Talk:City Harvest Church/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

---

Removal of section - Prominent members

This seems to be out of context as there are many prominent members in City Harvest Church besides Sun Ho.

What is the purpose of including this?

Jing13 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Disputed Tag

Most of the figures and facts under City Harvest Church has the sources cited. Are there any statments in the article that are disputed?

As quoted above under Too many "Citation Needed" tags?, < Why do we need those tags in those short paragraphs? They are neither statsitics or figures that needed verifications. If we tag stuff like these, then shouldn't we also tag "citation needed" for say, "Singapore 2006 was held in Suntec City"? >

I agree with the above post and I do not think that everything on the articles needs to be cited. For example,

they also participated in Ulf Ekman's Israel Study Trip, which includes Christian holy sites and towns, except West Bank.[citation needed]

Jing13 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 'This article or section does not cite any references or sources'

I have removed this tag as the article has quoted references to various sources.

Jing13 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs more third party sources. - 222.164.82.241 09:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to have information from reliable sources confirming that it is notable outside of its immediate community. - 222.164.80.23 05:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 'Unappropriate Tone'

I have removed the 'An editor has expressed a concern that the tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia.' from the City Harvest Church article.

The tone of the article does not seems offensive or inappropriate and is formal. I have also checked the talk page and there does not seem to have any outstanding concerns or 'debates'

Jing13 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the article: "Today, CHC is sending out teams to various parts of Asia to minister the Word of God to people everywhere with healing, signs and wonders following". Stuff like this is entirely inappropriate in tone for an encyclopedia -- and it's plagiarized from [1] to boot. I've stripped out the fluff. Jpatokal 10:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Service Timings & 'Unappropriate Tone'

Dear Jpatokal,

You have removed my contribution about the service timings of City Harvest Church, citing that they are not of "encyclopedia" content.

I have added them back as they are facts and serve as information of City Harvest Church's different services and timing.

Further more, many other Churches in Singapore have their own service timing included in their Wikipedia pages. To name a few :

• Church of the Holy Family Singapore
• Faith Community Baptist Church
• Church of the Sacred Heart-Singapore

With regards to the inappropriate tone, since the part about “healing and wonders” has been removed, the tag of 'An editor has expressed a concern that the tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia’ can be removed.

Jing13 10:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've raised this on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Scheduled church services. As for inappropriate tone, I've tagged one particularly egregious paragraph, but eg. the mission statement is still blatant fanboyism. Jpatokal 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Dear Jpatokal,

Every Church would have its own Misson Statement, much like a school's motto. The Misson Statement of a Church reflects upon the Church. Every Church has their own area of focus, or an area where they are particularly strong in. Having the Misson Statement and the services that a Church has will only let others know more about the Church.

I think that it's only right to include both the Mission Statement and information about the Church's services.

And may you explain why you have tagged the particularly egregious paragraph? What is your concern?

Jing13 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And there we have it: your goal is to "let other know more about the Church". Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia's goal is to write an encyclopedia.

The paragraph is tagged because it's terrible English, adds little if any value, is POV ("our") and is unsourced. As for church services being relevant or not, so far the consensus is not going your way, but please contribute on the Talk page for WP:NOT. Jpatokal 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have re-did the section. I think it will be better this way. I think we all have the interest at heart to make an article better. Just that we need to put it down properly. :) Tripartite007 01:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

　Thank you, the article is better now, although still one-sided. Jpatokal 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevancy of including other mega churches

To the person who edit in reference of other mega churches, and said it is to "give credit to other mega churches": what is the rational? Why do you need (and what do you mean) to "give credit to other mega churches" in an article about one church? Give "credit" for what? This is totally irrelevant to the article. It would help if you elaborate on that. For now, I am removing the irrelevant content. Also, the next sentence suggest that City Harvest Church has many cooperative relationship with many of these "mega churches". The truth is, CHC cooperates with many other churches, not just mega churches. Atticuslai 03:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In the previous edits, mega churches are already mentioned.

"The other mega churches in Singapore, namely New Creation Church and Faith Community Baptist Church, have different areas of focus."

Is there a reason for you to remove it now?

In the context of mega churches, there are many other churches in Singapore besides New Creation Church and Faith Community Baptist Church.

Its true that CHC has working relationships with other churches, but right now the paragraph is talking about mega churches.

203.127.74.49 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is an example of undue emphasis. We already mentioned that CHC networks with other churches in the preceding paragraph, but to repeat that point with a paragraph that stresses only certain named mega-churches is to unduly emphasise the relation between CHC and these specific churches. Unless CHC specifically mentions that they seek out churches to network with based on their size (and no, your suspicions/guesses/hunches don't count), then we should not specifically mention mega-churches as examples. Resurgent insurgent 11:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would think that if churches which network with CHC are to be named at all, then name them all instead of emphasising the mega-churches. Note that if you name them you must provide an official source. If even CHC's website doesn't mention all of them, don't add any names to the article. I am still opposed to naming any of them because it is normal for churches to network, either formally or informally; it is not something exclusive to CHC. I also reconsidered the protection of the article because I have inadvertently become involved in this little dispute and it is unfair for someone involved to protect the article. Resurgent insurgent 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertisment Tag

Dear Polarizer,

You tagged the article "This article or section is written like an advertisement."

May you cite examples in the article where this seems to be true?

The information in the article are factual and does not seem to be selling any "business" or "programs".

219.74.94.47 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd think he might be referring to the positive POV most of the article seems to be written in, true or not. The facts may be true, but he may be concerned about the tone in which it was written. After all, an advertisement does not have to be false to be an advertisement. However, to stop short of becoming a shot-up messenger, I will give no personal stand on the issue at the moment (it's a bad time of the day for thinking). Nevertheless, I would like to encourage you to only remove the tag when the other party has not given an answer or when the debate is settled. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement of Faith

This is different from a church's "Mission Statement". Mission statement states what the church wants to achieve, "Statement of Faith" states what the church believes. They are facts regarding the church, and they describe what kind of church it is. So I believe it is entirely appropriate for the sentences to be here in the article. Atticuslai 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to summarize the statement in the article (although I think it's too long for that), or you can move the extlink to the end. However, the sentence is meaningless without clicking on the link, so it's not appropriate for the body of the article. Jpatokal 11:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Jpatokal what it's a bit long to be "summarized" and to be included in the article, I do not think the sentence should be remmoved from the paragraph. My views are somewhat similar to Atticuslai. A Church's belief, Mission Statement and their Statement of Faith is very important to a Church. Why do you think its not appropriate to be there? The link should be included right there in the paragrah as it acts as a valuable source of information for the readers. Should you bring it down to the extlink at the end, readers might not notice it. Besides, it's not an external link, but a necessary link of information. Habbo sg 06:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

An external link is anything that points outside Wikipedia, so yes, it is an external link. Both WP:EL and the Manual of Style mandates that extlinks in article content should be used only as references.

The simplest way I can put this: print out the article and read that sentence on paper. Does the sentence "The fundamental teachings and core beliefs of the Church are reflected in their Statements of Faith" have any meaning when you can't click on the link? Why, no, it doesn't. Jpatokal 12:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So why must the sentence be of any meaning if you dont click on the link? Cant it be there to inform the people?

It's not "informing" anybody because, as you admit, the statement has no meaning without the link. Jpatokal 12:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous reversions make baby Jesus cry. Please obey authority like a good Christian should. Jpatokal 04:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with your reasoning on the recent edits, and equally frown on anonymous reversions that does nothing to improve the article, I feel the condescending statement above is totally uncalled for. I seriously doubt the neutrality of your future edits in this article due to such statement. Atticuslai 05:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to do so; I've doubted the future, present and past neutrality of every church member editing this article. Jpatokal 07:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure there will be disagreements when it comes to an article, and I have always welcomed different edits and opinions, irrespective of whether the person is a member of the church, from another church, or a non-Christian. But I don't think anyone has given you any condescending remarks about you or your beliefs. That's the difference. Atticuslai 09:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Short of jumping into the fray, let me lay down some opinions. Personally speaking, the statement is politically ambiguous and an accusation of being condescending is somewhat far-fetched to me. However, let's disregard that personal viewpoint, taking into account and respecting your different religious perspectives. Nonetheless, there is still no basis for turning its condescension (even true) into a reason to doubt another's logic and, let's face it, it amounts to poisoning the well - and not for solid reasons, either. However, let's all be respectful in our discussion of the issue at hand, and not resort to any potentially hurtful remarks. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

One link to the website of the church is enough. - 222.164.82.241 05:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

Dear Elonka,

You tagged the article "This article may require cleanup." May you cite areas in the article which warranes this? Will you be able to give a more a more specific message?

Thanks, 219.74.91.51 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure.  :)

• The section headers need to be lower-cased, per WP:MOS
• It's written too much in a directory style, and not like an encyclopedia article. The lists of affiliated organizations and their related mission statements should probably be deleted.
• There are far too many primary sources, meaning to the Church's own website. See WP:NOR
• There's just plain too much advertising wording. "There are two make-up rooms behind the stage." "CHC began renting Hall 8". That kind of trivia is not needed.
• There is an "Awards" section, but none of them seem to be notable awards, and the only reference is to the Church's website. This is not acceptable. To prove an award's notability, it has to be referenced to a third-party source. If no third-party source can be provided, the award should not be included.

In short, I'd recommend deleting most of the information in this article, and then only including information about the Church that has been written about in third-party sources such as the Sunday Times (Singapore) and Straits Times. If information isn't notable enough to be in those papers, it's probably not notable enough to be in this Wikipedia article. --Elonka 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka,

• The Church’s Mission Statement and related information are very much like an organisation’s motto, and indcates the direction of the Church.

• The mission statements for “International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Google, Apple Inc, Campus Outreach, Salvation Army” are all included on Wikipedia articles. Articles on “TAG Heuer, Sun Microsystems, Boys' Brigade, IKEA, Harvard University, Riley (motorcar)” have all include the respective organisation’s motto too.

• The article does quote from a number of third party sources such as MinistriesToday, Charisma Magazine, The Straits Times and The New Paper, and not from the “Primary Source” only.

• Which particular award in the “Award” section needs further reference to third-party sources?

The article is factual and has adhered to the policies of WIkipedia and not includes personal opinions and arguments. Wikipedia’s policies states that “Primary Sources” and materials from self-published sources may be used in articles about themselves.

Habbo sg 08:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the awards need to be sourced. And yes, primary sources can be used, as long as they are for general information, and not for something that could be seen as "self-aggrandizing". There's also the issue of undue weight. When an article is using more information from primary sources than from third-party sources, there's usually a problem. The fundamental difference is usually that third-party editors want to write about information that is generally notable about a church, whereas those who work at the church want to use the article as a promotional vehicle, to advertise their different programs, sermon schedules, list of pastors, etc. This is why the "secondary source" policy is so important: If something hasn't been deemed interesting enough to have been written about in a secondary source, then it's probably not something that should be included in the Wikipedia article. For example, the section on the "City Harvest Educational Centre" that's currently in the Wikipedia article. Has this actually been written about in a newspaper somewhere? If so, the source should be included. If not, then it's probably not a subject that needs its own section in the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of Wikipedia’s policy is NPOV to prevent the issue of undue weight. Are there any points in the article that are in doubt?

As for using the Wikipedia article as a promotional vehicle, the article does not mention the exact details of their porgrams and schedules, eg. Day and Time. Neither are the names of the pastors made known. Which are the areas in the articles that acts as a promotional tool?

Wikipedia policies does not indicate that information must be “interesting enough” to be written in a secondary source before it can included in a Wikipedia article. What’s important is that Wikipedia states that self-published sources can be used in articles about themselves. Habbo sg 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I refer to "For example, the section on the "City Harvest Educational Centre" that's currently in the Wikipedia article. Has this actually been written about in a newspaper somewhere?" by Elonka

Some newspapers write-ups examples on the “Affiliated Organizations” mentioned in the article.

For example, "City Harvest Educational Centre (CHEC)" was featured in The New Paper on June 1, 2003 in an article titled “Cool School”. Ms Teo Hwee Nak wrote about how the school is helping the school drop-outs and problematic teenagers. TODAY also published an article crediting CHEC for providing teenagers a second chance in life on October 24 2005.

City Harvest Community Services Association (CHCSA) was mentioned from time to time in The Straits Times and LianHe Zao Bao for its community works, notably its humanitarian aid to the Tsunami victims in 2005.

My opinion is that the limited general knowledge of an individual should not dictate whether a section should or should not exist in an article.

Heavyboatman 03:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many "Citation needed" tags - revisit

I wrote once that there seems to be too many "Citation needed" tags in the article. I believe citations are needed when the article is trying to state something as a fact (e.g. statistics, figures, etc.) or that it was stated by a 3rd party or something. Now I have read many Wikipedia articles that states claims and information without citation. I gave an example earlier - the event Singapore 2006 was held in Suntec City. How do we know that is true? There wasn't any 3rd-party or 2nd-party citation to support the fact that the event was held in Suntec. Yet we would accept it as it is, deciding that the edits were in faith. How is this different from the cell group section in this article? Why do you need a citation on the statement that "as the church grows larger in numbers, CGs serves as a place where members can still forge close relationships with fellow Christians in a much smaller setting."? I don't see anyone asking for citation for "Since gaining independence, Singapore has seen its standard of living rise dramatically." in the Singapore article. So what's the difference? Somebody please enlighten me. Atticuslai 06:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. One is notability: is the statement of interest to an encyclopedia? The second is verifiability: is there a source for the statement? In my opinion, the statement "as the church grows larger in numbers, CGs serves as a place where members can still forge close relationships with fellow Christians in a much smaller setting" is not very notable, particularly for a CHC article -- and if it goes into the cell group article, then there should be a source for it, because it's making several debatable claims (do CGs really work in larger churches? do they really serve for forging close relationships?).

Comparing to other articles is not necessary instructive, because many articles on Wikipedia suck. However, the statement "Singapore 2006 was held in Suntec City" is not controversial (see WP:V), and in the unlikely event that proof was needed, there are lots of other references in the article that mention this. As for the claims about Singapore's standard of living, that statement should be cited and I've just added the cn's there too. Jpatokal 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your notability point. As such, I removed the statement "as the church grows larger in numbers, CGs serves as a place where members can still forge close relationships with fellow Christians in a much smaller setting.". Atticuslai 10:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. In Wikipedia's article, it is stated that Notability guidelines do not directly limit the article's content. Notability is not used to govern the contents of an article. Not every sentence in an article is to be notable or required to meet the standard of the Notability guidelines. The topic of an article should be notable, but not every sentences within the article.

City Harvest Church is notable, and statements on City Harvest Cell Groups can be included in the article.

I have rewritten the statement and given the reference accordingly.

Habbo sg 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my French, but WTF? Do you realize that according to your argument, it would be perfectly acceptable to add completely non-notable crap like "Kong Hee likes ice cream" or "Curry puffs are served at CHC functions"? Jpatokal 00:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Jpatokal, this is not my arguement. I am just stating what's inside the article on Notability. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability.

An extract from the article:

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included
in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of
articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources
and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each
required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines.

The examples which you gave is out of context here.

Besides, I had given a secondary source as reference about Cell Groups in City Harvest Church.

Habbo sg 03:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help the editing CHC article in chinese wiki

There are a lot of misleadings of CHC in chinese edition.

CHC in zh.wikipedia.org

Jyyihch 14:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even the title is somewhat wrong. I have removed all unverified content. Atticuslai 02:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

== --Lucky boi (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Changes i made

1) added the description that the church is independent and non-denominational. To claim that it is the largest church in Singapore would be otherwise untrue, in light of the other denominations eg. Catholic, Methodist, Adventist etc.

2) Deleted assumption that church is 2nd largest in Asia (again, i must highlight that this is excluding denominations; also, the supporting reference is missing, leaving one with doubts as to the claim)

It is the largest church, by sheer membership and weekly attendance. I know there are many denominations in Singapore, and each denomination can have a few churches located around the nation. But I suspect even if we add all the attendance in all the, say, methodist churches, in Singapore in a typical weekly service, CHC will probably still have a larger attendance. I'm sure CHC had put in some effort to verify the claim that it is the largest in Singapore, and 2nd largest in Asia. Atticuslai (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A reply claiming belief in a self-cited source is hardly substantiable. If you are sure CHC has put in effort, please cite (from non-CHC sources if possible). Otherwise, both the Methodist Church in Singapore and the denomination of Roman Catholicism in Singapore are vastly larger than CHC. In this case, 32,000 Methodists and 210,000 Roman Catholics, last count. --Lucky boi (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.