Talk:World Mission Society Church of God/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Related organizations

Chang Gil Jah is the Chairwoman of the We love you foundation and Chang Gil Jah is also worshiped at the World Mission Society church of God as "Mother God" so that organization is a related organization.--Peter1007 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Chang Gil Jah or Zhang Gil Jah

Is there any evidence for the usage of the name Chang Gil Jah as used in this article… Also I believe WP:NCP requires us to use Zhang Gil Jah over Chang Gil Jah per that's her preferred spelling --192.41.96.212 (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

2007 comment

The purpose of this Wiki article is to put a definition as to who or what the World Mission Society Church of God is. Who they are as a church is defined by what THEY believe in not what other people believe about their beliefs. This page is not an attempt to persuade nor dissuade one from believing what the World Mission Society Church of God practices or believes. One believed it was a good Idea to include the World Mission Society Church of God into the definable realm of Wikipedia and now the mission stands clear as to state a NPOV definition as to who the World Mission Society Church of God is by stating the churches verifiable beliefs and practices. Making sure this page reflects the beliefs of World Mission Society Church of God, not individual opinions.

To ensure that what is written is factual information about the foundation and beliefs of the World Mission Society Church of God. I have included the name of the chief Pastor, that it was indeed founded by Ahnsahnghong in 1948 in Korea. It is in fact an established church that is in every nation on this planet as of 2007. I have included what the church three movement beliefs are, and that they do in fact believe in Father and Mother God. I have included the system of religious practices the church follows. I have included a member count and number of established churches. These things are all factual information about the church of God which can be easily verified by hundreds of Korean websites and ROK governmental agencies if you read or speak Korean of course. What should be included by definition when something is included in an encyclopedia. And there is no need to put the anti-sites on this article that violates the NPOV guidelines for Wikipedia, the Church official website is all that is needed. We are not trying to use Wikipedia to promote or ruin the church, we are only providing the information as to who and what this church is. There are plenty of other places suited to dispute whether one should or should not follow the beliefs of this organization. So I have changed the information once again to reflect the encyclopedic definition of what the World Mission Society Church of God is. To clarify this article is not written like an advertisement, its just that statistical documented beliefs of the World Mission Society Church of God. Angel

"It is in fact an established church that is in every nation on this planet as of 2007." This deserves to be in the article if it can be verified. Please verify it. I would also suggest changing the last line to get rid of weasel words, saying exactly who accuses the WMSCOG of being a cult. Otherwise, as the article stands now, it appears to be neutral. Wyote 04:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 comment

The purpose of this Wiki article is to put a definition as to who or what the World Mission Society Church of God is. Who they are as a church is defined by what THEY believe in not what other people believe about their beliefs. This page is not an attempt to persuade nor dissuade one from believing what the World Mission Society Church of God practices or believes. One believed it was a good Idea to include the World Mission Society Church of God into the definable realm of Wikipedia and now the mission stands clear as to state a NPOV definition as to who the World Mission Society Church of God is by stating the churches verifiable beliefs and practices. Making sure this page reflects the beliefs of World Mission Society Church of God, not individual opinions.

To ensure that what is written is factual information about the foundation and beliefs of the World Mission Society Church of God. I have included the name of the chief Pastor, that it was indeed founded by Ahnsahnghong in 1948 in Korea. It is in fact an established church that is in every nation on this planet as of 2007. I have included what the church three movement beliefs are, and that they do in fact believe in Father and Mother God. I have included the system of religious practices the church follows. I have included a member count and number of established churches. These things are all factual information about the church of God which can be easily verified by hundreds of Korean websites and ROK governmental agencies if you read or speak Korean of course. What should be included by definition when something is included in an encyclopedia. And there is no need to put the anti-sites on this article that violates the NPOV guidelines for Wikipedia, the Church official website is all that is needed. We are not trying to use Wikipedia to promote or ruin the church, we are only providing the information as to who and what this church is. There are plenty of other places suited to dispute whether one should or should not follow the beliefs of this organization. So I have changed the information once again to reflect the encyclopedic definition of what the World Mission Society Church of God is. To clarify this article is not written like an advertisement, its just that statistical documented beliefs of the World Mission Society Church of God. Angel

"It is in fact an established church that is in every nation on this planet as of 2007." This deserves to be in the article if it can be verified. Please verify it. I would also suggest changing the last line to get rid of weasel words, saying exactly who accuses the WMSCOG of being a cult. Otherwise, as the article stands now, it appears to be neutral. Wyote 04:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of Examiningthewmscog.com as a source

A lot of information about the World Mission Society Church of God is found only in korean, I am looking for korean references but it's hard with google translate. So far the only site with those translations is examiningthewmscog.com , like the translation of the court case of Tak vs WMSCOG. If anybody has other references please let me know, or if anybody has reason why the information from examiningthewmscog.com is inaccurate please let me know.--Peter1007 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The examiningthewmscog.com is evidently a personal blog site which contains personal opinions and thoughts which is considered as an unencyclopedic source. It is an inaccurate, unreliable site that you cannot use as a source. If you use this site as a reference, it is considered as a disruptive editing and using one personal blog or site to generalize the article rejects its verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyinthehouse (talk • contribs) 06:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi nancyinthehouse. Thanks for commenting. Have you read the things that are being referenced in that site? They are court cases, magazine articles and ahn sahnghong books. The only reason why I am quoting the examining site is because it has the translation to english. I will reference the original books from now on also. Please don't blank the articles. Lets try to come to a consensus . You are not only blanking the things taken from examining. --Peter1007 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been to the website it is not a personal blog, it appears that Nancy is a member who doesn't want criticism of her church. --192.41.96.212 (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter1007. You can try here http://ncpcog.co.kr/rb/home/b/0604/441 It is the web site to another church related to WMSCOG in that it had the same founder I believe. The root site can be viewed in English as well. Hope this helps. Superfly94 (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi 192.41.96.212. Then what kind of site is it if it's not a personal blog? --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You cannot bring up any kind of sources to support the article. Personal blog is not an accurate source to be used as a reliable source, especially when the exmembers are denouncing the church with their independent criticism. And please do not interpret the Korean sources arbitrarily. If you blur the essence of the terms and policies of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, you will be warned. Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

disruptive editing without reliable sources

Hi. No opinion is added to this article. Before I edited this article, some people used personal blogs and sites that do not contain neutral points but only personal opinions. Which part of this article do you think is wrong? If you do have any reliable sources to support this article please let me know. I have done research and edited according to the terms and policies of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I am not trying to advertise this church since I have nothing to do with this church/religious movement. I just edited with facts according to reliable sources in a neutral point of view. So please respect my editing. Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi 96.247.64.227 and 38.98.224.68 and other people coming in without logging in - Stop putting wrong information or unnecessary lines which does not have any reliable sources cited to it. I guess you are editing without logging in not to be warned for disruptive writing disruptive editing according by the terms and policies of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, just because you have hatred towards this church/religion. Please be neutral. Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Europe22 - The person with this IP:96.247.64.227 put a line "true church" in the history section which is wrong. It makes this article nonneutral. And I have used all reliable sources of the church/religious movement according to the website of the church. Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly94 you are adding unreliable sources without discussing in the talk page. Please stop disruptive editing or you may be warned thanks! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, but there was no need to remove the UNHRC link, as that is not blog-based. Superfly94 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Superfly94. But 381-2 Suyu-dong #2, Gangbuk-gu is an invalid address. Thanks! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The UNHRC link is a valid link and a trusted source. If the address they have provided is not correct, what is the correct one? The only one available on the WMSCOG website is a mailing address to a PO box. Superfly94 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nancyinthehouse - I just did a Google Maps search and found that the address is INDEED valid. I had to reverse Suyu-dong and Gangbuk-gu for it to come up properly (Likely an Asianism, like first and last names being switched) but, if you go to street view and look to the top of the building, you will see that is says www.watv.org, which is a website that belongs to WMSCOG. Now, if that isn't "Trusted" I don't know what is. I will allow you time to read this and add a rebuttal if you feel it is necessary, but will be undoing your undo-edit within the next 18 hrs or so (because you seem to be in a different time zone than me). Tab A Go to street view, click behind the blue truck and look to the writing at the top of the building. Superfly94 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly94. I have deleted the info. about division. I couldn't find any reliable sources about the division. If you do have please let me know. And you have added a link for the news report section which was a broken link. About Ahnsahnghong's death, it is written in his own article. This article is just about the church so I didn't think it was necessary to focus on that messiah. About the korean address, I went to that google map but it's all written in Korean so it was hard for me to understand. Someone previously put that as a reference, but I have deleted since it contained "claims" which are not regarded as reliable sources and was nonneutral Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields. According to the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, you cannot use personal claims Wikipedia:Verifiability to support the article. Using unreliable sources is considered as a disruptive editing. I work as a freelancer so I come in whenever I can. Thanks for your concern! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nancyinthehouse - Wikipedia's NPOV states, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That means references can be positive or negative as long as both are represented equally in a Wiki article and the article itself is neutral. Although you may feel that the POV put forth in the UNHRC link is only that of one man, a government (Canada) and the UN felt it important and reputable enough to publish it via an open source. This reference was also good enough for the Wikipedia team long before you or I joined in to edit. I will ask that you please undo your deletion. This is not your page, it is everyone's, and that means there are going to be some additions that you don't like but still are in agreement with the terms and conditions. As for the split, it was determined from the WMSCOG and NCPGOC history pages. Given that the split occurred the same year as the founder's death make both fairly important from a historical POV for the church's growth. Please undo that deletion as well. Superfly94 (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sabbath

Looking through the ref on the Article, it doesn't point out the actual worship period (sunset to sunset vs sunrise to sunset). Is there another reference that can be used? Or am I just a blind fool who's completely missed it? Superfly94 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

University papers

Nancyinthehouse - Please explain how the article from the Columbia university paper is not permissible but the U of A and Penn State ones are. According to the author's LinkedIn page, he IS a reporter. If you don't stop editing references that you don't like I will be bringing this up to third party opinion. I suggest you undo your last edit. Superfly94 (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

ReformedArsenal (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Superfly94 (talk) 17

44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)): There is a disagreement as to what constitutes NPOV and what is a reliable source. My understanding of a NPOV article is one that shows a variety of sources, which could be negative or positive, so long as the slant of the Wikipedia article remains neutral. WRT reliable sources, there is a disagreement as to whether or not a government document or article in a University paper (see talk above) are reliable sources. Superfly94 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC) (Christine)

Addition - We also seem to be having an disagreement over what should be included in the history. Superfly94 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC) (Christine)

Viewpoint by (--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02

25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)name): I have edited the article using no claimants or personal pages that are unreliable sources. I wonder why Superfly94 wants to add some unnecessary information that doesn't need to be included. NCPCOG is another independent religious movement and doesn't need to share the same history of the World Mission Society Church of God and about the death of the founder, it is written in ahnsahnghong's article so doesn't necessarily need to be included again. I don't understand why Superfly94 needs to edit this article exceptionally even insulting in my talk page? Wikipedia:No personal attacks Thanks! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion by ReformedArsenal

I would say that articles published in Student news papers are suspect, as in an undergraduate news paper pretty much anyone can publish and there is little oversight from experts. A graduate journal (Columbia) is probably more reliable. However, these sources should be used cautiously, and if there is any suspicion of NPOV issues (like using the term "Cult" in the DP article) they should not be utilized. To introduce a term like that you would need multiple reliable sources who independently use the same language. The Refworld source is good, particularly the quote in that article in the beginning. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:48 am, Today (UTC−4)

Dispute

You are creating a dispute having a personal hatred towards this religious movement. I have not added the article about Penn State. Some other user did. I deleted that as well. NCPCOG and WMSCOG are two independent religious movements. If you want to add history about the separation that NCPCOG has in their own website, please create a separate article about NCPCOG. Please remember not rely on personal claimants that are not reliable sources. Morever, Please do not have personal hatred towards me. I have nothing to do with this religious movement. Yes, University papers with personal claimants and opinions as you have mentioned above, I'm sure you wouldn't put that reference again. Thanks for your concern! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nancy, please please please put your comment into the appropriate space above in the 3O block. We have obviously come to a standstill and need someone not associated with this page to come to a decision. Superfly94 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly94. I have left my comment in the appropriate space above in the 3O block. Thanks!--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What specific source are you disputing about. Please respond here with the source and material that Superfly94 is proposing adding and I will assess the source, and we can move on from there. In regard to having information about the NCPCOG and WMSCOG... if one is part of the history of the other, and that history is covered in WP:RS that are WP:Notable then the information belongs in the article. Finally, Spuerfly94, the post on Nancyinthehouse's talk page does constitute a WP:Nopersonalattacks if you continue to engage in those kinds of posts you will be referred to arbitration for disciplinary action.ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources in question are as follows: http://www.thedp.com/index.php/article/2008/02/korean_church_seeks_recruits_on_campus http://ottewell.gateway.ualberta.ca/articles/news/2010/05/20/wms-church-proselytizing-campus http://columbianewsservice.com/2013/04/have-you-heard-about-god-the-mother/ http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=42df611d20 The first 3 are university newspapers and the last is a published article from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Superfly94 (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Apology added to Nancyinthehouse's page. Superfly94 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say that articles published in Student news papers are suspect, as in an undergraduate news paper pretty much anyone can publish and there is little oversight from experts. A graduate journal (Columbia) is probably more reliable. However, these sources should be used cautiously, and if there is any suspicion of NPOV issues (like using the term "Cult" in the DP article) they should not be utilized. To introduce a term like that you would need multiple reliable sources who independently use the same language. The Refworld source is good, particularly the quote in that article in the beginning. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So...Columbia, U of A and RefWorld pages are in, Penn State is out, as well as any other non-professional papers that use questionable wording. For extra assurance, I will check into the author of any "questionable" papers, as I did with the Columbia auth to ensure credibility with the writer. Also noted that, if the histories are intertwined, that info can be included. Superfly94 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly94 and ReformedArsenal. I have read the Refworld page but it contains a Disclaimer: This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. which evidently proves that it is not UNHCR publication and does not reflect those of UNHCR. Thanks! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nancy, the report was written by a government agency (Canadian) and has been recognized by the UN, as evident with their publishing the article for open source access. The UN might have a disclaimer, but it still recognizes the article as an official document. If a government agency is not a reputable source for Wikipedia, what is? This article needs to be balanced and that means including positives and negatives. As I stated on your talk page, if you were to look up any of the other religion pages you will see that they all have a controversy/criticism section (even Buddhism) and might even have a full page dedicated to controversy/criticism (Catholicism). Without it, this article simply becomes an advertisement for the religion. Superfly94 (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly94. The Refworld page does not quote specific sites that are considered as reliable sources. I deleted the history part you have added because your information comes from a blogsite and not an official site. Please refer to reliable sites. Moreover, the books that the founder wrote which is in the blogsite is owned by the World Mission Society Church of God - Melchizedek Publishing LTD. Those are copies that violates the owner/publishing company's copyright. Thanks! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nancy - We have both participated in the 3O process, of which we were told the following by an editor who has COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE on this topic: 1. The RefWorld site is legitimate. YOU may believe otherwise, but I am well within my rights to input it into the article according to the 3O process If you prefer, we can use the following website, which is managed by the Austrian Red Cross: http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/183952/286725_en.html. 2. The line about the origins of the church in the history is fine according to the 3O process. Your claim that the link is for a blog is false. It is for one of the offshoots of ASH's original church. Your argument that ASH has his own page is invalid as many articles on Wikipedia refer to each other and very few are completely autonomous. It would be silly not to have important info like this in the history section since it affected the church so significantly. If you disagree take it up with an admin. I assure you, if you remove it again, I will. 3. Columbia article is good, most university articles are suspect, so stick to the ones that show balanced reporting (both sides, positive and negative) and Penn State is out as it refers to the church as a cult. In that regard, articles that refer to the church in such a way should be avoided. This was also decided during the 3O process.

Any changes I make will be based on this 3O process. If you disagree then please follow the next process in dealing with disputes, as per the Wikipedia guidelines. If you continue to delete my additions I will report you to an admin. Superfly94 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi ReformedArsenal and Superfly94. I agree that articles published in student newspapers are suspect and that we need to be cautious about using articles written by a graduate as a reference. Moreover, the history section that you are adding: 1. The NCPCOG's site that you have cited is indeed a BLOG that is not built with distinct sources. Especially, the blog contains books of the founder that infringes the copyrights owned by the WMSCOG - Melchizedek Publishing LTD Company. [Wikipedia:Verifiability] As the Wikipedia mentions to "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others." Wikipedia:Copyrights. The NCPCOG does not care about this history section which makes the article gets of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

2. The RefWorld paper also uses questionable sources and the UNHCR clearly puts a disclaimer that UNHCR is not responsible for nor does it neccessarily endorse its content. It does not reflect those of UNHCR. It was made according to the person's research which does not have clear sources.

Thanks!--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The RefWorld paper cites an expert from the Center for Korean Studies. What specifically do you find to be questionable about this source? Also, your editing is becoming WP:TEND and it's clear that you are not editing because of scholarship but because of your bias. I would suggest that you recuse yourself from editing this article, or correct your editing practices, or you may be reported to WP:ANI ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Back in 2007 this article was well rounded - providing both positive and negative points and information based on sources available. No one seemed to have any issues with it until recently. Efforts to rework any type of criticism section have been summarily deleted by one user who has provided one excuse after another as to why this section should not be included, going so far as accusing editors of bias against the church while summarily denying any involvement in the organization themselves. Even reputable sources such as UN-filed documents are deemed unreliable by this user.

I've stepped back for a bit to allow the dust to settle before trying to work on this article's criticism section again. In the meantime, articles I would like to include, in addition to the UN document, are as follows:
http://www.ifex.org/mongolia/2012/01/20/tv-8_lawsuit/
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2012/05/23/broken-windows-theory/
http://ridgewood.patch.com/articles/planning-board-neighbors-suspicious-of-church-of-gods-plans
http://ridgewood.patch.com/articles/the-ridgewood-weekend-family-togetherness-and-a-church-concert
http://www.highlinetimes.com/2013/05/01/news/new-church-clean-seatac-streets-sunday
Some of these are negative, some positive, thus providing a WELL ROUNDED view of how society as a whole views the church. As it stands, this article reads like an advertisement. All one has to do is read the Evangelism section to see this. Superfly94 (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly94. I've went through the links that you have suggested to support this article. I don't understand why you want to put their adverstisements about their concerts or activities to support this article. Advertisements are unreliable sources. Moreover, the washingtoncitypaper is a blog and ifex is a free expression site which the content came from a mongolian site which is not a proper article. The original link itself is also broken. These are evidently unreliable sources. All these come from personal opinions, which does not give Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you want to put some sources to support this article, you must use Reliable sources. I don't understand why you want to include criticism with unreliable sources. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nancyinthehouse, you state: "I don't understand why you want to put their adverstisements about their concerts or activities to support this article. Advertisements are unreliable sources." Please explain how those news reports that you posted are any different? The articles I have cited show how this religion is not that well understood by the communities in which it is located, pure and simple, even though they are active within them. How is that not a neutral POV? I think you misunderstand the point of Wikipedia's NPOV rules. It is not that the material cited has to be neutral. It's that the article on Wikipedia, as a whole, needs to be neutral. In other words, articles cited should show the whole spectrum of what is out there. For every positive article cited there should be one that shows its controversy and vice-versa, if they are out there.
And your comment about the IFEX article makes no sense. Because something was reported in Mongolia it isn't reliable or a proper article? Please explain that to me.

Regarding your assertion that the Washington City newspaper site is a blog, such blogs can be used provided they are part of the newspaper (on their website so, yes) and written by one of their journalists (http://www.wikicu.com/Lydia_DePillis) (Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG). Please check Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, specifically the Biased or Opinionated Sources for more info. Superfly94 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly94.
1. The announcements made by the church were published as articles which are not considered as reliable sources. These are just announcements and not events that took place. The news reports that I cited are news that already took place and the news reporters wrote about the events.
2. http://ridgewood.patch.com/articles/planning-board-neighbors-suspicious-of-church-of-gods-plans and http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2012/05/23/broken-windows-theory/

• For neutrality:
  

According to Due and undue weight - due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. See WP:UNDUE.

3. IFEX article does not cite any original reporter. Notice, if you click on the link, the link to the mongolian site is broken.

• http://www.globeinter.org.mn/ Here's the original link. You can view this page in English.
• http://www.globeinter.org.mn/?language=2 ( I tried to search this article, but whenever I clicked on the results, the links were broken.
  

Thank you for your concern! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nancyinthehouse - If those articles are advertisements then some of your references (specifically #15) should also be removed. I don't think you know how media works. An organization will send out a media advisory about an event that is about to happen. The news entity can either publish or not. An advertisement is, in itself, a paid service. A media advisory is not. So these references above are just as good as the ones you have included. Unless a third party comes in and says otherwise, I will be putting those ones in.

Also, please read the references in my previous post re: POV. The article to which these references refer to is the Wikipedia article as a whole, NOT the articles sited. Therefore these can also be included. Obviously I will not include any article (like the Yale one previously discussed) that accuses the church of being a cult since that is a very loaded word.

As for the IFEX article, sometimes Reuters and Huffington don't refer to a specific reporter either, but their work is considered reliable. Articles like these are written by staffers that follow certain 'beats.' I have more than my own share of published works for which I have not taken credit because it does not benefit me. It's normal in the journalism world. If you don't believe me, check the police reports section of any newspaper as an example. Now, just because the search function for the main site is busted doesn't mean the article is not reliable. Sometimes things break. This, as well as the other articles that show a different POV from what you have published are also going to be added to the page. If you have an issue with this please involve another editor to provide an unbiased POV on the work that I end up including. We have obviously (once again) reached an impasse. Superfly94 (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: undue weight, a Google search of WMSCOG shows more links to those who question the church than those that belong to the church. Granted, many of these are blogs and cannot be included here, but it means that those legitimate sites (the "Patch" one for example) are not an insignificant minority. Therefore they can be included as per WP:UNDUE

Superfly94 (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Superfly94! I understand your feeling about this church, but your argument about #15 seems so pushy. Moreover, the source of the information is very important, especially in the area of religion. I'm sorry that I'm not being much help. As a 3O, I think you need to reconsider the news blog post or Mongolian news article. Trekkerguy7 (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Trekkerguy7, I have no feelings about the church either way. I heard about it, looked online to get more info, and found that the Wiki article did not reflect the information that was available online. Why don't you wait and see what I write in the article and how I I corporate the links into what is already there. The way this info is used may surprise you. Kamsahamnida. Superfly94 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is a mess. It relies too much on the church's website. Much of the material is unsourced. Much of it is unclear because of that weird list of references in News reports. If this isn't improved soon, I will start removing material that is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. There are some other sources that can be used (Rick Ross and Freedom of Mind web sites come to mind) and they were on this page not long ago but removed by another editor as being too biased and against this site's NPOV, the meaning of which we keep arguing. The editor also pointed it out as a personal blog, however the sites have been used frequently on Wikipedia for references as they are the professional websites of Rick Ross and Steven Hassan. The edit in question can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God&dir=prev&offset=20130322111435&action=history I would like to add these references and some of the info they give back into the article but am sure an edit war would ensue. Superfly94 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the link you provided.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. Try this. Removal of Rick Ross and Freedom of Mind sites. Superfly94 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nancy's removal of the material. First, it would be far better to reference secondary sources that feel that Hassan's and Ross's opinions are of value. Second, it surely doesn't belong in the lead. Third, the way it was written we are conferring prominence on the two individuals by calling them experts; we can't do that in Wikipedia's voice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I've also found the link to one of their training centres (Theological Institute) and a non-Church related site (CARM) which references the Hassan site. Now, if the Ross or Hassan site have links to documents pertaining to actions taken by the church or former members against the other (I'm thinking .pdfs for lawsuits) would those be permissible since they don't include an opinion from the website owners, just the documents. I know it seems like all I'm finding is negative stuff but, as stated before, when I learned about the Church I did some searching online and the article here does not reflect the information available. Granted, most of that information is opinion, but if one searches hard enough there are documents available like new articles and such. Superfly94 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. Primary sources (lawsuits) are generally not permissible. I'd have to see a concrete example. (You shouldn't be putting in hard breaks before each of your responses; it's rather unconventional. Also, you should be indenting one extra level each time you respond. Thanks.)--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly94. #15 is a news report and not an advertisment from a church. I have tried to find sources that are reliable for criticism. But I couldn't find any reliable sources to support this article. If you do have, please let me know. About IFEX article, the article comes from a mongolian NGO site. This original site deleted the article so it could not be found. I wonder if this article is still effective. Thanks for your concern! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wordiness

Just ran through some recent edits. There is a lot of sentence phrasing using "they believe" of "They follow" over and over again and makes it sound very repetitive. I've tried to rework some sentences because I was seeing it in every bullet almost. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't change the meaning and makes things a tad easier to read. Superfly94 (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Lack of criticism

This article is clearly biased towards the WMSCOG. They are clearly a cult as virtually all available information on the internet attests, and one that causes problems such as family break ups, forced divorces etc - , and yet nothing negative is mentioned in the article - It reads like an advertisement for new members. Hey look at all the good we do - And makes no mention of the fact they worship their deceased founder as the second coming of Jesus, and his mistress and now current leader as the embodiment of the God mother.

Something needs to be done about this, cults should not be allowed free reign to advertise and win new converts on an encyclopaedia. KJS0ne (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

KJS0ne, on Wikipedia we use sources and facts, not opinions and hearsay. If you have a WP:RS that calls this group a cult, then you are welcome to include that in the article. The same goes with the claim that they worship their deceased founder and now his mistress. If no source exists, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the fact does not exist. Also, new talk threads go at the bottom of the page, not the top. I moved your comments to the correct place. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ReformedArsenal. Too often there is presented an argument against a specific religion, or belief. And people try to brand a specific church as a cult. Although I do not attend this church, I think we need to be careful in using the word "cult" without any reliable sources. As for any article in Wikipedia, facts rather than opinions are appropriate. Trekkerguy7 (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The official church website definitely explains that they worship Ahnsahnghong as the second coming Christ after passing away in 1985 and also that they believe in God the Mother in the flesh. So does the wiki website. To add negativity or "cult" or related terms is to get away from neutrality and is just your opinion, not fact. Someone might view the church you attend as a cult but it is not mentioned on the wiki website of the church, because that is subjective, not objective. This isn't a blog or opinionated website, this is explaining the teachings and beliefs of the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WMSCOG History

Nancyinthehouse - In order to properly tell the story of the WMSCOG, one has to go back to the NCPCOG since the founder started both churches and they were one until 1985. You talk about disruptive editing. Once again, this page does not belong to you alone. Obviously I am trying to put in some extra info that someone might find useful, like the association between the two churches as their doctrine is quite similar. Admittedly, they don't like to talk about their association with each other, but that doesn't mean the info is not important. Your argument is akin to saying one can't include a brief description of the evolution theory when writing about intelligent design. The talk page is here for a reason. If you don't like someone's edit, talk about it here before you go and decide that it doesn't belong. Superfly94 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to add this information because this is not the NCPCOG wiki page, but the WMSCOG page. This is a teaching/history claimed by the NCPCOG, and it is on their website, so it is fair to put it on their wiki page. However, the WMSCOG does not claim this history on their website, so should not be explained about on their wiki page. It is irrelevant to the church's teaching and history, otherwise it would be on the church's website under the history section, however it is not their. It is one claim vs another, and unverifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read the section below titled Dispute. The whole subject regarding the NCPCOG website is explained there. Please do not delete information you disagree with, especially after the subject has been discussed at length. Superfly94 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition, please note the comment from ReformedArsenal regarding an editor who continuously tried to remove the section you also have an issue with - "06:13, 26 April 2013‎ ReformedArsenal (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,668 bytes) (+385)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Nancyinthehouse (talk): I'm not sure what copyright violation you are refering to, this is a valid citation. (TW)) (undo | thank)" The edit occured some time ago so you will have to go through the edits page to find it but the date is included above. Superfly94 (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not disagreeing with information, rather it is coming from a different church's website, not from the WMSCOG. NCP claims that is the history; WMS claims a different history. Because one cannot objectively verify this history, it should not be included. For example, another church's website might claim that the WMSCOG is a cult. However, because this is a claim from another church, and subjective, and unverifiable, it would not be included. On the NCPCOG wikipage, feel free to edit and add in this information, as they have included it on their website.

As Reformed Arsenal wrote some time ago, "...In regard to having information about the NCPCOG and WMSCOG... if one is part of the history of the other, and that history is covered in WP:RS that are WP:Notable then the information belongs in the article." Although the churches are separate entities today, prior to 1985 they were the same. Unless you are saying the ASH ran two separate and distinct churches or one of these churches is lying? Your arguments have been made and refuted already by other editors during an official dispute resolution process. If you believe this portion should not be included perhaps you should ask for someone to conduct dispute resolution Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution or seek a third opinion Wikipedia:3O Superfly94 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one of the churches is lying. The church was not divided into two. Just before Ahnsahnghong passed away, he held a general assembly with the members of the church he established. There was both attendance and a picture taken of that meeting. At the meeting, Ahnsahnghong appointed the head office to be wherever Zhang Gil-Jah is and Joo Choel-Kim as the general pastor. The picture that was taken at that time shows the same members that are now pictured as elders and senior pastors in the WMSCOG. There were no members of the NCPCOG at that time. The members who started the NCPCOG were not present as the leaders of that meeting and already stopped going to the church Ahnsahnghong established. So there is a big discrepancy in the history here. It is not factual to write that the church was divided into two; it is incorrect. If one has not seen the attendance or the pictures then I'm not sure what evidence they have to conclude that the history listed on the NCPCOG website is true. It is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is your evidence of this? I am going by what is available online through open source. If you have a reference available for all to see that states this please let me know. By your own explanation, at one time everyone worshiped as one church since ASH passed away in 1985. (Also, please sign your work on the talk page with 4 ~ signs). Superfly94 (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I am submitting a notice for edit warring. Link to edit warring page (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

http://wmscog.org/index.php/the-church-of-god-sectarianized-after-christ-ahnsahnghong-ascended/ There is the evidence from an open source. This website states how the church was established. http://www.thetruewmscog.com/ncpcog-vs-christ-ahnsahnghong/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

One cannot use another church's website, which clearly has a dispute with WMSCOG, as evidence. It is biased. Because it is subjective both ways, it should not be included at all on the history page.

No, not everyone worshipped as one church until Ahnsahnghong passed away. They stopped worshipping in his church prior to that time, not in 1985. Some members left the church and later formed their own church. However, Ahnsahnghong did not establish the NCPCOG. This is why it is incorrect to include it on the page. Again, if it is important evidence you feel should be included, please include it on the NCPCOG wikipedia, not WMSCOG, as it is not "history", it is a subjective claim of the NCPCOG. The WMSCOG does not believe this, so it doesn't make sense to have it on their website. Sticks830 17:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Sticks33Sticks830 17:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from any more edits on the disputed section. Any additional information should be listed here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Carly3737_reported_by_User:superfly94_.28Result:_.29 Superfly94 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the NCPCOG is a different church and not related to the WMSCOG. In addition, it will be a violation to the Wikipedia policy of the Neutral Point of View to change the history by following the claim of one party only. Trekkerguy7 (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this is not just one person's view. This was decided by an independent third party, as shown below. And there is nothing in Wiki:NPOV that says that just one person's input cannot override others. Please get your facts straight. If you think that I am wrong then please participate in the notice board where Carly3737 and I are having the dispute and add whatever NEW evidence you may have. Superfly94 (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is new evidence needed??? You provided ONE site with the NCPCOG's history, I provided TWO sites...That is the evidence and reference! It's done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, both your sites are blogs and, as thus, are not admissible to cite as references. If you don't believe me please go to the Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and ask there. Second, you need NEW evidence since the previous decision was based on an unbiased third opinion that got involved during an official Wikipedia:DR process. Finally, please start signing your edits on the talk and discussion pages with four tildes (These things ~). Superfly94 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

They are not blogs, they are websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

From http://www.thetruewmscog.com/mission-of-the-true-wmscog/ "First of all, let me start off by saying that this website is not an official website from the World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG); this is my personal website. I am a member of the World Mission Society Church of God." Therefore, blog.

Second, from http://wmscog.org/index.php/557-2/ "I opened this website for the people who cannot distinguish the difference between the truth and what is false." Also a private site.

Both these sites are run by one person and have no official affiliation with any organization, be it scholastically, through a government organization, or even a church, etc. therefore they are a blog. Also, the fact that neither of the creators openly identifies themselves by name, just by association, also means they cannot be sited for ref here so even their info cannot be used as "evidence." As I suggested to Trekkerguy7, if you do not believe me, maybe approach the good people who frequent Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and they will tell you the same.

Finally PLEASE start signing your name to your contributions on talk and discussion pages. Superfly94 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because it is not an official website of WMSCOG doesn't mean it is a blog. Once again, the NCPCOG website cannot be used to testify about another church's history. It is biased toward their own belief. I don't know how many more times to say this. If this was the history of the WMSCOG, then it would have been included on the WMSCOG website, but it is not However, if you read thetruewmscog website or the official church website you can see that the WMSCOG claims a different history than NCPCOG claims, which is why it is not included. If there were a NCPCOG wiki page, would it make sense to use the WMSCOG website as a reference? Or a Catholic Church website? Or any other church website for that matter? Never. Additionally, if this point is so important, according to Superfly94, I question why he/she has not yet created a NCPCOG wiki page yet, though many editors have made this suggestion. It seems like it is a point to try and skew the history of the Church of God rather than providing objective and factual information. Sticks830 18:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Sticks30

Please go to Wiki Blog to see what a blog is or, if you still disagree, ask the fine people in the Teahouse, for which I have previously given you the link above. Superfly94 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Still not addressing how it's ok to use another church's website to testify about a different church....or why you haven't created a NCPCOG wikipage....75.67.112.116 (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Sticks830

Already answered in the dispute section, but I'll quote Reformed Arsenal again, "In regard to having information about the NCPCOG and WMSCOG... if one is part of the history of the other, and that history is covered in WP:RS that are WP:Notable then the information belongs in the article. " Like it or not, their histories are intertwined. ASH started the COG, which split in 1985. That would be why the NCPCOG has photos of him and all of his published works available on their web site and the WMSCOG has never legally challenged them wrt copyrights and trademarks. Now, before you say that this church is lying and that ASH had nothing to do with them, I could very well ask you the same thing. How do you not know that the WMSCOG isn't lying about their history? If you go to the WATV site, they don't lie and say neither church is related through its histories. They just don't include the portion where the churches split. It's an omission, so neither church is lying. Now, as for why I don't start an NCPCOG page, for the same reason I don't start a page on the history of the tent caterpillar in modern society - because I just don't have the time to spread my resources that far. Superfly94 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A point to ponder. A Wiki article needs references from a multitude of sources that are independent of the subject, as per Wikipedia:42. If any of us wants this article to remain, we need to go outside of the usual WATV and WMSCOG-based sites in order to keep it going. The newspaper articles included are mostly news releases that were initiated by the specific churches unfortunately so they can't really be considered significant coverage. The NCPCOG page is now independent of the WMSCOG so it would count as an acceptable source. Others would be scholarly pages, lectures, etc, of which no one has been able to find it seems. Superfly94 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

NCPCOG is not part of the WMSCOG's history. As mentioned, members of the NCPCOG left the church BEFORE 1985 and formed their own church. This portion is not included on the NCPCOG's website now, is it. The church did not split. Members have pictures and his works because they used to attend the WMSCOG and left the church before Ahnsahnghong passed away, therefore they had the listed materials. How do I know WMSCOG isn't lying about their history? As mentioned, personally, I have physically seen the pictures and attendance of the last general assembly held by Ahnsahnghong, at which none of the current NCPCOG members attended, for they had left. The same members at that meeting are the current elders of the WMSCOG. Have you seen these? Hmm, I'm surprised you stated "you just don't have the time" to spread your resources that far, as to start a wiki page for NCPCOG, yet you are putting this much effort into adding biased information into the WMSCOG page. Like it or not, the information coming from another church's website is biased. Just as Catholic information from a Catholic website will be biased towards their own claims, or any other denomination of Christianity, so the NCPCOG is biased towards their own claims. Therefore, it is innaccurate to include their claim on another church's website. The reason the proposed history is not included on the watv website is because it didn't happen.. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense for another church's opinion to be on the WMSCOG website. Sticks830 21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Sticks830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs)

You state, "Members have pictures and his works because they used to attend the WMSCOG and left the church before Ahnsahnghong passed away, therefore they had the listed materials. So, why is there a NCPCOG symbol behind ASH? ASH preaching Superfly94 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

--Because the name WMSCOG was not adapted yet! Still does not testify that the church split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Using an independent source of WMSCOG makes no sense whatsoever and lacks validity... In viewing the Catholic Church wikipedia page, the references listed are Catholic documents and webpages. On the Baptist wikipedia page, the references listed are Baptist documents and webpages. Then, likewise, in the exact same way, what references should be used on the World Mission Society Church of God wikipedia page? Would it make sense to list OUTSIDE sources or sources from a DIFFERENT church? How would that be of neutral point of view? Obviously, documents and websites from the WMSCOG should be used in order to write the wikipedia page for the WMSCOG. The point you are stating makes no sense whatsoever. Sticks830 22:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Sticks830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs)

First of all, if you look a little deeper, some of the religious-based articles do indeed have references from other religions. Specifically the Church of England. Second, you still have not explained why ASH is preaching in front of an NCPCOG emblem. Saying that some people left while he was still living makes no sense. That would mean that they also stole the emblem. So, you're saying that not only are the people of NCPCOG liars but thieves as well? You seem to be making some very broad accusations so that this one line regarding a shared history does not get included on the page. Superfly94 (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, talk about twisting words. You're making this into a petty middle school argument playing with words. I'm here to work on the page being factual and true. You seem to be spending a lot of time on this page in general while claiming that you don't have time. I'm not sure why all of your effort is going into this page and this line when the WMSCOG does not claim or believe in this proclaimed "history" of the NCPCOG but denies it and explains the history from their point of view. It is clear you are not affiliated with either church or you would have make a NCP wiki page, or would know the history of it accd. to WMSCOG. It is attempting to create rumors and provide unverified information. Because the relations between the WMSCOG and NCPCOG seem to be fragile, a third party should be that much more cautious to NOT use information specifically from the opposite source in order for it to remain a neutral point of view. If you would like more information about them leaving the church while he was still alive, please refer to the link to the article I already provided. It explains it completely. I'm not sure why it's still not making sense to you, because the article explains it and even gives examples of it happening during the time of Jesus as well. Sticks830 02:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Sticks830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) The NCPCOG website is a blog as well. Sticks830 02:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Sticks830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs)

And again, your references are blogs. The NCPCOG site has been deemed NOT to be a blog by an independent third party, as I stated earlier and will again as follows

(cur | prev) 06:13, 26 April 2013‎ ReformedArsenal (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,668 bytes) (+385)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Nancyinthehouse (talk): I'm not sure what copyright violation you are refering to, this is a valid citation. (TW)) (undo | thank)

Please check that edit and you will see it refers to this specific line AND web site.Superfly94 (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Lol he doesn't even know about the copyright violation! He has no idea! Still not a valid source that it is deemed not to be a blog. And the copyright issue wasn't even addressed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So now User:ReformedArsenal doesn't know what they're doing? The copyright issue (which, according to Korean copyright law, there is none and I can explain this further if you like) is a red herring since we are talking about the history, not the books listed on the site. And I am still waiting for your explanation over the use of the NCPCOG emblem behind ASH as he's preaching. I have been good enough to answer your challenges. Please show me the same respect by answering mine. Also, re: the WMSCOG sites that you say are not blogs, pls take the time to go to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and see what the people there say. Maybe you'll believe me if others say the same. Superfly94 (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Don't need to answer anything; regardless you are going to have a negative bias towards WMSCOG. Only needed proof as to why using NCPCOG website isn't valid, and what the history is accd. to WMSCOG, and that the history is subjective so should not be included, which I and Nancyinthehouse have shown repeatedly, though you are continually looking for a nonexistent loophole. You haven't answered all my challenges and are quite innappropriately and knivingly twisting my words; again I'm not here for petty, middle school arguments but facts. You can go ahead and get the last word in this if you'd like. 75.67.112.116 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Sticks83075.67.112.116 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So, for over 4 days I had a call out for User:Sticks830 to request initiation of the 3O, DR or any other such mediation process to sort out this dispute since, as far as I see, there is no new evidence in this argument from when I initiated the DR process. Nothing was done or said. As stated in the edit warring noticeboard, since I initiated the last mediation, and I don't feel there is any new evidence, it's up to someone else to initiate. I have re-inserted the portion that kept being deleted. Superfly94 (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

To Special:Contributions/75.67.112.116, if you do not agree with a piece of information discuss it here. FYI, this specific piece has already been debated and involved in Wikipedia:DR. Please review the information below and past edits to see what has already been presented. If you feel you have something new to add please start another Wikipedia:DR or Wikipedia:3O process. Any more reverts to this bullet, beyond what you have already done will warrant reporting you as violating the 3 revert rule WP:3RR. Superfly94 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

3O response

3O Response: The 3O question is: "should the article say that in 1985 the church split into the New Covenant Passover Church of God (NCPCOG) and World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG)?" The 3o response is "No". If there is independent, non-church, non-personal, non-SPS, third-party type news sources that say so, then those sources can be used to say a split occurred. (The 1985 bullet item in history does not have independent RS, so the stuff about the division should be removed. The NCPCOG website is SPS (not a newsblog), and since it involves info about third parties it is inappropriate.) In general, the NCPCOG stuff is a POV fork. This is clear from the NCPCOG website that describes it as the only, one, true, etc. church. Moreover, if NCPCOG is notable, then WP:WTAF. At that point a "See also" link can be added to this article. Until then, someone might add a footnote about the founder which says "Founder AS-h later established the NCPCOG. [Whatever.]" And you leave it at that! (PS: As this dispute has spilled onto the EWNB, it really isn't a 3O.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

EWNB? Superfly94 (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit War Notice Board (sorry). – S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich - Thank you for your help with this matter. Regarding a footnote at the bottom saying "Founder AS-h later established the NCPCOG. [Whatever.]" -- my only concern is - WMSCOG claims that ASH did not establish NCPCOG whatsoever, while NCPCOG believes ASH as the founder. Perhaps then if this information should be included, (talk) should write a page for NCPCOG explaining this information rather than including it on the NCPCOG page, which has no relation? Sticks830 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Sticks830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticks830 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the official WMSCOG page states no such thing regarding the NCPCOG. The pages that do say that are blogs here and here and are thus unreliable sources. Superfly94 (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct, the official WMSCOG states nothing regarding NCPCOG because it has no relationship with the church whatsoever. If it did, or if the church split into two, it would be included on the history page. None of the WMSCOG listed websites state that Founder ASH later established the NCPCOG because it didn't happen like that. NCPCOG claims that, which is fine and up to their discretion, which is why it would be listed on a page for NCPCOG, not WMSCOG. Sticks830 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Sticks830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticks830 (talk • contribs)

Anything that one church says about another should not be used -- as non-RS. Things that the churches say about themselves, on their own article pages, is acceptable even though they are primary source. WP policy says "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." We can safely assume that what the churches say about themselves, as churches, is reliably published. Material such as "we are the one true religion" etc. is problematic. Indeed, we would not say "Church XYZ says they have the one true interpretation of ...." because all churches basically say they are/have the "one true" doctrine etc.) To restate my 3O, if there is independent secondary RS (such as The Church Lady) that asserts something, then that can be used. – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)