Wikipedia

Talk:Every Nation Churches & Ministries/mediation

< Talk:Every Nation Churches & Ministries
(Redirected from Talk:Every Nation/mediation)
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Blueboy96 in topic Issues to be discussed

Users involved

Please add yourself if you wish to participate in mediation. If you wish to add another user, please inform that user that his or her name has been added.

Articles involved

Issues to be mediated

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please place a neutral statement of issues you believe need to be mediated here.


EN

Dispute Over Finances: Whether or not this section should exist at all, concerns over weasel wording, biography of living persons, and reliability and potential original research issues with sourcing to "990" forms (primary sources).

Inpop Records: Dispute regarding whether this organization is "affiliated" with Every Nation, or simply shares some membership in common, concerns with sourcing.

Thelma BowlenTalk 08:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (Note: This comment has been refactored for neutrality of presentation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

Links to Maranatha We have already agreed previously to address the links to Maranatha in its own section under controversy. It is Undue Weight therefore to keep inserting these same statements throughout the entire EN entry. This issue was already addressed in the first mediation (See Talk Page).

Dispute Over Whether His People Churches Doubled MSI’s Membership Morning Star did not merge with His People, His People joined Morning Star. There is no source to reference this being a merger. Also, His People was under the leadership of Paul Daniel at the time; Bill Bennet was the pastor of only the Johannesburg church. The contributor who added the statement that the merger “doubled” Morning Star’s membership has no reputable third party source (Verifiability). From our membership records, there were well over one hundred MSI churches by the end of 2000. When His People joined MSI, they had less than 10 churches in Africa and Europe. So to say that their addition doubled the size of MSI is an exaggeration.

Dispute Over Reason for Name Change The reasons behind MSI’s name change to Every Nation is well-documented. MSI first adopted the motto “Every Nation in Our Generation” as part of the 2010 Initiative which was published by Victory Publishing in 1999. The reference can be found on page 4. Secondly, MSI officially changed their corporate website to www.everynation.org in November 1999 (see www.netsol.com). Thirdly, the name Every Nation came from Rice Broocks as an idea to simply state the Great Commission of Matthew 28 (Reference found in Every Nation in Our Generation by Rice Broocks, published 2002 by Creation House Press, page 29). Finally, the reasons for the name change can be found on the EN.org website. [1]. Therefore the contributors’ attempts to attribute the name change to a message from God to Jim Laffoon is both false and Original Research.

This is Original Research Every Nation does not have a “second ranking leader” and there is no reputable source for this statement.

Dispute Over Undue Weight given to Churches Leaving Every Nation We do not dispute that some churches have chosen to leave the Every Nation network of churches and are willing to have a sentence or two that states this under the “History” section. However, a far greater number of churches have been planted and adopted by Every Nation than have left. The contributor who added this is inserting his own bias by trying to make this a major bold heading and over-emphasizing the number of churches that have left. The information about the Indonesian churches is inaccurate. The fact that there are 34 churches in the GAP Network today is not an accurate indicator of how many GAP Churches were members of EN. The only source given for this information is GAP’s current website listing which has no bearing on how many were members of Every Nation before the year 2006. Also, the statement that there have been a “number” of Austrian churches leaving is misleading – two Austrian churches have left Every Nation. The list of American churches leaving is also incorrect. None of our churches in Los Angeles have left and neither has the entire state of Texas. Finally, there is no reputable source that 10% of churches have left the group since 2005.

Dispute Over Links to Maranatha This was the major issue in our previous mediation with Jbolden. We feel we came up with a reasonable compromise consensus regarding this section. Unfortunately, the contributor’s negative bias and Weasel Words have been returned (see Talk Page of Mediation with Jbolden). The contributor is using Original Research to try and draw links to Maranatha which do not exist. The fact that some Every Nation churches operate under corporate by-laws dating back to when they were Maranatha Churches was also addressed in the previous mediation – specifically, that when Maranatha dissolved, these churches changed their name but not their incorporation papers to save money. Also, the Johannesburg church is the only His People Church that had ties to Maranatha. Furthermore, the statement regarding Every Nation being a “revived Maranatha” is by the contributor’s own admission “based on anecdotal reports” – this is obviously Original Research based on sources of Dubious Reliability.

Request to Remove Legal Disputes Section This section is again an example of Undue Weight. We’ve already addressed this on the Talk Page. It is Undue Weight because the contributor goes into great detail to highlight very negative and damaging accusations which have since been proven untrue by the accusers’ own admission. The case was thrown out and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia entry.

Request to Remove Global Café Section The Global Café has no official affiliation with Every Nation. Furthermore, none of the information contained in this section is supported by reputable third party sources. In addition, the sentence regarding “may violate IRS regulations….” violates Wikipedia’s guidelines on Weasel Words.

Thelma BowlenTalk 07:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Process of mediation

The mediation will take part in four parts:

  • Agreement: All parties involved will indicate agreement or disagreement to participation. If any party disagrees, mediation will not proceed.
  • Facts and principles: Each party and the mediator will have the opportunity to place for discussion what they believe to be facts and principles that can already be agreed upon by all sides. If all parties agree, the fact or principle will be considered agreed to for the remaining discussion.
  • Finding sources: Each party will present all sources which (s)he believes should be included in the article. After all sources have been presented, the parties will discuss the appropriateness and reliability of each source found.
  • Suggested edits: Each party will have the opportunity to suggest edits which integrate the found source material into the final article. These edits will be discussed by all parties. If consensus can be reached, the edits will be implemented to the article.

While some suggestions and source material may be appropriate to more than one article, each discussion will take place according to a single article. As multiple articles are involved, separate discussions will run simultaneously for each individual article. If a source or suggestion may apply to more than one article, crossposting is welcome.

Everyone involved is expected to be civil during the mediation process. Uncivil comments may be removed or refactored by the mediator. It is also requested that involved parties refrain from editing the articles in question during mediation, except to deal with blatant vandalism.

Proposals for agreement

Latest comment: 17 years ago28 comments7 people in discussion

In this stage, please indicate proposals of principle or fact which you believe all sides can already agree on, under a heading such as the one below. I've started off with some proposals. Each party should indicate agreement or disagreement with each proposal, if disagreed, it would be very helpful to explain why you disagree.


Proposals by Seraphimblade

  • As with all articles on Wikipedia, the articles in question should be written with a neutral viewpoint, and should not serve as either a whitewash or an attack piece. Both positive and negative information should be presented in a neutral tone and without undue weight.
Agree
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Blueboy96 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. -- Iskongbayan 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Varsha Daswani 05:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Pink collar girl 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Chickywiki 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Thelma BowlenTalk 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree
  • All information in these articles should be attributed to reliable sources, and should not be the work of an editor's personal knowledge or synthesis of information.
Agree
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Blueboy96 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. -- Iskongbayan 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Varsha Daswani 05:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Pink collar girl 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Chickywiki 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Thelma BowlenTalk 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree
  • Primary sources should be used with great caution, and should not be used at all if it is unduly self-serving or negative. If primary sources are used, only purely descriptive claims should be made from them.
Agree
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Blueboy96 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. -- Iskongbayan 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Varsha Daswani 05:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Pink collar girl 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Chickywiki 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Thelma BowlenTalk 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree
  • Sources with a clear bias should be handled with the same caution as primary sources, and should not be used as the sole source of very positive or negative content.
Agree
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Blueboy96 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. -- Iskongbayan 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Varsha Daswani 05:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Pink collar girl 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Chickywiki 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Thelma BowlenTalk 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree

Issues to be discussed

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Please place discussion of the issues under mediation here.

Every Nation issues

Dispute Over Finances: Whether or not this section should exist at all, concerns over weasel wording, biography of living persons, and reliability and potential original research issues with sourcing to "990" forms (primary sources).
Answer: This actually WAS discussed in the mainstream media during the Champions for Christ blowup in 1998.
  • Florida Times-Union (January 8, 1998 edition): "An Agent for the Lord," by Margie Mason.

Though Feste and Ball deny any business links, Executives for Christ is listed as a related organization on Champions' tax returns. Tax records also show Feste's non-profit group, The Malachi Foundation, gave Ball $16,464 last year. Another $76,000 was given to other ministers and charitable organizations, and Feste said that's what it's all about.

  • Chicago Tribune (August 9, 1998 edition): "Enis' Agent Says he Goes by Book--The Bible" by Rick Morrissey and Robert Becker. Quote:

"I have no affiliation with Champions," he said last week. Tax records show The Malachi Foundation, the non-profit group he heads, gave Greg Ball a total of $34,015 in 1995 and 1996 and another $1,150 to CFC in that same span. Ball is the president of Champions for Christ. Feste said his charitable foundation helps support about 20 pastors and evangelists around the country, including Ball.

  • Mediator comment Blueboy, could you please clarify "Champions for Christ"? I'm not honestly sure what that organization is or what it has to do with anything here. It may, but I don't recall it having come up before. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Champions for Christ (or CFC for short) is Every Nation's outreach to college and pro athletes. It was once part of Maranatha. That's the rub here ... Feste claims he doesn't give to any "disqualified persons," and yet he admits being a member of the board of Executives for Christ, a subsidiary organization of CFC.Blueboy96 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that Thelma didn't address this when she last posted, and has yet to do so. Nobody on the EN side has objected either. Can we assume that this issue is closed? I think so.--Blueboy96 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Inpop Records: Dispute regarding whether this organization is "affiliated" with Every Nation, or simply shares some membership in common, concerns with sourcing.

There wouldn't be anything to this if it weren't for the fact that Rice Broocks is on the board. Also, what's the issue with sourcing? If this were a supermarket tabloid, that would be another thing.Blueboy96 19:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Not to mention the fact that two of the other shareholders are Mark Brunell and Tony Boselli--prominent CFC leaders. And Wes Campbell is president of EN Productions. Sorry, but I call it as I see it--either you've got one whopper of a coincidence, or you've got pretty strong evidence of a close relationship between InPop and EN. And if you want another source, I've got one--written by a prominent EN leader, I might add: http://www.thisdayonline.com/archive/2004/10/10/20041010rel01.htmlBlueboy96 21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Same thing, see above. Blueboy96 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't look like Thelma addressed this either ... and has yet to do so. Ditto for the rest of the EN side. Can we assume this issue is closed?--Blueboy96 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Name change dispute: Thelma raised this issue earlier, claiming that the Laffoon speech is false and original research. I suggest that the EN side read WP:OR a bit more carefully before throwing this term around so liberally. I quote:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.

In other words, EN is implying this speech doesn't exist. And yet, unless I missed something, you have submitted no proof whatsoever that this speech doesn't exist even though we have been quoting directly from EN materials. The speech in question took place during a 2004 world conference, at which Laffoon announced the name change--and the content was endorsed by Rice Broocks. The DVD can be ordered here. The onus is therefore on EN to prove this speech doesn't exist--and thus far, EN hasn't even come close to meeting it. I have tried to assume good faith on EN's part through all this ... but if EN persists in making this argument without proof to back it up, I will have to wonder whether this assumption is still valid.--Blueboy96 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No "second-ranking" leader: Actually, if you look at the hierarchy, it is fairly obvious that Rice Broocks is the second-ranking leader. He co-chairs the International Policy Council along with Steve Murrell. [2] So therefore, since Murrell is EN's president, it can be reasonably implied that Broocks ranks #2 in the EN hierarchy. Again, EN, we're quoting from your own materials.--Blueboy96 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Links to Maranatha: Since the previous mediation, we have found verifiable sources to back up previous statements (per WP:V). Plus, EN itself devotes one of its FAQs to addressing the issue of reports that EN is a revived Maranatha. If this is original research, why does EN feel the need to answer it?--Blueboy96 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I plan to answer Thelma's other objections in time ... this is going to take awhile, so be patient.Blueboy96 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Victory Christian Fellowship issues

None raised as yet.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Every_Nation_Churches_%26_Ministries/mediation&oldid=1062114918"