. However the only reference I can find is Rolling Stone (Wikipedia won't let me post a link here because it's on a blacklist) which is generally unreliable for this sort of material per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. TarnishedPath^talk 04:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a note (as this page is on my watchlist): I'm not sure you all are using the author's intended (typical literary) definition of "awesome" (see #1, as opposed to the US/Aus colloquial #2). The term in that case is neither inherently complimentary nor derogatory, but instead impersonally descriptive; as such it is suitable for an encyclopedia. (In either case, the source should be directly quoted as much as possible for context, as it is the only source used, and it is reporting the author's own assessment of the reported opinions of the members of the church.) SamuelRiv (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Jenkins is not the only source supporting that former members have described ICOC as a cult. There's two in the lead, Jenkins and The Guardian. There are further sorces which could be used if wanted (e.g., [1]). There are even sources to be had from Christian news sites which demonstrate that the ICOC has been referred to as a cult and some of them refer to ICOC as a cult in their own voices (e.g., [2] and [3]). TarnishedPath^talk 06:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Since we are trying to find sources with differing POV's, here is one where the Churches of Christ (1-2 million member group) apologised for using the word "cult" in describing the ICOC. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

That source is already in the article in the International_Churches_of_Christ#The_ICOC:_2000s section and it's also mentioned in the International_Churches_of_Christ#ICOC's_relationship_with_mainstream_Churches_of_Christ (I'll add the source to that section) that Churches of Christ had apologised for previously calling ICOC a cult. TarnishedPath^talk 09:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv, I agree with you here. Taking a look at my original edit, I took care to have the "awesome families" in quotes, as shown in examples from MOS:PEACOCK. XZealous (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

References