Walterkwhite

Wondering Why There Is No Mention Of The ICOC Being A Cult On The ICOC's Wikipedia Page?

When I do a simple Google search on "International Churches of Christ" I come up with many results that talk about the ICOC being a cult. Why are these things not mentioned in the Wikipedia ICOC article in a controversy section. The whole article reads like an advertisement for the ICOC. It is not encyclopedic in quality.

I did a simple Google search for The International Churches of Christ. Here are the results: 1. The Wikipedia article 2. An ICOC produced website 3. A website calling the ICOC a cult 4. A website stating that the ICOC has some controversial beliefs. 5. A website that would recommend people to stay away from the ICOC. 6. 3 videos talking about the ICOC being a cult. 7. A website calling the ICOC a cult. 8. A website discussing controversial beliefs. 9. A story of a person escaping the ICOC calling the ICOC a cult. 10. A website talking about the faulty beliefs of the ICOC. 11. A website calling the ICOC a cult. 12. A website calling the ICOC a cult. 13. An ICOC produced website 14. An advertising website 15. A website stating that the ICOC abuses people. 16. A paper written by an ICOC leader. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:299C:36C:B735:2293 (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no mention of the ICOC being a cult because Wikipedia user JamieBrown2011 works hard to control the content of what goes on the Wikipedia ICOC page. JamieBrown2011 has a history of deleting other peoples' comments and tries to control the content of the ICOC article. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5142:ABEC:5B2D:D219 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Also it is my guess that members of the ICOC are trying to keep the page sanitized and not allow any negative information of any kind into the article. Yes I know that a simple Google search produces dozens of articles and websites on the ICOC being a cult but there isn't even a criticism section or anything negative allowed in the ICOC article. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5142:ABEC:5B2D:D219 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There are "guard" editors at almost every page about a controversial topic. While their behavior is not ideal, there's a clear solution: build a strong enough consensus for the changes you wish to see. Then, reversions from guards/whitewashers/POV pushers will be re-reverted, and eventually the guard editors will face community sanction if their edits are reversing consensus.

I'm going to put this page on my watchlist and come back to it later. I think a good way forward would be to use this talk page to start compiling a list of potentially usable sources. I'm peripherally interested in this topic, enough so that I will do a Google search tonight and see if I come up with anything that looks reliable enough to use. Pecopteris (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)